Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 814/2000 on information measures relating to the common agricultural policy {SEC(2007) 800}
Date: 2007-06-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU control, EU financing, common agricultural policy, information policy, public awareness campaign

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 13.6.2007 
COM(2007) 324 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 814/2000  
on information measures relating to the common agricultural policy 

{SEC(2007) 800} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

on the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 814/2000  
on information measures relating to the common agricultural policy 

PART ONE  MEASURES UNDER COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) NO 814/2000 

I. 

Introduction 

This  report  concerns  the  implementation  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 814/2000  for  the 
years 2003–2006. 

The  objectives  of  the  information  measures  on  the  CAP  as  defined  by  Regulation  (EC) 
No 814/2000 are: 

•  helping to explain the CAP as well as to implement and develop it, 

•  promoting the European Model of Agriculture and helping people understand it, 

•  providing information for farmers and others living in rural areas, 

•  raising public awareness of the issues and objectives of the CAP. 

Actions fall into two main categories: 

•  those submitted by third party organisations for co-financing by EAGGF which can be 

either programmes or specific measures, 

•  those  at  the  initiative  of  the  Commission  and  financed  at  a  rate  of  100%  by  EAGGF 

("direct actions"). 

It was decided by the Council (Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 814/2000) that a report on the 
implementation  of  the  Regulation  should  be  presented  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council  every  two  years.  This  is  the  second  such  report.  The  first  report  covering  the  
2000–2002 period was presented in May 20031. 

The  development  of  the  implementing  measures  which  laid  down  the  detailed  rules  for  the 
application  of  Regulation  (EC)  No 814/2000  and,  in  particular,  those  relating  to  grants 
awarded to third parties, were described in the report of May 2003. In the meantime, there has 
been a further minor technical change to the implementing rules2. 

1 

2 

Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  implementation  of 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 814/2000  on  information  measures  relating  to  the  common  agricultural 
policy (COM(2003)235 final of 8.5.2003) 
Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  1820/2004  of  20  October  2004  amending  Regulation  (EC) 
No 2208/2002  laying  down  detailed  rules  for  applying  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  814/2000  on 
information measures relating to the common agricultural policy (OJ L 320, 21.10.2004, p. 14)  

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
This  present  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  Council  was  originally  scheduled  for 
presentation  in  December  2005.  It  was  held  over  in  order  to  allow  completion  of  the 
evaluation  of  the  measures  taken  under  this  Regulation  carried  out  within  the  specific 
framework of the Commission’s evaluation policy for the period 2000–2005, and to enable the 
Commission to take into consideration the findings of this evaluation3. The full text as well as 
the summary is to be found on the Europa website:   
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/cap_info/index_en.htm  

The  annexes  and  list  of  abbreviations  mentioned  in  the  text  are  to  be  found  in  the 
accompanying Commission Staff Working Document. 

II. 

Budget 

For  the  period  2003–2006,  EUR  6.5  million  was  made  available  annually  for  information 
measures  under  line  B1-382  (as  it  was  known  in  2003),  and  following  changes  in 
nomenclature line 05 08 06 for the budgetary years 2004–2006. 

The  breakdown  between  actions  taken  by  the  Commission  and  actions  taken  by  third  party 
organisations (grants) was as follows: 

2003: direct actions (2 500 000) (38%) – grants (4 000 000) (62%), 
2004: direct actions (2 500 000) (38%) – grants (4 000 000) (62%), 
2005: direct actions (3 000 000) (46%) – grants (3 500 000) (54%), 
2006: direct actions (3 700 000) (57%) – grants (2 800 000) (43%). 

However,  with  the  exception  of  2006  which  saw  a  marked  increase  in  uptake,  the  yearly 
budgets were significantly under-spent (execution reached 64% in 2003, 51% in 2004, 61% in 
2005,  and  98%  in  2006;  see  details  in  Table  2  under  point  IV).  The  limited  uptake  of  the 
funding possibilities was due mainly to under-spending of the budget allocated to grants. Since 
many  grant  applications  contained  errors  or  were  of  poor  quality,  only  a  small  part  of  the 
projects met all of the requirements (eligibility, exclusion, selection, and award criteria). 

In  order  to  improve  uptake  of  the  budget  allocated  to  grants,  and  following  a  review  of  the 
most  frequently  made  errors  by  applicants,  calls  for  proposals  2005/C 252/064  concerning 
co-financed  actions  under  the  2006  exercise,  and  2006/C 236/075  concerning  co-financed 
actions  under  the  2007  exercise  have  been  further  streamlined,  and  the  wording  clarified  in 
order to help applicants avoid such errors. The success of these efforts is reflected in the very 
considerably increased uptake of the budget allocated to grants in the 2006 exercise. 

III. 

Breakdown of actions financed (in terms of commitments credits) 

The  first  report  on  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  814/2000  described  how  in  the  2000–2002 
period, the Commission had gradually improved the rules governing measures carried out. It 
noted  also  the  revision  of  the  implementing  rules  in  Commission  Regulation  (EC) 

3 

4 
5 

European Commission, DG AGRI Contract AGRI 2005/0421, Evaluation of the Information Policy on 
the Common Agricultural Policy, December 2006. 
OJ C 252, 12.10.2005, p. 28 
OJ C 236, 30.9.2006, p. 71 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
No 2208/2002  which  guided  grants  activity  in  the  2003–2006  period6.  This  introduced 
significant  improvements  in  the  scheme:  simplification,  increased  transparency,  better 
evaluation  of  the  information  actions  proposed,  better  definition  of  the  messages  to 
communicate  and  better  dissemination.  The  annual  call  for  proposals  was  progressively 
refined  and  developed,  in  response  to  the  new  political  climate  in  which  the  CAP  operated. 
There  was  a  strong  focus  on  informing  farmers  and  the  wider  public  about  the  changes  in 
political direction, in particular the reform of 2003 and subsequent related reforms. 

1. 

Grants  (communication  actions  taken  at  the 
organisations) 

initiative  of  third  party 

In the reporting period, the Commission has made use of the budget line to co-finance a series 
of  measures  including  seminars,  conferences,  publications,  exchange  visits,  as  well  as  other 
activities,  all  of  which  have  helped  –  both  directly  and  indirectly  –  to  improve  the  level  of 
understanding of the CAP among the citizens of the EU.  

Two  kinds  of  measures  are  allowed,  specific  information  measures  and  annual  work 
programmes.  A  specific  information  measure  is  an  independent  and  self–contained 
information event of short duration, organised on the basis of a single budget. Examples of a 
specific  measure  in  the  reporting  period  are  one  conference,  or  one  seminar,  etc.  An  annual 
work programme is a set of two to five specific information measures. 

The  maximum  financing  rate  for  the  measures  referred  to  above  is  50%  of  eligible  costs. 
However,  the  rate  may  be  increased  to  75%  in  exceptional  cases,  as  specified  in  the 
implementing Regulation, and defined in the call for proposals. 

In the reporting period, 35 programmes and 70 specific actions were co-financed. It has to be 
noted that each programme contains a number of actions and that the 35 programmes financed 
contained 99 specific actions bringing the overall total to 169 actions for the four years. Grants 
were  awarded  to  121  conferences  and  seminars,  11  visits,  22  publications,  11  audiovisual 
productions and four Web portals.  

The  table  below  indicates  the  number  of  received  and  successful  applications  by  Member 
State. 

6 

Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  2208/2002  of  12  December  2002  laying  down  detailed  rules  for 
applying  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  814/2000  on  information  measures  relating  to  the  common 
agricultural policy (OJ L 337, 13.12.2002, p. 21). 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Received and successful applications by Member State 2003-2006

Total applications received byMember State 2003-2006

Total grants awarded by Member State 2003-2006

Table I

s

n

o

i
t
a
c
i

l

p

p
a

f

o

°
N

190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

AT BE CY CZ DE DK EL ES ET FI FR HU IE IT LU LT LV MT NL PL PT SK SL SV UK

Member States

Annex 1 gives an overview of grants in the reporting period. Details on individual grants are to 
be found on the Europa website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/grants/capinfo/index_en.htm 

It is important to emphasise that a considerable number of the actions co-financed reached a 
wider  audience  beyond  the  immediate  participants  thanks  to  the  multiplier  effect  of  the 
specialised press and media. This reflects the increased emphasis in recent years in the calls 
for proposals on better dissemination of messages and the need for applicants to define media 
plans, including target audiences. 

As in the past, many grants beneficiaries were located in Belgium, where the most prominent 
EU level socio-professional organisations (including COPA-COGECA, AEFPR, CEJA) have 
their  headquarters.  An  important  number  of  such  measures  were  also  implemented  in  Italy, 
and Spain. This reflects the ongoing high level of applications from these countries. 

In 2003–2006, there continued to be relatively few applications from the northern part of the 
EU-15. Since enlargement, the number of applications from the new Member States has been 
very  low.  The  Commission  services  are  reflecting  on  the  possible  reasons  for  this  situation, 
and will explore what further channels beyond publication of the annual call for proposals in 
the  Official  Journal  of  the  European  Communities  and  on  the  Europa  Website,  it  might  be 
appropriate  to  use  in  order  to  achieve  greater  publicity  for  the  calls  for  proposals.  In  this 
context, particular attention will be paid to the specificities of the new Member States. 

In  2003–2006,  grants  were  awarded  inter  alia  to  seminars  and  conferences  on  the  CAP  and 
implementation  of  CAP  reform,  WTO  and  rural  development.  These  included  a  number  of 
conferences  exploring  themes  involving  agriculture  and  the  wider  society,  as  well  as 
enlargement. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Individual  bodies  which  were  successful  in  obtaining  grants  in  this  period  include  EU  level 
environmental and rural development organisations such as WWF and EUROMONTANA. In 
addition  to  traditional  beneficiaries  such  as  COPA-COGECA  and  CEJA,  inter  alia  also 
regional and local authorities in the Member States, media organisations, and national farmers' 
organisations  (often  members  of  EU  level  bodies)  were  successful,  as  were  some  academic 
bodies. In a part of the co-financed actions, beneficiaries made use of the possibility to involve 
further organisations as partners in the execution of the projects. 

As mentioned earlier, in the 2003–2006 period, procedures for assessing and evaluating grants 
were improved. Requirements concerning ex-ante and ex-post evaluations were further refined 
in the annual calls for proposals. It should be recalled also that the obligations of beneficiaries 
concerning  the  auto-evaluation  of  their  actions  form  part  of  the  individual  grant  agreements 
concluded  between  the  Commission  and  the  beneficiaries.  Grants  were  awarded  after  a 
rigorous  selection  procedure.  Currently,  the  communication  strategy  of  the  DG  aims  to 
strengthen its capacity to measure and assess the impact of its information actions. Reports on 
the  implementation  of  grants  are  and  will  in  the  future  also  be  analysed  with  a  view  to 
assessing  the  overall  impact  achieved.  This  is  also  in  line  with  the  findings  of  the  external 
evaluation, and the objectives of the Regulation. 

2. 

Communication actions taken at the initiative of the Commission  

In 2003–2006, as in the previous period, there was a significant number of actions financed at 
the  initiative  of  the  Commission,  which  were  carried  out  often  with  external  technical 
assistance. Some 38% of the budget was earmarked for these measures in 2003 and 2004, and 
this increased to 46% in 2005 and 57% for 2006. 

Annex II details all communication initiatives by the Commission in 2003–2006 as well as the 
respective costs 

Conferences/seminars 

The  organisation  of  conferences  and  seminars  continued  to  be  a  key  activity.  This  category 
includes  activities  such  as  hearings,  seminars  for  specific  groups  (journalists,  consumer 
organisations, etc.), EU and international conferences.  

In  2003–2006,  there  was  an  increasingly  strong  orientation  from  the  Commission  on 
deepening  dialogue  with  stakeholders  across  the  range  of  EU  policies.  Consequently,  there 
was  a  renewed  emphasis  on  involving  a  broad  range  of  civil  society  organisations  in 
conferences and seminars.  

Co-operation  with  other  institutions  was  intensified,  as  for  example,  in  the  conference  on 
young  farmers  jointly  organised  by  the  Commission  and  European  Parliament  in  January 
2005;  as  well  as  the  conference  on  "Co-existence  of  genetically  modified,  conventional  and 
organic  crops  –  freedom  of  choice"  from  4–6  April  2006  in  Vienna,  which  was  organised 
jointly with the Austrian presidency of the EU. There was also a strong focus on preparing for 
enlargement. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
Participation/stands at fairs 

This  focus  on  civil  society,  and  involving  all  interested  bodies;  the  emphasis  of  the 
Commission  from  2005  on  "going  local"  ,  increasingly  influenced  in  these  years  the 
organisation of the Commission's regular participation in major annual fairs such as the Salon 
international de l’Agriculture in Paris and the Internationale Grüne Woche in Berlin, and fairs 
in general  

The  frequent  presence  of  the  Commissioner  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development,  other 
Commissioners, Members of the European Parliament, as well as other senior political leaders 
at  national  and  regional  level,  served  to  raise  the  media  profile  of  the  Commission's 
participation at the fairs. 

Fairs  will  remain  an  important  tool  in  reaching  the  general  public.  The  focus  on  seeking 
synergies, and devising appropriate messages and activities aimed at the general public, will 
continue as recommended also in the external evaluation. 

Publications 

A  range  of  one-off  and  regular  publications  were  produced.  CAP  reform,  rural  development 
and WTO figured prominently, as in the past.  

At  present,  the  DG  is  carrying  out  a  review  of  these  publications  in  line  with  the 
recommendations  of  the  evaluation.  In  future,  it  aims  to  develop  more  on-line  publications, 
including  also  the  provision  of  material  that  can  be  tailored  to  meet  local  needs;  this  should 
contribute inter alia towards meeting linguistic needs at local level. 

Website 

The  "Agriculture  and  Rural  Development"  website  has  developed  rapidly  in  the  reporting 
period,  notably  as  an  important  source  of  specialist  information  on  the  CAP  and  Rural 
Development.  The  recent  evaluation  found  that  the  website  is  widely  used  among  key 
stakeholder organisations as a source of information. 

There has also been a significant step towards increased transparency on the CAP: a chapter 
has  been  published  which  guides  the  interested  public  to  Member  State  websites  with 
information on beneficiaries of CAP payments.  

Also noteworthy is the launch in early 2007 of Commissioner Fischer Boel's web log which 
uses  a  new  fast-growing  means  of  communication.  The  e-mail  service  "Agriculture 
Newsdigest"  which  was  set  up  in  2002,  is  now  regularly  sent  out  to  more  than 
14 000 subscribers all over the world. 

Clearly the website as a communication tool has considerable potential to develop, and also to 
reach  new  and  younger  audiences  among  the  general  public.  The  current  communication 
strategy  of  the  DG  envisages  further  development  of  internet  based  communication,  notably 
using interactive tools.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Opinion Polls 

DG  Agriculture  has  continued  to  poll  regularly  EU  citizens’  opinion  on  the  CAP  and  rural 
development.  It  has  recently  reviewed  its  questions  in  the  Eurobarometer  survey  so  as  to 
improve its capacity to measure awareness, and knowledge of the policy, and also to allow it 
to  define  different  target  groups  among  the  general  public.  This  is  also  in  line  with  the 
recommendations of the external evaluation. 

Visits 

Due  of  its  potential  to  reach  the  wider  public,  greater  publicity  is  being  given  to  the  visits 
programme  of  the  DG,  both  on  the  Internet  and  among  interested  colleges  and  universities. 
This also reflects the recommendations of the external evaluation. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
IV. 

The proportion of spending (commitments and payments) between grants at the initiative of third parties and information actions at 
the initiative of the Commission 

Table 2 

Budget line 05.0806: Commitments and payments 2003–2006 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2003–2006 

Grants 

Direct 
actions 

Grants 

Direct 
actions 

Grants 

Direct 
actions 

Grants 

Direct 
actions 

Grants 

Direct 
actions 

Commitments  
(EUR) 

% 

Payments 
(EUR)(**) 

1 553 637 

2 607 034 

1 301 959 

1 985 118 

1 469 239 

2 516 837 

2 638 670 

3 718 078 

6 963 505,11  10 827 067 

37,34% 

62,66% 

39,61% 

60,39% 

36,86% 

63,14% 

41,51% 

58,49% 

39,14% 

60,86% 

878 241 

1 987 242 

754 847 

1 453 768 

1 199 728 

2 122 589 

(*) 

(*) 

(*) 
(**) 

Figures not yet available – most of the actions are still on going. 
In relation to the year of commitment and the following year (n+1 rule). 

It is to be noted that the annual payments are always lower than the amounts originally committed. In the case of grants, this can be explained by the 
fact that firstly, in many cases, final costs of the actions are lower than initially foreseen by the beneficiary, and secondly, because not all expenses 
declared by the beneficiaries can be considered as eligible. In the case of actions at the initiative of the Commission, the differences are smaller and 
due to the commitments of maximum possible amounts. 

EN 

9 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
V. 

Lessons from the evaluation period 

The  evaluation  report  reviewed  the  developments  in  the  implementation  of  information 
actions under Regulation (EC) No 814/2000 in the 2000–2005 period, and gave guidance for 
improvements in the future. 

In the reporting period 2003–2006, efforts to reach the general public were stepped up with a 
recognisable  increase  in  professionalism  in  terms  of  devising  appropriate  messages  and 
material. Participation at fairs, an important tool for reaching the general public, increased and 
was also notably more professional from 2002 onwards. 

In  terms  of  dissemination,  it  was  noted  above  that  a  considerable  number  of  co-financed 
actions reached a wider audience beyond the immediate participants thanks to the multiplier 
effect of the specialised press and media. However, the challenge of reaching this group (as 
well  as  rural  area  stakeholders)  in  a  systematic  way  within  the  context  of  “the  very  limited 
financial  resources  available  to  date”  was  acknowledged.  Overall  interest  from  the  general 
public  was  low.  This  is  reflected  in  grants  activity  where  very  few  projects  involved 
organisations  outside  the  world  of  agriculture  even  though  the  general  public  was  clearly 
identified as a target group by calls for proposals. It must be added that towards the end of the 
reporting  period,  uptake  by  non-agricultural  organisations  was  on  the  increase.  At  the  same 
time, it was felt that greater clarity about the needs of specific target groups and the creation 
of  appropriate  dissemination  strategies  could  have  helped  improve  effectiveness  in  terms  of 
reaching  the  general  public.  This  is  addressed  in  Part  Two  of  the  report  which  reviews  the 
current communication strategy concerning the CAP.  

As  regards  targeting  rural  area  stakeholders,  the  evaluation  noted  that  some  actions  such  as 
conferences and some aspects of the website were particularly effective. Dialogue with civil 
society was deepened. Co-operation with governmental and non-governmental organisations 
was stepped up leading to greater synergies. The increasingly important role of the website, 
and  its  considerable  potential  in  terms  of  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  Regulation  by 
reaching newer and younger audiences was already noted. The evaluation also gave guidance 
on  improving  effectiveness  in  terms  of  this  target  group.  It  concluded  that  more  focus  on 
dissemination  and  suitability  for  the  local  context,  on  reaching  the  rural  community  as  a 
whole  rather  than  just  the  farming  sector,  on  the  role  of  the  stakeholders  as  effective 
information  relays,  and  on  disseminating  best  practice  under  grants  activity  would  improve 
the effectiveness of the policy in terms of reaching this target group.  

These  points  are  addressed  also  in  the  next  section.  Overall,  the  recent  external  evaluation 
recommended that in a context of limited human and financial resources, there needed to be 
better definition of target groups, their needs and appropriate dissemination strategies in order 
to  reach  more  effectively  both  the  general  public  and  rural  area  stakeholders,  and  fulfil  the 
objectives of the Regulation. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
PART TWO  CURRENT CONTEXT – COMMUNICATION STRATEGY FOR CAP 

The Commission has made communication policy a priority in recent years. The objective is 
to  improve  the  way  it  communicates  in  order  to  address  the  gap  between  the  EU  and  its 
citizens.  The  Commission’s  emphasis  in  the  Action  Plan  on  Communicating  Europe  on 
listening, on dialogue and debate, on partnership now guides all communication activity7. In 
this context, DG Agriculture and Rural Development has reviewed its information activities, 
and  updated  its  communication  strategy  in  2006  within  the  mandate  of  Council  Regulation 
No 814/2000. It seeks to build on the experience and achievements of the past so as to address 
the  particular  challenges  linked  to  communicating  the  CAP  in  the  future.  The  CAP  is 
recognised  for  providing  safe  and  healthy  food,  protecting  the  environment  and  animal 
welfare.  However,  many  outdated  perceptions  remain  which  colour  negatively  current 
opinions  of  the  policy.  This  results  in  the  achievements  of  the  CAP  reform  and  the  role  of 
Rural  Development  not  being  visible  for  the  general  public.  The  benefits  to  society  of  the 
CAP  supporting  the  farmers  in  their  multifunctional  role  are  not  fully  understood.  The 
intention is to address this dearth of information by increasing communication efforts to reach 
the general public. As the CAP is becoming a policy with a much wider agenda in response to 
demands  of  citizens  at  large,  even  more  prominence  will  be  given  in  the  future  to  reaching 
beyond agricultural stakeholders. 

In  line  with  the  recommendations  of  the  evaluation  report,  the  communication  strategy 
includes: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

identifying target groups for information activities among the general public and the 
stakeholders; 

clearly defined objectives and messages; 

increasing  synergy  among  communication  tools  and  with  other  actors  at  EU, 
national, regional and local level; 

systematic monitoring, evaluation and feedback. 

The objectives are: 

– 

– 

to increase understanding and acceptance of the CAP among the general public; 

to maintain and increase support from stakeholders in agriculture and the rural areas. 

Key  policy  developments  will  be  accompanied  by  communication  plans  developed  on  the 
basis  of  the  communication  strategy.  For  instance,  the  adoption  of  the  Commission 
Communication on the reform of the common market organisation for wine in June 2006 and 
the adoption of the Commission reform proposal of the common market organisation for fruit 
and  vegetables  in  January  2007  were  marked  by  particularly  broad-ranging  and  intensive 
information  exercises  reflecting  the  Commission's  focus  on  listening  and  going  local.  They 
involved high level briefings for media and stakeholders in the most concerned producer and 
consumer  Member  States,  providing  participants  with  a  presentation  of  the  proposal  and 
information  material  in  the  local  language.  The  briefings  generated  lively  discussions  and 
were very well received as an opportunity for an open and frank dialogue. This will serve as a 
model for future actions on priority issues. 

7 

Communication  to  the  Commission  “Action  Plan  to  Improve  Communicating  Europe  by  the 
Commission” (SEC(2005) 985) of 20 July 2005. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  Commission's  focus  on  "going  local"  also  of  course  applies  to  grants.  The  call  for 
proposals has been adapted in order to encourage more projects involving the general public, 
to  ensure  the  definition  of  priority  target  groups  and  more  effective  targeting  and 
dissemination of messages to meet the needs of these groups and the local context. Similarly, 
reporting  obligations  for  grants  have  been  reinforced  with  the  aim  of  achieving  better 
assessment of the impact achieved. As mentioned above, this is in line with the findings of the 
evaluation. 

CONCLUSION 

The  external  evaluation  noted  that  the  objectives  established  for  the  information  policy  on 
CAP within the context of Council Regulation (EC) No 814/2000 were relevant to the needs 
of  the  target  groups,  both  in  the  case  of  actions  carried  out  by  the  Commission  and  co-
financed  measures  carried  out  by  third  parties.  There  is  a  continuing  need  to  address  the 
dearth of information on the CAP both among rural stakeholders and the general public.  

The evaluation noted the particular challenges linked to communicating the CAP. The policy 
has  changed  fundamentally  over  the  last  fifteen  years,  but  perception  of  it  by  the  general 
public has not. Opinion polls suggest there is support for the CAP objectives but that we need 
to raise awareness of the CAP and to show that it addresses concerns expressed by citizens. 

In a context of limited resources (described in the evaluation as "small by any standards") as 
compared  with  the  task  of  reaching  the  general  public,  DG  Agriculture  and  Rural 
Development  will  focus  its  efforts  in  relation  to  its  ultimate  target  groups  (farmers  and  the 
general  public).  As  outlined  above,  it  has  in  2006  reviewed  and  updated  its  communication 
strategy, in the context of the objectives laid down in the Council Regulation, and in the light 
of the Commission's renewed commitment to improving communication with EU citizens. In 
this  regard,  it  has  updated  a  list  of  key  strategic  messages  and  is  developing  appropriate 
dissemination strategies aimed at priority target sub-groups. 

Developing  positive  synergies  between  EU  and  national  communication  strategies  would 
contribute greatly to the effectiveness of our communication activities on the CAP. We must 
build  on  already  successful  examples  of  cooperation  and  partnership.  Improving  public 
understanding of the CAP is a vital and urgent task. Member States have a key role in creating 
partnerships to explain the concrete benefits of the policy, to encourage debate and dialogue at 
national,  regional  and  local  level.  In  this  regard,  the  Commission  would  invite  the  Member 
States  to  participate  fully  in  information  measures  in  general  and  under  Regulation  (EC) 
No 814/2000  in  particular.  This  is  in  line  with  current  communication  policy  which 
emphasises  the  key  role  of  the  Member  States  in  the  process  of  informing  the  citizen  on 
European Union issues.  

Annexes: 

–  Annex I: 
–  Annex II: 
–  Annex III: 

Tables on grants for 2003–2006 
Breakdown of direct actions by the Commission 2003–2006 
List of abbreviations. 

EN 

12 

   EN