Overall, the analysis suggests that, despite CAP reform and decoupling of subsidies from production, the majority of funding still goes to the most productive agricultural land. Relatively little is spent in areas with a high proportion of HNV farmland and particularly Pillar 2 support measures are inconsistently applied across Member States with a view to the objective of maintaining HNV farming. The distribution of CAP support across Pillars, measures and farm systems suggests that favourable management of HNV farmland is insufficiently supported. The net effect of total CAP support on the conservation status of HNV farmland has not been assessed, but the potentially favourable measures under Pillar 2 make up only a very small fraction of total CAP expenditure. Pillar 1 support could potentially be used in a way that provides better support for farmers with HNV systems, if eligibility criteria were changed, but at present it overall benefits more intensively used farmland under more productive farm types. This study has addressed a number of questions that need to be reviewed for securing maximum biodiversity benefits from CAP expenditure in the context of supporting HNV farming. Nevertheless, further detailed analysis is still necessary to better understand the real links between agriculture policy support and the economic viability and environmental quality of different types of HNV farming and farmland. The analysis also needs to take into account wider social, economic and climatic trends that affect Europe's rural areas and the agricultural sector.