COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENTCommon Agricultural Policy towards 2020
Date: 2011-10-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: access to EU information, aid to agriculture, climate change, food safety, redevelopment aid, reform of the CAP, rural development, single payment scheme, sustainable agriculture, sustainable development

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 12.10.2011 
SEC(2011) 1154 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Common Agricultural Policy towards 2020 

{COM(2011) 625 final} 
{COM(2011) 626 final} 
{COM(2011) 627 final} 
{COM(2011) 628 final} 
{COM(2011) 629 final} 
{COM(2011) 630 final} 
{COM(2011) 631 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1153 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Agriculture  is  at  a  crossroads  and  in  the  headlines:  EU  agriculture  and  its  Common 
Agricultural  Policy  (CAP)  are  no  exception.  Challenges,  impacts  and  solutions 
worldwide  vary,  but  a  common  theme  is  also  emerging:  sustainability  is  at  the  core  of 
solutions. This is why the overarching objective for the future CAP should be sustainable 
competitiveness  to  achieve  an  economically  viable  food  production  sector,  in  tandem 
with sustainable management of the EU's natural land-based resources. 

Previous  reforms  of  the  CAP  were  mainly  driven  by  the  need  to  respond  to  challenges 
that were primarily endogenous to agriculture, from huge surpluses to trade agreements 
or  food  safety  crises.  They  have  served  the  EU  well  both  in  the  domestic  and  in  the 
international front. But many of the challenges EU agriculture faces today are driven by 
factors beyond its control, and require much broader policy responses. 

The future CAP should no longer be a policy that addresses the activity of a small, albeit 
essential, segment of the EU economy, but one that impacts on more than half of the EU 
territory  and  all  of  EU  consumers,  and  is  of  strategic  importance  for  food  security  and 
safety,  the  environment,  climate  change  and  territorial  balance.  This  would  also  enable 
the  CAP  to  enhance  its  contribution  to  the  Europe  2020  strategy.  What  such  a  policy 
direction would imply is the focus of this report.  

1. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

Over the last  two decades, the CAP has  undergone  a substantial reform process, which 
reflects the changing societal  concerns related notably to the  environment,  food  quality 
and safety, territorial balance, as well as to the evolving needs of the EU economy. As a 
result  of  this  process,  the  CAP  provides  today  the  general  framework  that  allows  the 
policy  to  address  competitiveness  and  sustainability  challenges  of  agriculture  and  rural 
areas  across  the  EU  territory.  This  framework  takes  the  form  of  two  complementary 
pillars.1 

Pillar  I  includes  instruments  related  to  the  functioning  of  agricultural  markets  and  the 
food  supply  chain  (Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1234/2007)  and  to  direct  payments 
(Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  73/2009)  conditional  upon  statutory  management 
requirements  and  good  agricultural  and  environmental  conditions.2  Combined,  these 
measures  provide  a  fundamental  layer  of  support  to  EU  farmers,  creating  the  basis  for 
keeping sustainable farming in place throughout the EU. Pillar I measures are mandatory 
for Member States and, with very few exceptions, there is no co-financing. This ensures 
the application of a common policy within the Single Market, monitored by an integrated 
administration and control system (IACS). 

Pillar II – rural development policy (Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005) - includes 
measures that aim at improving the competitiveness of the agriculture sector, delivering 
specific  environmental  public  goods  and  promoting  the  diversification  of  economic 

1 

2 

EN 

For detailed characteristics of CAP instruments and their evolution see a series of Policy briefs of 
DG AGRI http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/perspec/app-briefs/index_en.htm.  

As defined in Annexes II and III of the Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
activity  and  quality  of  life  in  rural  areas.  These  measures  are  largely  voluntary, 
contractual in nature, co-financed and delivered within a strategic framework which links 
policy action to European, national, regional and local needs. 

The above framework responded to the challenges EU agriculture faced during the past 
two decades. However, for the policy to remain relevant, the framework under which it 
functions  has  to  prove  itself  capable  also  to  address  the  main  challenges  which  EU 
agriculture  is  expected  to  face  in  the  current  decade:  economic,  environmental  and 
climate change pressures as well as the territorial aspects of the policy. 

In the economic front, agriculture faces today a global deterioration in its terms of trade. 
In  recent  years  in  particular,  this  has  been  more  pronounced.  During  the  2004-2010 
period,  the  average  level  of  world  agricultural  prices  increased  by  50%  from  its 
corresponding  level  in  1986-2003;  by  comparison,  energy  prices  jumped  by  220%  and 
fertiliser  prices  by  150%,  while  exhibiting  at  the  same  time  the  highest  degree  of 
volatility of the past three decades. 

Stable  higher  prices  could  provide  clear  market  signals  to  the  sector.  However,  high 
volatility,  the  slowdown  in  factor  productivity  growth  (land,  energy,  fertiliser,  labour), 
the uneven and asymmetric transmission of price changes in the food supply chain and 
the  declining  share  of  agriculture  in  the  value  added  of  the  chain  are  expected  to  put 
additional pressure on farm profitability in the EU, and require substantial investment in 
more productive methods for the sector to adjust in a sustainable manner. 

In the environmental front, the main drivers affecting the environmental sustainability of 
agriculture  relate  to  intensification  of  production  in  some  areas  with  abandonment  and 
under  management  of  land  in  others,  as  well  as  changing  land  use  patterns  and 
agricultural  and  forestry  practices.  The  CAP  plays  an  important  role  in  maintaining 
sustainable  agriculture  across  the  EU  territory  and  in  promoting  environmentally  and 
climate friendly practices. 

The environmental sustainability of farming is related to farmer decisions about whether 
to  produce  and  what  and  how  to  produce,  while  market  prices  do  not  reflect  the 
externalities  linked  to  agricultural  production  and  in  many  cases  the  supply  of 
environmental  public  goods  is  insufficient.  This  is  particularly  important  as  modern 
farming  puts  many  pressures  on  the  environment.  By  contrast,  certain  farming  systems 
and practices, such as extensive livestock and mixed systems, traditional permanent crop 
systems or organic farming, are particularly favourable for the environment and climate 
objectives. 

The  CAP  should  respond  to  these  challenges  by  better  integrating  its  objectives  with 
other EU policies and adjusting its measures accordingly. The EU biodiversity strategy to 
2020  requires  further  integration  of  biodiversity  in  key  sectors  such  as  agriculture  and 
forestry  in  order  to  meet  the  ambitious  EU  headline  target.  The  Europe  2020  Strategy 
establishes the reduction of greenhouse gases as one of the EU's five headline targets. In 
the  Climate  and  Energy  Package,  the  EU  also  committed  to  increase  renewable  energy 
uses in order to reach a 20% share in total EU final energy consumption in 2020. 

Finally,  with  respect  to  social  challenges,  the  primary  sector  still  represents  4.9%  of 
value  added  (and  more,  if  related  (food)  industry  is  considered)  and  15.7%  of 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
employment  in  predominantly  rural  areas.  This  is  where  the  role  of  agriculture  can  be 
particularly  important,  not  only  directly  but  also  indirectly  -  through  the  generation  of 
additional economic activities with strong multiplier effects, most notably with the food 
processing, hotels and catering, and trade sectors. These sectors in turn have further high 
links with the rest of the rural economy, thus helping among others remote rural areas, 
which have the most limited access to general services, such as schools, primary health 
care and banking. 

1.1. 

The EU value added of the CAP 

The added value of the CAP is in its ability to: 

–  respond  effectively  to  transnational  goals  and  cross-border  challenges  such  as 
mitigating  climate  change,  enhancing  biodiversity  and  contributing  to  economic  and 
social  cohesion,  the  development  of  the  Single  Market  and  the  EU  trade  policy, 
through a common set of rules, principles and objectives; 

–  ensure a more efficient use of the budgetary resources of the Member States vis-à-vis 
the  coexistence  of  national  policies  (e.g.  compared  to  a  single  common  policy,  27 
different  policies  would  have  been  more  costly  and  certainly  less  effective  inducing 
different levels of intervention, a major risk for distortion of competition); 

–  help  to  develop  a  competitive  and  balanced  European  agriculture  from  an 
environmental  and  territorial  point  of  view,  which  contributes  positively  to  the 
competitiveness of the EU food supply chain and trade, and enhance the cohesion of 
rural areas by encouraging initiatives favouring their economic and social growth. 

2. 

THE MAIN POLICY OBJECTIVES OF CAP REFORM 

For  the  CAP  to  address  the  economic,  environmental,  climate  change  and  territorial 
challenges,  the  objectives  are  to  adapt  the  current  CAP  framework  along  the  following 
lines: 

(1) 

Gearing  the  CAP  measures  towards  increasing  the  productivity  and  the 
competitiveness of the agricultural sector by:  

- 

- 

- 

improving  the  functioning  of  the  advisory  system  and  creating  networks 
(of  farmers,  advisors,  researchers,  food  operators,  consumers  etc.)  for 
knowledge  creation  and  transfer  and  favouring  innovative  approaches  in 
granting funding for projects for rural development measures 

encouraging pro-competitive joint action among farmers in order to foster 
efficient use of resources, product development and marketing 

provide  incentives  to  use  risk  management  instruments  and  active 
prevention strategies 

(2) 

Improving the environmental and climate change performance of the CAP by: 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
- 

increasing  the  number  of  agricultural  areas  which  are  under  agricultural 
practices  providing  environmental  and  climate  action  benefits  and 
encouraging  the  take-up  of  more  advanced  agri-environmental  measures 
by Member States and farmers; 

(3) 

Enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of the policy by: 

- 

- 

rebalancing  the  direct  payment  support  to  better  reflect  income  support 
objective and environmental performance 

reducing the disparities in direct payment support levels between Member 
States and farmers. 

3. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

Following  a  wide  public  debate  and  a  series  of  own  initiative  positions  from  EU 
institutions  and  particular  Member  States,  three  coherent  policy  scenarios  (adjustment, 
integration  and  re-focus)  have  been  formulated  to  feed  the  decision-making  process  by 
exploring  the  continuum  of  possible  policy  evolutions  in  a  holistic  approach  that  also 
looks  at  the  potential  interactions  and  synergies  between  the  main  lines  of  policy 
intervention, while every element is individually assessed in specific annexes. 

•  The  adjustment  scenario  focuses  on  adjusting  the  CAP  in  a  limited  way  by 
emphasizing those elements that work well in today's CAP and addressing the major 
shortcomings  of  the  current  policy  framework  without  making  any  fundamental 
changes to the policy. 

•  The integration scenario has the purpose of improving the targeting of CAP support to 
the  objectives  of  the  policy,  especially  by  better  integrating  the  contributions  of 
different  policy  elements,  which  includes  the  introduction  of  new  elements  into  the 
policy framework as well as substantial changes to structure of the policy. 

•  The  re-focus  scenario  narrows  down  the  focus  of  policy  intervention  of  the  CAP  to 
environmental and climate change aspects while it is assumed that production capacity 
can  be  maintained  without  support  through  the  reliance  on  market  signals  and  the 
objective of contributing to the vitality of rural areas and territorial balance would be 
met by other Community policies. 

These  scenarios  are  cross-cutting  approaches  that  each  address  the  three  broad  policy 
objectives of the future CAP described in the previous section. They do, however, place 
different weights on the three objectives and are based, to a certain extent, on different 
approaches with respect to the necessity of policy intervention. 

In  doing  so,  these  scenarios  also  address  in  different  ways  the  essential  risk  that  stems 
from  the  absence  of  policy  intervention,  market  failures,  and  the  consequent  risk  that 
stems  from  wrongly  targeted  policy  intervention,  policy  failure.  The  latter  risk  formed 
the  basis  for  discarding  other  policy  scenarios  that  were  presented  during  the  public 
consultation. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
With respect to the analysis of the effects of these scenarios, the reference is the status 
quo, which does not address the policy shortcomings identified in problem definition and 
the  counterfactual  scenario  of  having  no  policy  at  all,  which  is  expected  to  lead  to 
significant income and environmental problems.3 

The  scenarios  are  presented  on  the  basis  of  implied  changes  in  the  three  main  lines  of 
policy intervention, namely market measures (Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007), 
direct  payments  (Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  73/2009)  and  rural  development  policy 
(Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005). 

Table 1: Outline of main policy options by scenario and policy instrument 

Adjustment: 

the 

Emphasizing 
CAP's 
achievements  and 
addressing  major 
shortcomings 

Integration: 

Improving the 
targeting of the 
CAP to its 
objectives 

Market instruments 

Direct Payments 

Rural Development 

(Council  Regulation 
(EC) No 1234/2007) 

(Council 
(EC) No 73/2009) 

Regulation 

(Council  Regulation 
No 1698/2005) 

(EC) 

Streamlining and 
simplification of 
existing instruments 

Redistribution; 
enhanced cross 
compliance 

Moderate increase in budget; 
used for 
competitiveness/innovation 
or environment 

Improving farmers' 
cooperation within 
competition rules. 

Streamlining and 
simplification of 
existing instruments 

Redistribution; new 
direct payment 
architecture; "greening" 

Redistribution between 
Member States 

Focus  on  food  chain 
and improved 
bargaining  power  of 
sub-
farmers 
options) 

(3 

Enhanced cross 
compliance; 
capping; 
small  farmer  scheme; 
young farmer scheme 

Innovation,  climate  change 
and  environment  as  guiding 
principles; 

Reinforced strategic 
targeting and common 
strategic framework with 
other funds 

Substantially increased 
funding; focus on climate 
change and environment 

Re-focus: 

Abolished 

Phased-out 

Limiting the scope 
of CAP 
interventions 
environmental 
aspects 

to 

3 

http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/analysis/external/scenar2020ii/index_en.htm 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
4. 

ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE POLICY OPTIONS 

The adjustment scenario assumes the continuation of the principles of the current policy 
framework  based  on  market-orientation.  It  is  expected  to  allow  farmers,  prompted  by 
market  signals,  to  make  better  use  of  available  policy  instruments  to  increase  their 
competitiveness, while redistributed direct payments among Member States would shield 
them  from  excessive  income  fluctuations  in  a  more  effective  and  equitable  manner 
throughout  the  EU.  Redistribution  of  direct  payments  within  Member  States  (regional 
model)  would  allow  higher  support  for  more  environmentally  beneficial  agricultural 
areas  and  limit  land  abandonment,  but  increased  economic  pressure  would  likely  drive 
towards  intensification  production  in  the  most  fertile  regions.  Rural  development 
measures would continue to address wider rural issues, but the role of agriculture in the 
economy, employment and growth or rural areas would diminish. 

The  integration  scenario  proposes  an  enhanced  policy  framework  geared  towards 
support  for  competitiveness,  sustainable  development  and  innovation  in  the  sector  and 
aimed  at  fostering  conditions  under  which  farmers,  either  individually  or  collectively, 
would  be  better  able  to  face  upcoming  economic  and  environmental  challenges.  Direct 
payments  would  provide  a  stable  income,  leading  not  only  to  more  balanced,  effective 
and  equitable  redistribution  but  actively  targeting  certain  beneficiaries  (small-scale 
holders, farmers in regions with natural constraints, sectors at risk, new entrants etc.). A 
greening  component  would  also  promote  certain  basic  environmental  practices 
throughout  the  EU,  focusing  principally  on  those  farms,  often  most  competitive,  which 
have moved away from such practices as well as those which are considering abandoning 
them in the light of current economic pressures. 

In re-focus scenario, a phasing out of direct payments would lead to strong restructuring 
in the sector and much larger and more capital intensive farms. Production intensification 
in the most fertile regions and land abandonment in less advantageous areas would have 
negative  environmental  consequences.  Focusing  policy  on  rural  development-type 
environmental  measures  would  alleviate  these  problems,  but  would  not  contribute  to 
enhancing  the  sustainability  of  agriculture  over  the  whole  EU.  Phasing  out  of  direct 
payments would lead to failure of many agricultural holdings  and would put additional 
pressure on the viability of rural areas with higher unemployment and migration. 

4.1. 

Administrative burden  

Certain components of a new model for direct payments, such as capping, the definition 
of "active farmers" and the "greening" could potentially be burdensome with additional 
control  requirements.  On  the  other  hand,  the  small  farmer  scheme  would  substantially 
reduce  the  administrative  demands  from  the  application  for  and  granting  of  direct 
payments to such beneficiaries. 

The removal of the current overlap between agri-environmental actions available under 
specific  support  in  the  Pillar  I  and  in  rural  development  and  a  uniform  solution  for 
coupled  support  would  lead  to  simplification.  However,  the  introduction  of  a  possible 
approval  process  by  the  Commission  could  be  more  burdensome,  mainly  for  the 
Commission services. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Improving the targeting of payments to active farmers would require careful fine tuning 
of definitions in cooperation with Member States and selecting criteria at Member State 
level to be integrated into the IACS register. This could require substantial administrative 
effort  for  them  and  certainly  for  farmers  to  prove  eligibility,  as  they  would  have  to 
provide  supplementary  detailed 
information  and  possibly  submit  accompanying 
documents with their application. 

4.2. 

International dimension 

The successive reforms of the CAP have diminished substantially the distortive impact of 
the  policy  on  international  markets.  All  the  analysed  scenarios  should  have  minimal 
effects  on  global  markets  (including  on  developing  countries).  This  is  the  combined 
result of previous CAP reforms and the present and expected future level of world prices 
that have turned the EU into a price-taker in agricultural markets. 

4.3. 

Comparison of options 

All  three  options  aim  at  a  more  competitive,  sustainable  and  resilient  agriculture  in 
vibrant  rural  areas,  and  thus  seek  to  better  align  the  CAP  to  Europe  2020,  notably  in 
terms  of  resource  efficiency.  To  this  end,  it  will  be  essential  to  improve  agricultural 
productivity through research, knowledge transfer and generally promoting collaborative 
approaches.  Hence  the  importance  of  innovation,  including  the  upcoming  European 
Innovation  Partnership  on  agricultural  productivity  and  sustainability,  as  a  basic  pre-
condition that cuts across policy options. This cross-cutting element is present in all three 
options, and therefore not part of the comparison below. 

In terms of budget, it is clearly the refocus option that would in the end place the lowest 
demands  on  the  EU  budget  since  direct  payments  would  be  phased  out.  This  option 
places  priority  on  market  orientation,  and  thus  on  the  acceleration  of  structural 
adjustment  in  the  sector  towards  greater  profitability  of  enterprises.  This  option  would 
also  expose  the  sector  to  greater  risks  in  terms  of  market  stability  in  the  absence  of 
appropriate  safety  nets  and  risk  management  tools,  as  well  as  the  risk  of  decreased 
spending on innovation due to the pressure on farm income. Structural adjustment under 
the  terms  of  the  refocus  option  would  come  at  a  significant  social  and  environmental 
cost. Income would fall by 25% and production would concentrate in the most profitable 
areas and sectors. 

Even  if  spending  on  better  targeted  environmental  measures  under  rural  development 
doubles, this would not be able to achieve  sustainable  land  management across  the EU 
territory, as the policy would lose the leverage of direct payments coupled with the cross 
compliance  requirements.  In  addition,  the  negative  social  consequences  particularly  in 
areas and sectors that are most dependent on direct payments (e.g. large field crops and 
dairy farms, extensive beef and sheep and goat farms) would be such that the temporary 
use of axis 1 measures to support restructuring would not be able to make up for losses 
from the phasing out of direct payments. The absence of axis 3 measures could threaten 
the rural fabric, especially in diversified rural economies, putting the territorial balance at 
risk.  These  results  are  not  new,  but  echo  similar  results  in  the  two  prospective  Scenar 
2020 studies. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
At  the  other  end  of  the  spectrum,  the  adjustment  option  would  best  allow  for  policy 
continuity  with  limited  but  tangible  improvements  both  in  agricultural  competitiveness 
and environmental performance, through the redistribution of direct payments, enhanced 
cross compliance, simplification and streamlining of market instruments and support for 
cooperative  approaches,  as  well  as  the  channeling  of  additional  resources  into  new 
challenges under rural development. The main new element in the adjustment option is 
the rebalancing of direct payments among and within Member States, for which different 
options have been analysed. The question is how to ensure a more equitable distribution 
and  a  better  targeted  support  in  line  with  the  policy  objectives  while  avoiding  major 
disturbances.  The  convergence  towards  a  flatter  rate  would  particularly  benefit  those 
Member States that are currently significantly below the EU average. 

The  move  towards  a  regional  model  (together with  the  inclusion  of  naked  land)  would 
rebalance  support  between  farm  types,  especially  in  Member  States  currently  using  a 
historical  model,  mostly  towards  more  extensive  production  systems.  In  fact,  grazing 
livestock, wine and horticulture would benefit, while field crops, mixed and milk farms 
would lose from such redistribution. 

There  are  however  serious  doubts  as  to  whether  the  adjustment  option  can  adequately 
address  the  important  climate  and  environmental  challenges  in  the  future,  thereby  also 
underpinning the sustainability of agriculture itself in the longer term. 

The  integration  option  takes  the  need  to  green  the  CAP  a  step  further  with  the 
"greening" component of direct payments. The challenge is how to design such greening 
so  as  to  reap  considerable  environmental  and  climate  change  benefits  and  assure  the 
sustainable  use  of  natural  resources  without  undermining  territorial  balance  throughout 
the  EU  as  well  as  the  long-term  competitiveness  of  the  agricultural  sector  and  unduly 
complicating the management of direct payments. 

The analysis shows that this is possible although some administrative burden cannot be 
avoided.  The  resulting  negative  impact  on  income  remains  moderate  on  average  (but 
varies significantly between Member States, regions and farming systems); this negative 
impact  would  be  exacerbated  with  a  more  ambitious  crop  diversification  measure,  but 
alleviated in the case of more ambitious provisions for ecological focus areas, due to the 
market impact. 

The greening component would also free up funds in rural development to be deployed 
towards  more  sophisticated  agri-environment  and  climate  focused  measures.  The 
combined  effect  of  environmental  and  LFA  measures  in  both  pillars  could  thus 
significantly  enhance  the  CAP  contribution  to  the  provision  of  public  goods,  though  at 
the  cost  of  additional  administrative  efforts  to  manage  a  more  complex  structure  and 
avoid duplication of measures. Provided that the right balance is struck in the design of 
measures  and  their  implementation  by  Member  States,  this  option  best  safeguards 
territorial  balance  by  addressing  the  long  term  sustainability  of  agriculture  and  rural 
areas. 

A  significant  change  in  rural  development  policy  is  also  part  of  the  integration  option. 
The result should be a more effective policy that delivers results in line with the Europe 
2020 priorities  under a  common  framework with the other EU funds,  provided  that the 
possibilities are used well by Member States and regions at the level of programming and 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
that  the  closer  coordination  with  the  other  funds  does  not  remove  the  synergies  with 
Pillar I. The distribution of rural development support would also better reflect the policy 
objectives while taking into account the current distribution.  

Finally,  better  targeting  of  support  by  means  of  the  different  components  of  direct 
payments  (in  particular  capping,  the  small  farmer  scheme  and  the  better  definition  of 
"active  farmers")  can  help  achieve  more  effectiveness  in  terms  of  income  support  and 
provision of environmental public goods. For the food supply chain, there is a balance to 
be  found  between  improving  the  bargaining  power  of  farmers  and  assuring  the 
competitiveness and improved performance of the whole chain.  

The  integration  option  would  maximize  the  EU  value  added  by  best  maintaining  a 
sustainable agriculture throughout the EU, addressing important cross-border issues such 
as  climate  change  and  reinforcing  solidarity  among  Member  States;  this  would  be 
followed by adjustment and then refocus.  

In  terms  of  cost-effectiveness,  the  integration  option  would  make  the  best  use  of  the 
budget by maximizing EU value added. On the other hand, the adjustment option would 
place equally important demands on the EU budget without the same ambition in terms 
of results, while the refocus option would produce budget savings but at the same time 
significantly reduce the scope and added value of EU action.  

Table 1: Comparison of options by objective, EU value added and cost effectiveness 

Adjustment 

Integration 

Re-focus 

Viable food production 

Sustainable  management 
natural 
action 

of 
resources  and  climate 

Balanced territorial development 

EU value added 

Cost effectiveness 

++ 

+ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

On  the  basis  of  the  above  comparison,  the  preferred  option  is  the  integration  option, 
followed  by  the  adjustment  option  and  finally  the  refocus  option.  This  assessment 
coincides with the preferences expressed in the public consultation (see Annex 9). While 
the adjustment option may not be sufficiently targeted and the refocus option too risky, 
the  integration  option  appears  to  strike  the  right  balance  in  progressively  steering  the 
CAP towards the Europe 2020 objectives, and this balance will also need to be found in 
the implementation of the different elements. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
5. 

MONITORING  AND  EVALUATION  OF  COSTS,  BENEFITS  AND  ACHIEVEMENT  OF 
THE DESIRED EFFECTS 

In  the  future,  it  will  be  important  to  reinforce  monitoring  and  evaluation  for  the  CAP, 
including  new  elements  of  the  design  of  the  policy  introduced  in  Pillar  I,  such  as 
greening. The future monitoring and evaluation system for rural development should also 
better  reflect  the  reinforced  strategic  approach  with  common  indicators  based  on 
objectives  and  priorities  and  facilitate  the  use  of  evaluation  as  a  management  tool 
throughout the programming period. 

In addition, monitoring and evaluation for both pillars should be brought together into a 
common framework to measure the performance of the CAP as a whole within Europe 
2020.  To  this  end,  a  process  is  under  way  for  the  development  of  a  common  set  of 
indicators linked to the policy objectives, which would consist of:  

–  impact indicators linked to general objectives; 

–  result indicators linked to specific objectives; 

–  output indicators linked to expenditure under different instruments. 

In  addition,  to  address  data  gaps,  for  instance  on  sustainability  indicators,  it  is  also 
envisaged to launch a pilot project that would create a process which, by filling existing 
data gaps of indicators at farm level, would allow the better monitoring and evaluation of 
implemented reforms. 

EN 

11 

   EN