Beiträge zur Evaluierung der Öko-Regelungen nach GAP-Direktzahlungen-Gesetz (GAPDZG)

This report provides initial quantitative analyses of the use of eco-schemes in the 2023 to 2027 CAP programming period in Germany. These analyses were supplemented by a literature-based analysis of the environmental impacts of the eco-schemes and a discussion of selected aspects of the role of the eco-schemes in the so-called "Green Architecture of the CAP". The report thus contributes to the evaluation of the instruments for supporting environment, climate and animal welfare provided for in the GAP-Direktzahlungen-Gesetz (CAP Direct Payments Act). As part of the quantitative evaluation, application data available nationwide for the years 2023 and 2024 were analysed by federal state. In addition, an in-depth analysis of the utilisation of the eco-schemes was carried out according to selected operational characteristics of the agricultural enterprises. This was based on pseudonymised individual farm IACS data from Bavaria, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Lower Saxony and Rhineland-Palatinate for the application year 2023. The results were summarised in factsheets for each eco-scheme. There are strong regional and farm differences in the utilisation of the eco-schemes. The participation rate was comparatively high for farms of the type "other fodder production" (cattle and sheep farms excluding dairy). In addition, organic farms made above-average use of several measures. Special influencing factors must be taken into account when interpreting the results of the first two application years. These include learning costs due to the introduction of the eco-schemes and exceptional price fluctuations on agricultural markets as a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The qualitative analysis of the environmental impacts of the eco-schemes shows that these vary depending on the specific measure and the respective context. While some eco-schemes primarily serve to stabilise the current state of the environment, others, such as ÖR 1 (fallow land) and ÖR 3 (agroforestry), offer significant potential for improving biodiversity as well as soil and climate protection. However, particularly in the case of measures with high potential for environmental improvement, uptake fell short of the targets set. The integration in the Green Architecture of Pillar 1 eco-schemes with Pillar 2 agri-environmental and climate measures is made more difficult by administrative complexity and federal differences. The advantages of the eco-schemes compared to the agri-environmental and climate measures of the 2nd pillar are shorter commitment periods and simplified application procedures. Based on the analyses and experiences of the first two years of the current funding period, initial recommendations for the further development of the eco-schemes are derived.