REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework and first results on the performance of the Common Agricultural Policy
Date: 2018-12-05
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: agricultural performance, agricultural situation, climate change policy, common agricultural policy, farming sector, food production, management of resources, natural resources, rural development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 5.12.2018 COM(2018) 790 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework and first results on the performance of the Common Agricultural Policy  
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

on the implementation of the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework and first 
results on the performance of the Common Agricultural Policy 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  2013  reform  of  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy  (CAP)  established  a  Common 
Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF) with the aim of measuring the performance 
of the CAP implementation for 2014-2020, demonstrating its achievements and improving its 
efficiency.1 For the first time, this framework covered both the first pillar  (direct payments2 
and  market  measures3)  and  the  second  pillar  (rural  development4),  as  well  as  horizontal 
measures5 (e.g. cross compliance) of the CAP. 

The  CAP  2014-2020  established  that  the  Commission  shall  present  an  initial  report  'on  the 
implementation of the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework and first results of the 
performance  of  the  CAP  by  31  December  2018',  with  the  final  assessment  of  the 
implementation  of  the  CAP  for  2014-2020  expected  in  2021.  The  present  report  anticipates 
the publication date to feed the debate on the CAP legal proposals adopted on 1 June 2018, 
and is published together with the dissemination of the whole set of relevant indicators6. 

This  initial  report  describes  the  design  and  the  implementation  of  the  framework,  provides 
first  results  on  the  performance  of  the  CAP  on  the  basis  of  evidence  collected  through  the 
CMEF and other studies (e.g. evaluations) and links the lessons learnt with the performance 
and monitoring and evaluation framework included in the the CAP post-2020 proposals. 

2. 

DESIGN  AND  IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE  COMMON  MONITORING 
AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK 

2.1.  Legal framework 

The  monitoring  and  evaluation  framework  for  the  CAP  2014-2020  established  in  the 
Horizontal  Regulation5  that  the  performance  of  the  CAP  shall  be  assessed  in  relation  to  the 
three general objectives of the CAP: 

a.  viable food production, with a focus on agricultural income, agricultural productivity 

and price stability 

b.  sustainable  management  of  natural  resources  and  climate  action,  with  a  focus  on 

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, biodiversity, soil and water 

c.  balanced  territorial  development,  with  a  focus  on  rural  employment,  growth  and 

poverty in rural areas. 

In addition, for the second pillar, the Common Provision Regulation7 lays down the common 
monitoring and evaluation elements for the European Structural and Investment Funds, while 

1   Article 110 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013. 
2   Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013. 
3   Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013. 
4   Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013. 
5   Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013. 
6  
7   Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013. 

Forthcoming website. 

2 

 
 
 
                                                           
the  Rural  Development  Regulation4  addresses  the  specificities  for  the  rural  development 
programmes. 

The CMEF provides key information on the CAP implementation (monitoring), as well as on 
its  results  and  impacts  (evaluation)8.  It  quantifies  the  actions  in  Member  States  (output), 
describes  achievements  and  verifies  how  well  objectives  were  reached9.  The  Commission, 
together with Member States in the framework of an Expert group, designed the CMEF and 
developed  a  list  of  indicators  which,  selected  on  the  basis  of  an  intervention  logic  from 
general to specific objectives and interventions, were laid down in several implementing acts. 

2.2. 

Indicators 

Five  types  of  indicators  were  defined  to  support  the  assessment  of  the  performance  of  the 
CAP:10 

  45 context indicators describing the general operational environment of the policy 
  84 output indicators measuring activities directly related to policy interventions  
  41  result  indicators:  16  result  indicators  for  the  first  pillar  measuring  the  direct  and 
immediate effects of interventions and 25 result indicators for the second pillar (of which 
19 correspond to target indicators) 

  24  target  indicators  (of  which  19  correspond  to  result  indicators)  used  to  set  quantified 

objectives at the beginning of the programming period 

  16  impact  indicators  measuring  the  impact  of  policy  interventions  at  longer  term  and 
beyond immediate effects (of which 13 are also included in the context indicator set) 

For each of the indicators, information sheets were prepared with the definition as well as the 
data  sources,  the  level  of  geographical  detail,  the  reporting  frequency  and  timing.11  In 
addition, sub-indicators were included when a split was considered necessary e.g. per sector 
or category. In total, the current framework has more than 900 sub-indicators. 

2.3.  Data sources 

The  indicators  are  defined,  to  the  extent  possible,  so  that  the  collection  of  data  is  based  on 
existing  channels12  in  order  to  avoid  creating  additional  administrative  burden  for 
beneficiaries and Member States. The wide range of data sources used for the overall CMEF 
includes  notifications  from  Member  States,  European  statistics  provided  by  Eurostat13,  data 
collected by the European Environmental Agency. 

For the first pillar, output indicators are available via the Information System for Agricultural 
Market  Management  and  Monitoring  (ISAMM),  the  Clearance  Audit  Trail  System  (CATS) 
and Information System for Agriculture Refund Expenditure (AGREX). Data are available for 
2015, 2016 and partly for 2017. 

For  the  second  pillar,  monitoring  data  are  collected  via  the  Annual  Implementation  Reports 
submitted by Member States each year in June with regard to the previous year. These reports 
include  output,  result  and  target  indicator  values.  In  addition,  Member  States  had  to  submit 
enhanced  Annual  Implementation  Reports  in  2017  (and  2019)  including  additional 
information  based  on  evaluation  activities.  Additionally,  information  on  expenditure  is 
gathered  quarterly  via  the  Declaration  of  Expenditure  for  European  Agricultural  Fund  for 

8  

Further information available in 'Technical handbook on the monitoring and evaluation framework of the CAP 2014-2020' (2015). 
Further information available in 'The monitoring and evaluation framework for the CAP 2014-2020' (2015). 

9  
10   Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 834/2014. 
11   Information sheets are available here. 
12   Most sustainable development indicators are also part of the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. 
13   Agricultural statistics, agri-environmental statistics, land cover and land use statistics (including the LUCAS survey), regional statistics, 

social statistics, trade statistics etc. 

3 

 
 
                                                           
Rural Development. For rural development, indicator data for 2015 and up to the end of 2016 
is available.14 

The use of existing data sources and the level of detail required for certain indicators have an 
impact  on  the  timing  and  frequency  of  data  availability.  For  example,  data  based  on  the 
Eurostat's  Farm  Structure  Survey  data  are  collected  every  three  years  and  are  available  1,5 
year  after  the  reference  year.    Similarly,  some  environmental  indicators  are  based  on 
periodical surveys - the ones related to soil quality are collected on a 5-year interval, with the 
latest information referring to 2012. 

3. 

INITIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CAP 

The  performance  of  the  CAP  in  achieving  its  common  objectives  shall  be  measured  and 
assessed on the basis of common impact indicators, and the underlying specific objectives on 
the basis of result indicators. 

This initial report describes therefore the CAP achievements on the basis of the data available 
so  far  within  the  CMEF.15  Evaluation  information  is  taken  into  account  when  available. 
Further analysis is available in the Impact Assessment for the proposals of the reform of the 
CAP  post  202016  and  in  the  various  sources  of  background  information  collected  for  those 
purposes.17 

A note of caution is pertinent here. To assess this performance, it is  necessary to isolate the 
policy effect from other influencing factors (contextual facts, other related policies etc.). The 
so-called  'net  impacts'  need  to  be  measured.  This  is  normally  done  through  evaluations.  At 
this stage, limited information is available to carry out these evaluations due to the fact that 
the  latest  CAP  reform  has  been  implemented  only  in  2015.  There  are  also  delays  in  the 
availability of the impact (and context) indicators. For several indicators, the most recent data 
relate  to  2012  or  2013,  thus  before  the  implementation  of  the  2013  reform  of  the  CAP. 
Finally, some impact indicators require a longer period to show effects, leading to difficulties 
in netting-out the impact of the CAP. 

3.1.  Viable food production 

3.1.1.  Market orientation and price stability 

The  CAP  has  undergone  several  reforms  towards  greater  market  orientation  shifting  from 
product  support  (through  prices)  to  producer  support  (through  income  support,  mainly  with 
decoupled payments). This  shift  reduced the price  gap beween EU  and  world  market  prices 
over time increasing the competitiveness and trade performance of the EU: the ratio between 
EU  and  world  market  prices  of  main  agricultural  commodities  (weighted  average)  declined 
from 140 % in 2007 to 113 % in 2017. 

EU agri-food exports almost doubled over the last 10 years to EUR 138 billion in 2017 and 
contributed  to  the  further  improvement  of  the  trade  balance  to  EUR  20.5  billion  (+EUR  28 
billion  compared  to  2007).  EU  exports  make  up  for  around  17 %  of  total  world  agri-food 
exports, with this share quite stable over time. 

At the same time, the EU market is more open: EU imports of agri-food products increased to 
EUR 117 billion in 2017 (+51 % compared to 2007), with EU imports from least developed 
countries  increasing  by  more  than  75 %  since  2007,  reaching  a  value  of  EUR  3.5  billion  in 

14   On June 30th 2018, Member States should notify 2017 data. When this report was drafted, these data were not yet available. 
15   The Commission has carried out several quality checks. However, errors could not always be corrected. Moreover, rural development 
result indicators were recalculated by the Commission on the basis of output and context indicators for 2013 in order to ensure that the 
data are calculated in a harmonised way. 

16   COM(2018) 392, COM(2018) 393, COM(2018) 394. 
17   Facts and figures  

4 

 
 
                                                           
2017. All the other top world traders US, China, Japan, Russia, and Canada together imported 
only EUR 3 billion from least developed countries. 

Although EU farmers are now more exposed to world price volatility, price volatility remains 
lower than for main competitors; e.g. for soft wheat, it was 6.8 % in 2015-2017, whereas on 
the world market it was 10 %. 

With EU prices closer to world market prices, EU export refunds are not used anymore and 
intervention  schemes  are  implemented  less  frequently  than  20  years  ago.  The  CAP  now 
operates  a  market  safety-net,  supporting  prices  in  sectors  that  are  faced  with  excessive  and 
exceptional  price  declines.  Prices  in  most  sectors  stayed  well  above  intervention  price  in 
recent years except for skimmed milk powder, where prices dropped below intervention price 
levels  in  2015 and 2016, leading to  public intervention buying-in  representing 2% and 23% 
respectively of total EU production. 

The experience of the last few years shows that in case of need market measures are available 
and can be implemented to halt price drops. Exceptional measures like private storage aid and 
market  withdrowals  were  introduced  in  response  to  the  import  ban  imposed  by  Russia  in 
2014. 

3.1.2.  Agricultural income  

One of the key objectives of the CAP is to contribute to farm income and limit its variability. 
The main instrument to support farm income is direct payments, most of which are decoupled 
from actual production. 

Average direct payments per beneficiary amounted to almost EUR 6 200 in 2016 making up a 
share of 44 % in agricultural entrepreneurial income in the EU-28 with different distribution 
between  farm  types  and  farm  size18,  In  some  sectors  (beef,  sheep,  olives)  and  zones  (areas 
facing natural constraints), direct payments make up an even higher share of income, helping 
to maintain farms in business on the whole EU territory and thus contributing to rural vitality. 
However, agriculural income in these sectors and zones remains below EU average. In sectors 
where price volatility is high, direct payments help farmers to better cope with price drops. A 
recent World Bank report concludes that the CAP contributes effectively to farm income, and 
helps  reducing  the  gap  between  agricultural  income  and  wages  received  in  other  economic 
sectors19. 

The  2013  CAP  reform  also  offered  several  risk  management  tools:  insurance  premiums, 
mutual  funds  and  a  newly  introduced  income  stabilisation  tool.  In  view  of  their  limited 
uptake20  (in  2016  only  0.5 %  of  agricultural  holdings  participated  in  EU  risk  management 
schemes) some changes were proposed in the so-called Omnibus Regulation21. A recent study 
on risk management in EU agriculture finds that European farmers are increasingly exposed 
to risks while the availability of risk management instruments lags behind. Insurance remains 
the  most  commonly  used  instrument;  availability  and  uptake  of  mutual  funds  is  more 
limited22. 

18   Statistical factsheets: https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/statistics/factsheets_en. 
19   World Bank, Thinking CAP: Supporting Agricultural Jobs and Incomes in the EU (2017). 
20   The low uptake can be explained by the fact that the funds could only be used in case of income losses larger than 30 %. In addition, it 
was not allowed to target specific sectors and no public support for the initial capital stock is allowed. For more explanations  see the 
Market Brief on risk management. 

21   Regulation (EU) 2017/2393. 
22   https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/external-studies/2017-risk-management-eu-agriculture_en. 

5 

 
 
                                                           
3.1.3.  Agricultural productivity 

Agricultural  productivity,  expressed  as  total  factor  productivity,  is  increasing  steadily  but 
slowly  (+0.7%  per  year  over  the  last  five  years),  with  growth  in  labour  productivity 
contributing most to productivity gains.  

CAP  decoupled  payments  and  rural  development  support  are  positively  associated  with 
increases in agricultural productivity per worker (contrary to coupled support). CAP payments 
increase farmers' credit access and reduce risk exposure, which allows them to invest more23. 

An important factor determining productivity growth in the long run is innovation. To speed 
up  the  uptake  of  innovation,  the  European  Innovation  Partnership  for  Agricultural 
Productivity and Sustainability was launched by the Commission in 2012 (see paragraph 3.4). 

3.2. 

Sustainable management of natural resources and climate action  

The CAP contributes to the sustainable management of natural resources and climate action in 
many  ways  through  the  combined  effects  of  different  CAP  measures,  including  cross 
compliance (on 90 % of utilised agricultural area - UAA), direct payments (greening on 77 % 
of  UAA24)  and  rural  development  measures  targeted  towards  specific  environmental 
objectives,  accompanied  by  support  for  farm  advice  and  for  the  innovative  activities  of  the 
European Innovation Partnership and its Operational Groups. 

Agricultural production has an impact on the environment but there are also other factors at 
play. Since recent data on environmental indicators is scarce and environmental impacts are 
often  long-term  processes,  it  remains  difficult  to  establish  a  direct  link  between  the  CAP 
intervention and its actual result on the environment. Agricultural GHG emissions declined by 
more than 20 % since 1990 to 12 % of total EU GHG emissions in 2016, thanks to reduced 
nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soil management (mainly due to a decline in use of 
nitrogenous fertilisers) and reduced enteric fermentation emissions due to an overall reduction 
in livestock numbers. However, the rate of decline has levelled out in the past 10 years and 
emissions  now  fluctuate  around  490  million  t  of  CO2  equivalent.  Contrary  to  the  common 
belief, emissions from grassland and cropland are still positive, albeit on a declining trend (-
15% between 2006 and 2016). Main reasons are conversion of land to cropland and grassland 
management  practices,  but  large  differences  between  Member  states  are  noted.  In  addition, 
ammonia  emissions  from  agriculture  increased  during  the  last  two  years  (+10%).  These 
environmental  indicators  show  that  environmental  problems  are  still  present  and  that  more 
shall be done through the future CAP. 

The  three  greening  requirements  under  direct  payments  aim  at  making  the  CAP  more 
effective  in  delivering  its  environmental  and  climate  objectives  and  to  ensure  the  long  term 
sustainability of EU agriculture: 

1)  Ecological  Focus  Areas  primarily  aiming  at  safeguarding  and  improving  biodiversity  at 
farms; 

2) Maintenance of permanent grassland aiming at supporting carbon sequestration, supporting 
biodiversity and protecting against soil erosion and soil quality; 

3) Crop diversification aiming at improving soil quality primarily. 

However,  greening  was  criticized  for  the  additional  burden  it  entails  for  farmers  and 
administrations compared to its environmental outcome. A recent evaluation on the payment 

23   https://www.ceps.eu/publications/cap-subsidies-and-productivity-eu-farms 
24   2016 data. Data for 2017 are not yet available for all Member States. 

6 

 
 
                                                           
of  agricultural  practices  beneficial  for  climate  and  environment25  confirms  that  the  current 
implementation  of  greening  by  Member  States  and  farmers  could  be  improved  to  deliver 
better on its objectives. 

Regarding  rural  development  measures,  contracts  supporting  biodiversity  and/or  landscapes 
cover  13 %  of  UAA,  contracts  to  improve  water  management  9 %  of  UAA,  contracts  to 
prevent soil erosion and to improve soil management 9 % of UAA and contracts targeting a 
reduction  in  GHG  and/or  ammonia  emissions  1 %  of  UAA26.  In  addition,  7%  of  UAA  is  
organic farming area27. The quantification of impacts by Member States has been limited, as 
according  to  them,  for  the  evaluations  carried  out  in  2016  it  was  'too  early  to  observe  rural 
development programmes’ effects on values of environmental impact indicators'28. 

The CAP reform established that Member States should reserve at least 30 % of Pillar II for 
measures  on  climate  mitigation,  as  well  as  measures  to  address  environmental  issues29.  In 
2016,  Member  States  went  far  beyond  this  obligation  in  terms  of  expenditure  incurred, 
reaching 67 % on average in  the EU, with  Areas facing natural  or other specific constraints 
(30 %) and Agri-Environment and Climate Measures (18 %) contributing most to this target. 

In  addition  to  this  CAP  specific  commitment  at  Member  States  level,  the  Council  and 
European Parliament agreed that at least 20 % of the EU budget for 2014 to 2020 should be 
spent on climate related action with contributions from different policies30. The CAP plays a 
key role in the efforts to reach the target. Based on the climate tracking methodology defined 
for  the  current  programming  period31  in  line  with  the  OECD's  'Rio  markers',  the  CAP 
contribution to climate change is estimated at 26% i.e. EUR 102.8 billion. 

3.3.  Balanced territorial development  

Agriculture represents 13.5% of total employment in rural areas in 2016 (compared to 12.4% 
in  2012).  The  agricultural  sector  employed  8.7  million  full  time  equivalent  farmers  (2013). 
The  long-term  trend  for  labour  outflow  from  farming  is  driven  by  demographics,  structural 
changes,  mechanisation  and  opportunities  outside  the  agricultural  sector.  In  recent  years, 
agricultural labour outflow slowed down. 

The CAP contributes to balanced territorial development through several support schemes for 
the  farm  sector  (which  is  often  the  backbone  of  the  rural  economy)  and  through  direct 
assistance to non-farm entities in rural areas. These schemes include: 

  support to around 7 million beneficiaries, covering about 65 % of the total number of 
farms32.  There  were  close  to  6.8  million  beneficiaries  under  direct  support  schemes 
and more than 3 million under rural development measures in claim year 201533. 
  specific support to farmers in mountain areas and other areas with specific constraints 

(2.7 million beneficiaries, EUR 8 billion). 

25   Evaluation study of the payment for agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment ("greening" of direct payments)  
26.
  For  the  calculation  of  this  indicator,  only  the  schemes  whose  results  are  programmed  under  Focus  Area  5D  are  taken  into  account 

(regardless of where the relevant expenditure is programmed). This percentage is in line with the aggregate EU target (3%). 

27   The majority of organic farmers are supported via Rural Development. 
28   Summary report: synthesis of the evaluation components of the 2017 enhanced Annual Implementation Report. 
29   Article 59.6 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 establishes that Member States should reserve at least 30% of Pillar II on Articles 17, 21, 

28, 29, 30 (with the exception of the Water Framework Directive related payments), 31, 32 and 34 of the same regulation.  

30   COM(2011) 500 final of 29 June 2011, 'a Budget for Europe 2020', Part II, p. 13. 
31   Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 215/2014. 
32   The number of beneficiaries relate to Financial Year 2016 which corresponds to Claim Year 2015. The number of holdings relates to 

2013 as this is the latest available data. 

33   A majority of beneficiaries of rural development payments are also beneficiaries of direct payments but are only counted once. 

7 

 
 
                                                           
  support to young farmers by a mandatory top up of the basic payment for the first five 
years  supporting  around  312 000  young  farmers  (EUR  352  million)  and  by  a  wide 
range of support measures for the young farmers under the rural development. 

  voluntary coupled support to 2.3 million34 beneficiaries (EUR 3.9 billion). 

Furthermore,  Member  States  have  the  option  to  redistribute  up  to  30 %  of  their  direct 
payments  envelope  to  the  first  hectares  on  every  farm  ('redistributive  payment'),  9  Member 
States  have implemented this scheme in  2016 supporting 1.8 million  farmers with  EUR 1.6 
billion. 

The  CAP  also  contributes  directly  to  support  the  development  of  basic  services  and 
communication technologies in rural areas, in particular measures that take several years to be 
completed  such  as  long-term  investments  (broadband,  other  infrastructures).  In  2016,  90 
million people profited of these investments. In addition, 171 million rural citizens are already 
covered by a local development strategy under LEADER, which has proved to be extremely 
successful approach for promoting local development and capacity building in rural areas. 

CAP  support  (such  as  investments  in  communication  technologies  and  infrastructure)  has  a 
multiplier  effect  on  other  sectors  in  rural  areas,  notably  for  the  food  industry  and  for  those 
providing services to agriculture. The employment rate in rural areas recovered strongly from 
the 62.5% in 2011 (as a result of the economic crisis) to 66% in 2016, almost similar to the 
rate in the rest of the economy. The gap between agricultural incomes and incomes in other 
economic  sectors  is  still  substantial  but  is  reducing  (the  share  of  the  average  agricultural 
income  compared  to  the  wage  of  the  whole  economy  increased  from  32 %  over  the  period 
2005-2010 to 47% in 2017). As a result, the poverty rate in rural areas declined (from 29 % in 
2011  to  26 %  in  2016  in  the  EU-28),  approaching  the  poverty  rate  in  the  whole  economy 
(25 %).  The  CAP  has  therefore  an  important  role  in  poverty  reduction  in  rural  areas  and 
contributes to the creation of better jobs for farmers across the EU17. 

3.4.  Knowledge transfer and innovation 

Fostering  knowledge  transfer  and  innovation  is  a  cross  cutting  priority  of  the  CAP,  with  a 
total  budget  of  EUR  5.7  billion  allocated  to  it.  The  2014-2020  Rural  Development 
Programmes  include  a  flexible  package  of  measures  supporting  advice,  training,  innovation 
and cooperation and the development of knowledge in rural areas. More than 492 000 farmers 
(4.5% of total farmers) have received funding for training and more than 63 500 farmers for 
advice35. 

An  ex-ante  evaluation  study  carried  out  in  2016  was  positive  on  the  EIP  initiative.  All 
Member  States  (except  Luxembourg)  have  decided  to  implement  EIP  in  the  current  period 
(see  also  chapter  3.2).  By  the  end  of  2016,  more  than  245  cooperation  operations  were 
supported. 36 

4. 

LESSONS LEARNT 

4.1.  The Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework 

Despite its rather short implementation, the contribution of the CMEF to the assessment of the 
CAP 2014-2020 already provides lessons that are useful for its future evolution. 

Experience has shown that there are currently too many indicators and sub-indicators. Firstly, 
they  do  not  allow  to  obtain  an  immediate  impression  of  the  achievements  of  the  CAP. 

34   One beneficiary may receive coupled support under more than one measure. Therefore this number may contain double counting.  
35   Member States notifications were not fully harmonised (e.g. number of trainings given versus number of leaflets). 
36   Evaluation study of the implementation of the European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability. 

8 

 
 
                                                           
Secondly,  not  all  indicators  are  suitable  for  their  purpose,  e.g.  some  indicators  are  not 
available on a yearly basis and/or with delay and can thus not be used for early monitoring. 
Some  other  indicators  have  only  a  weak  link  with  the  CAP.  At  the  same  time,  certain 
indicators  are  missing.  E.g.  an  ongoing  evaluation  on  climate  change  concludes  that  the 
limited breakdown of some output indicators impedes having sufficient information on CAP 
implementation with regard to climate change. 

For  Pillar  II,  experience  from  previous  programming  periods  shows  that  there  is  a  learning 
curve for Member States in the first years to correctly report the data. This is also valid for the 
programming period 2014-2020. In order to address this issue, a validation process has been 
developed  in  2018  based  on  the  experience  gained  to  warn  Member  States  about  possible 
errors before submission of data in the Annual Implementation Report. It has to be noted that 
the current  CAP  does  not  include a legal obligation for Member States to  correct  data  after 
notification. 

Where experience with the data (availability) has shown the necessity of adjustment of one of 
the  elements  related  to  the  indicator  (e.g.  definition,  coverage,  reporting  frequency),  the 
related detailed description of the indicators and, where appropriate, the relevant regulation, 
were adapted. The latter has been the case e.g. for the reporting requirements with regard to 
investments  and support for  young farmers.  As  Member States only had to  report when the 
action  was  completed,  partial  achievements  were  not  reported.  This  meant  a  strong 
underestimation  of  the  values  compared  to  the  actual  performance,  particularly  for  such 
measures that may last several years. A change in the implementing rules now allows Member 
States  to  report  achieved  indicator  values  for  partially  implemented  operations  as  from  the 
2017 reporting year. 

Issues  were  also  reported  for  several  impact  indicators.  E.g.  the  indicator  on  High  Nature 
Value does not have comparable data for all Member States. The data used for calculating the 
Farmland Bird Index is not complete and the Commission is looking at ways to improve this 
data collection. The possibility to measure via surveys the contribution of Rural Development 
measures to water and energy savings in agriculture has not yet been taken up due to, amongst 
others, the limited implementation period. 

4.2.  Performance Monitoring and Evaluation in the future CAP  

The  proposals  for  reform  of  the  CAP  after  2020  shift  emphasis  from  compliance  and  rules 
towards results and performance, with more Member States flexibility to decide how best to 
meet common objectives. The new Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Framework sets 
out  a  single  set  of  objectives  at  EU  level  for  both  pillars  of  the  CAP.  The  overall  policy 
performance  will  be  assessed  multi-annually  on  the  basis  of  impact  indicators,  with  annual 
policy  performance  follow-up  relying  on  the  full  list  of  result  indicators  while  output 
indicators should annually link expenditure with the performance of policy implementation. 

The  relevance  of  the  experience  with  the  current  framework  is  that,  in  this  shift  towards 
performance,  fewer  but  better  targeted  indicators  are  essential.  Therefore,  in  the  CAP  legal 
proposals post-2020 it is proposed to reduce the number of indicators from to 146 to 101.37 
This,  more  targeted,  set  of  indicators  has  been  selected  in  a  way  to  reflect  as  closely  as 
possible whether the supported interventions contribute to achieving the objectives. 

The performance based policy also requires that the quality of the notifications submitted by 
Member  States  improves.  Therefore  in  the  next  CAP  the  certification  bodies  will  have  to 
ensure the reliability of the performance reporting on outputs and results. Moreover, selected 
indicators  are  generally  generated  by  administrative  processes  or  otherwise  available,  to 

37   Excluding context indicators, which remain. 

9 

 
 
                                                           
reduce  the  administrative  burden.  There  is  a  strong  need  to  improve  future  data  availability 
(both  by  further  data  sharing  between  existing  sources  and  by  new  technologies).  CATS 
(Clearance  Audit  Trail  System)  or  a  data  set  with  similar  features,  will,  however,  remain 
necessary as data source. 

10