Mapping and analysis of the implementation of the CAP : executive summary.
Date: 2017-01-20
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development
Subjects: EU Member State, agricultural policy, agricultural productivity, aid recipient, aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy, energy efficiency, farm income, food production, national implementing measure, price stability, renewable energy, rural development, simplification of formalities, sustainable agriculture

Executive summary 

Mapping and analysis of the implementation of the CAP 

Final 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development  

E-mail:  agri-evaluation@ec.europa.eu  

European Commission 

B-1049 Brussels 

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development 

2016 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mapping and analysis of the 
implementation of the CAP 

Final 

Olivier Chartier, Evelien Cronin, Marie Jose Zondag (Ecorys) 

Roel Jongeneel (Wageningen Economic Research) 

Kaley Hart (IEEP) 

November 2016 

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development 

2016 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 
Freephone number (*): 
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

The information and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the 

official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in 

this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held 

responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. 

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016 

Catalogue number    

KF-04-16-022-EN-N 

ISBN  

Doi 

978-92-79-54680-8 

10.2762/632316 

© European Union, 2016 

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

Printed in Belgium 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Objectives and scope of the study 
This study “Mapping and analysis of the implementation of the CAP” has three main objectives: (1) to map the 

implementation  of  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy  (CAP)  by  the  28  Member  States,  focusing  on  their 

implementation  choices,  the  motivation  for  these  choices  and  the  importance  attached  to  the  three  CAP 

general objectives; (2) to develop a typology for grouping Member States according to these choices; and (3) 

to  answer  the  evaluation  questions  related  to  relevance,  coherence,  conditions  for  enabling  effectiveness, 

administrative  burden  and  contribution  to  the  EU2020  strategy.  In  agreement  with  the  provisions  from  the 

Article  110  of  the  Regulation  (EU)  No  1306/2013,  the  study  has  been  carried  out  in  relation  to  the  three 

general objectives of: 

1.  Viable food production, with a focus on agricultural income, agricultural productivity and price stability;  

2.  Sustainable  management  of  natural  resources  and  climate  action,  with  a  focus  on  greenhouse  gas 

emissions, biodiversity, soil and water; and  

3.  Balanced territorial development, with a focus on rural employment, growth and poverty in rural areas. 

This  study  is  the  first  that  provides  an  exhaustive  review  of  the  choices  that  have  been  made  by  the  28 

Member States in both Pillar 1 and Pillar 2. It focuses exclusively on an analysis of the choices that have been 

made  by  the  Member  States:  it  does  not  analyse  the  uptake  of  the  measures  by  farmers  or  other  rural 

beneficiaries. The analysis is limited to the implementation modalities of Direct Payments (Reg. 1307/2013), 

on articles 14, 17-26, 28-29 and 35 of Rural Development Policy (Reg. 1305/2013) and on certain elements of 

Regulations 1303/2013 (the "Common Provisions Regulation") and 1306/2016 (the “Horizontal Regulation”).  

Methodology  
For the mapping of Member State implementation choices, information available at the beginning of 2016 has 

been used to produce “mapping fiches” that describe the choices regarding Pillar 1 instruments and  Pillar  2 

measures in the 28 Member States. The main sources of information were the notifications from the Member 

States to the European Commission regarding Direct Payments and the 118 Rural Development Programmes 

(RDPs). Interviews in the 28 countries have also helped to shed light on the main factors that have influenced 

the decision-making process in each country. For the typology, the methodology is based on a cluster analysis 

involving a set of 12 indicators summarising the main choices made by the 28 Member States. Answers to the 

Evaluation  Questions  are  provided  based  on  case  study  work  conducted  in  Bulgaria,  Finland,  France, 

Germany, Italy, Poland, Slovenia, Spain, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The starting point of the 

analysis is the preparation of detailed “intervention logics” that links policy instruments to the CAP objectives. 

Economic theories have been used to develop comprehensive and detailed “Instrument – Objective – Impact 

matrices” that describe the expected impacts for each instrument from Pillar 1 and measures from Pillar 2. The 

results  provide  only  a  preliminary  idea  of  the  potential  policy  impact  as  this  evaluation  has  focused  on  the 

measures  that  have  been  put  in  place  in  only  10  Member  States  or  regions,  and  is  not  based  on  data  of 

uptake or implementation by beneficiaries. 

In general, the historical factor played a more important role than the three general CAP 
objectives in the Member States’ implementation choices  
The analysis of the factors that have influenced the implementation decisions in the 28 Member States reveals 

that, in many countries, the major concern was to minimise the changes in support provided to the agricultural 

sector compared to the previous CAP, with a view to maintaining its competitiveness. This is in particular true 

for  the  decisions  made under  Pillar  1. The  “historical factor” has  been  a  major driver,  as in  many  cases the 

main  objectives  pursued  by  the  Member  States  were  to  limit  the  impact  of  the  changes  on  farmers’  income 

and to maintain the balance between agricultural sectors or between regions. In  certain cases the effects of 

the decreased amounts under the BPS were mitigated through the use of other Pillar 1 instruments, such as 

the Redistributive Payment or Voluntary Coupled Support (VCS).  

This  also  affected  the  decisions  on  greening,  where  there  was  a  clear  trend  to  offer  farmers  maximum 

flexibility in the way the greening measures could operate on farms, although administrative and control issues 

also played an important part in determining the implementing decisions, with Member States fearing penalties 

if the options offered to farmers were not easily controllable.  In some countries, the choices  have also been 

     5 

 
 
 
  
 
made  with  the  ambition  to  reduce  administrative  burden  by  containing  the risks  of  reduction  of payments  or 

late  payments  and  by  limiting  the  administrative  costs  for  the  Managing  Authority  and  beneficiaries.  The 

reduced budget for Pillar 1 overall and the introduction of the compulsory greening measures also influenced 

Member  States’  decisions  on  whether  or  not  to  transfer  funds  between  Pillars.  Overall,  it  appears  that  the 

rationale for the implementation choices in Pillar 1 is more influenced by the ambition to “maintain the status 

quo”  than  by  a  strategy  related  to  the  three  CAP  objectives.  There  is  little  evidence  to  support  that  Pillar  1 

implementation  decisions  have  been  based  on  carefully  designed  strategies  that  incorporate  long-term 

objectives and integration with Pillar 2 measures.  

The typology indicates limited coordination between Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 implementation  
The study developed a typology to group Member States based on their implementation choices in Pillar 1 and 
Pillar 2. The outcomes of the analysis are five clusters consisting of 5 to 8 countries1. The typology analysis 
has  confirmed  that  for  the  majority  of  the  Member  States,  the  main  focus  of  the  CAP  remains  viable  food 

production.  Member  States  have  used  the  different  Pillar  1  instruments  in  different  combinations  to  address 

this  objective.  Nevertheless,  there  is  no  overarching  pattern  emerging  in  terms  of  the  use  of  different 

instruments and measures. The typology results also indicate a poor correlation between the decisions made 

in  the  first  and  the  second  Pillar:  the  analysis  did  not  allow  to  establish  a  link  between  the  implementation 

choices (in terms of measures chosen) under Pillar 1 and the decisions made in Pillar 2.  

Relevance: the implementation choices are considered especially relevant to needs or 
priorities related to the general objective of viable food production 
The  study  examined  the  relevance  of  the  Member  States’  implementation  choices  against  each  of  the  CAP 

objectives. This analysis consists of formulating a judgement on the extent to which the choices made by the 

Member States address national/regional needs.  

The  Member  States’  implementation  choices  with  respect  to  viable  food  production  have  been  assessed  as 

being in general more tailored to local needs than in the previous CAP. For agricultural income this was more 

apparent than for agricultural productivity. While price volatility has increased over the last decade, only one 

measure (Producer Organisations) was found to be to some extent relevant in addressing price stability. 

There appears to be a fairly good relationship in most cases between the environmental and climate priorities 

identified and the measures chosen to address these. In some cases there is a mismatch between the needs 

identified  and  the  content  of  the  measures  have  nevertheless  been  identified.  Pillar  2  measures  are 

considered to be more relevant to address identified needs. Pillar 1 greening measures and cross-compliance, 

particularly  the  GAEC  standards,  also  play  an  important  role.  Of  the  Pillar  2  measures  it  is  the  agri-

environment-climate measure (M10), the organic farming measure (M11), the physical investments measure – 

both productive and non-productive investments (M4) and the forestry measures (M8) that are most relevant, 

supported by knowledge transfer (M1/M2) and cooperation (M16). 

The  amount  of  attention  paid  to  balanced  territorial  development  in  budgetary  terms  fluctuates  substantially 

between the different Member States. Still, in most of the studied Member States there is considered to be a 

link  between  the  needs  related  to  balanced  territorial  development  as  identified  in  the  RDPs  and  the 

instruments  and  measures  chosen.  Measures  enabling  communal  participation  and  local  activities  (M19  – 

LEADER)  are  seen  as  the  most  relevant  as  it  has  the  potential  to  encourage  social  interaction  as  well  as 

economic activity in rural areas.  

Coherence: Member State choices are generally coherent but opportunities for synergies 
could be better exploited  
Overall, it is considered that the choices made by the Member States are neutral or coherent to one another. 

There are some good examples of measures being used in combination, but there is no systematic synergistic 

use  of  instruments  and  measures  to  address  particular  objectives.  In  almost all the  countries  examined, the 

1 See the map with the clusters in section 9.1.2 in the final report. 

     6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
importance  of  knowledge  sharing  and  cooperation  measures  was  highlighted,  especially  the  way  in  which 

these  measures  could  increase  the  uptake  of  and  add  value  to  measures  such  as  investments  in  physical 

assets and agri-environment-climate schemes. However,  despite these  good examples, it is considered that 

the opportunities for synergies could have been better exploited by the Member States.  

Concerning  the  level  of  coherence  between  the  Pillars,  very  few  actual  examples  of  where  Member  States 

have actively planned the implementation of Pillar  1 and Pillar 2 measures  together have been identified.  In 

the  majority  of  cases  efforts  have  been  made  to  ensure  that  the  measures  do  not  overlap,  rather  than  to 

proactively find ways of making them work together synergistically. 

Evidence of incoherence between objectives has also emerged, for example areas where decisions made in 

relation  to  one  objective  (e.g.  farm  incomes)  have  not  taken  into  account  the  implications  that  these  might 

have on another (e.g. environment/climate). The two examples identified in this study relate to the use of VCS 

to support livestock and crop production (with the exception of protein crops), and on the eligibility criteria of 

permanent  grassland  for  Direct  Payments  (i.e.  where  Member  States  could  have  decided  to  exclude 

environmentally valuable permanent grassland). What is evident in the examples identified is that not thinking 

in  an  integrated  way  about  the  overall  effects  of  the  different  CAP  implementation  choices  can  lead  to 

inefficiency:  in  the  cases  raised  above  relating  to  the  environment  and  climate,  the  choices  made  have  the 

potential to lead to RDP funds being used to counteract the effects of the decisions made under Pillar 1.  

Effectiveness: the lack of appropriate tailoring and targeting of Pillar 1 instruments and 
Pillar 2 measures raises concern about the impact of Member States’ choices  
Under  the  new  CAP,  the  targeting  of  Direct  Payments  has  been  strengthened,  with  the  Member  States’ 

implementation  choices  having  contributed  to  this:  although  compared  to  the  previous  CAP  the  total  budget 

available has declined by about 1,8% for the entire programming period, a large proportion of the total budget 

is spent on Direct Payments.  

Despite  the  changes  (reduced  budget,  redistribution),  the  CAP  is  expected  to  continue  to  have  a  positive 

impact on farm income. However, whether the distribution of income support will be sufficient to contribute to a 

fair income is left unclear. Regarding price stabilisation, the Member States’ choices are not expected to have 

a significant impact as this objective is mainly addressed via the CMO measure of the CAP. 

There  are  concerns  that  the  funding  available  and  the  way  it  is  used  is  insufficient  to  address  the 

environmental  and  climate  needs  and  priorities  identified.  In  Pillar  1,  the  opportunities  provided  by  the 

introduction  of  greening  measures  to  establish  a  basic  level  of  environmental  management  across  EU 

farmland have not been fully  used for a variety of reasons. The environmental and climate targets identified 

within the RDPs are low considering the scale of the challenges faced.  However, there is evidence of much 

improved tailoring and targeting of measures to address environment and climate objectives in RDPs. Overall, 

this  study  indicates  that  there  is  still  considerable  room  for  improvement  in  designing  approaches  that  use 

multiple measures and instruments  across both Pillars  in ways that are  synergistic to achieve the outcomes 

required to address the CAP general objective ‘sustainable use of natural resources and climate action’. 

Regarding the general objective of territorial development, the budgets dedicated to promote social inclusion, 

poverty  reduction  and  economic  development  in  rural  areas  (Priority  6  of  Pillar  2)  represents  around  15 

percent  of  the  total  Pillar  2  budget.  Most  of  the  resources  are  allocated  to  M6  -  Farm  and  business 

development,  M07  -  Basic  services  and  village  renewal  and  Measure  19  –Support  for  LEADER  local 

development (CLLD). Measure 1 – Knowledge Transfer and Innovation Actions and Measure 4 – Investments 

in  physical  assets  are  expected  to  complement  and  strengthen  several  other  measures.  Overall,  there  are 

concerns  about  the  potential  of  these  instruments  to  address  the  identified  challenges  of  reversing 

depopulation, maintaining or increasing employment, and reviving rural areas. 

     7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The new flexibilities under Pillar 1, the changes of the structure of Pillar 2, as well as the 
need for coordination between Pillars, increases administrative complexity 
The role and responsibilities of Member States’ authorities have significantly increased with the new CAP due 

to  the  new  flexibilities  under  Pillar  1  and  the  increased  need  for  coordination  between  the  two  Pillars. 

Opportunities  have  been  created  to  reduce  administrative  burden  for  specific  target  groups  (e.g.  small 

farmers), however increased control requirements have been found to be a complex task for local authorities. 

There is also a risk that administrative burden is passed on to beneficiaries, particularly in terms of the greater 

amount of evidences they have to provide (e.g. for landscape features, land management schemes, evidence 

for investments measures). A range of issues posing challenges to all involved stakeholders remain, such as 

the  very  specific  (and  often  considered  too  rigid)  requirements  with  respect  to  controls  and  “on  the  spot” 

checks  to  be  made  by  authorities.  For  the  EU  Commission  Services  a  range  of  possible  challenges  may 

emerge due to an expected high error rate for Pillar 1, but also increased error rates in some cases for Pillar 2. 

Overall,  there  is  an  increased  need  for  the  sharing  of  best  practices  and  know-how  between  Member  State 

authorities. 

Lessons learned and recommendations regarding the monitoring and the evaluation of the 
CAP 
The evaluation of the CAP has become more complex than in the past  because of  significant differences in 

Member States’ choices. The evaluation of the CAP should now take into account the policy mix implemented 

by  the  Member  States.  This  increased  subsidiarity  makes  evaluation  more  complex  as  it  renders  a  detailed 

analysis of the strategy and choices of the Member States a necessary precondition for any evaluation study.  

 

In the short term, it is recommended to establish a public database with details on the decisions from the 

28 Member States under Pillar 1 and Pillar 2. As Member States have the possibility to make changes in 

their implementing decisions, a constant monitoring system should be put into place so that evaluators can 

access the information necessary to carry out impact assessments.  

  For the CAP post 2020, an ex ante impact assessment of the final outcome of any future CAP legislation 

is recommended. It is indeed unfortunate that for the current system only the initial Commission proposal 

was subject to an impact assessment. The initial CAP proposal from the European Commission published 

on  the  12  October  2011  was  accompanied  by  an  impact  assessment  of  the  policy  options  (SEC(2011) 

1153 final/2) and there was no impact assessment of the final CAP legislation adopted in December 2013.  

The  second  challenge  concerns  the  evaluation  of  the  combined  effect  of  the  CAP  measures  (i.e.  of  Pillar  1 

and Pillar 2 instruments and measures). This new requirement constitutes a real challenge for the evaluation 

community  because  of  the  important  differences  between  the  approaches  of  the  two  Pillars.  To  ensure  an 

integrated  evaluation  of  Pillar  1  and  Pillar  2,  the  key  is  to  have  a  better  understanding  of  the  interactions 

between them.  

 

In the short term, it is recommended to encourage capacity building with the view to improve knowledge 

and  understanding  about  how  the  two  Pillars  could  function  together:  initiatives  should  be  taken  to 

enhance awareness and to improve knowledge on the functioning of the two Pillars and the potential for 

measures  from  both  Pillars  to  be  used  in  complementary  ways.  This  could  be  achieved  by  building  on 

existing  initiatives  such  as  the  expert  group  for  monitoring  and  evaluating  the  CAP  established  by  DG 

AGRI or the European Network for Rural Development (ENRD).  

  For the CAP after 2020, it is proposed to establish a more constraining framework on the Member States. 

This  framework  could,  for  example,  include:  (i)  the  obligation  for  Member  States  to  design  a  national 

“Intervention Logic” integrating the combined effect of all policy measures, (ii) the obligation to set target 

indicators  for  all  the  components  of  the  CAP,  including  for  Pillar  1,  and  (iii)  requiring  Member  States  to 

conduct  an  impact  assessment  on  both  Pillar  1  and  Pillar  2  elements  of  the  CAP.  This  should  allow  for 

better and more efficient programming without adding complexity.  

Finally,  the  study  identified  a  number  of  areas  that  require  attention  for  future  evaluations:  The  third 

recommendation  is  a  list  of  priority  themes  that  could  contribute  to  meet  the  requirements  of  Article  110  of 

Regulation (EU) No. 1306 / 2013 and provide a timely input to the debate on the CAP after 2020. Seven topics 

are  proposed:  (1)  Sharing  of  best  practices  on  the  coordination  between  the  two  Pillars;  (2)  Cross-thematic 

     8 

 
 
 
 
 
evaluation of the impacts of the CAP on the standard of living of agricultural households; (3) Study on the use 

of  measures  supporting  knowledge  transfer  and  cooperation;  (4)  Synthesis  of  the  overall  coherence  of  the 

CAP with other legislation (EU, national, regional, local) in rural areas; (5) Study on the impact of the CAP on 

EU climate targets; (6) Study on administrative burden in the context of smart simplification; (7) Research on 

tensions and complementarity between the three CAP objectives. These topics are described in detail in the 

final report under section 9.3.1. 

Lessons learned and considerations for the future of the CAP 
The  study  confirms  that  the  CAP  has  become  more  complex.  This  finding  is  not  a  surprise:  the 

negotiations  between  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  resulted  in  the  introduction  of  greater 

subsidiarity. A number of provisions proposed by the European Commission have been amended during the 

negotiation process with the intention of providing more flexibility to Member States. This is particularly true for 

Pillar  1,  as  evidenced  by  the  introduction  of  measures  not  initially  proposed  (e.g.  redistributive  payment, 

flexibility from Pillar 2 to Pillar 1), the introduction of voluntary measures initially planned as compulsory (e.g. 

reduction  of  payments  and  degressivity,  support  to  small  farmers),  and  the  greater  liberty  given  to  Member 

States for the implementation of particular measures (e.g. more  options  for greening  and in particular EFA). 

The mapping of the implementation choices confirms that the new flexibilities under Pillar 1 resulted in a more 

diversified implementation of the CAP, with measures being used in many different ways and in wide array of 

combinations in the Member States and regions. 

The study reveals that the Member States’ strategy to address the 3 CAP objectives is not sufficiently 

documented. In general, Member States did not document a joined up, coherent strategy on which to base 

their  choices  about  the  implementation  of  the  CAP.  ‎The  study  was  unable  to  uncover  much  evidence  to 

support  that  the  Member  States  developed  an  overarching  and  integrated  strategy  to  inform  their 

implementation  choices  in  both  Pillars.  The  implementation  choices  are  more  influenced  by  the  ambition  to 

“maintain  the  status  quo”  for  the  agricultural  sector  than  by  a  long-term  strategy  that  take  into  account  the 

general  CAP  objectives  (viable  food  production,  sustainable  management  of  natural  resources  and  climate 

action, and balanced territorial development).  

The study also raises concerns about the potential impact of the CAP. There are reservations regarding 

effectiveness  due  to  concerns  related  to  the  way  implementation  modalities  have  been  designed  and  in 

particular  the  degree  to  which  funds  have  been  targeted  to  certain  needs  or  priorities,  which  may  be 

insufficient  to  have  a  significant  impact.  Despite  the  fact  that  the  CAP  provides  a  range  of  instruments  and 

measures for Member States to adapt to specific needs, priorities and contexts, there are some concerns that 

Member  States  have  not  sufficiently  focused  their  available  funding.  Consequently,  this  might  constrain  the 

effectiveness, and thus the potential impact, of the CAP and its contribution to reaching the targets set by the 

EU2020  Strategy.  For  specific  instruments,  such  as  greening,  questions  have  been  raised  about  the 

implementation  modalities  and  their  impact  on  the  environment,  particularly  biodiversity.  These  findings  are 

based  on  the  choices  Member  States  have  made  and  should  be  confirmed  by  future  studies  examining  the 

uptake by farmers. 

In  the  short  term,  simplification  should  be  sought  in  order  to  limit  the  growing  concern  of  an  increase  in 

administrative  burden  related  to  the  complexity  of  the  CAP.  The  exchange  of  good  practices  between 

countries  should  be  encouraged  to  promote  simplification  as  well  as  the  implementation  of  a  smart  and 

proportionate administration. It is also recommended to improve the  implementation modalities  of the Green 

Payment to encourage a more tailored approach to their use. How these measures interact with Pillar 2 also 

requires further attention. 

For the CAP post 2020, Member States and the European Commission should agree on the principle and the 

implementation  of  a  new  framework  which  would  include  the  establishment  of  a  national  long  term  strategy 

that takes into account the general CAP objectives supporting viable food production, ensuring the sustainable 

management of natural resources and climate action, and promoting balanced territorial development. 

     9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
K
F
-
0
4
-
1
6
-
0
2
2
-
E
N
-
N