Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on generational renewal, local development and jobs in rural areas : executive summary.
Date: 2019-11-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development
Subjects: aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy, generation renewal, job creation, quality of life, regional development, rural region, sample survey, young farmer

Evaluation of the impact of the 
CAP on generational renewal, 
local development and jobs in 
rural areas 

Executive Summary 

Written by CCRI, OIR and ADE S.A. 
August 2019 

AGRICULTURE 
AND RURAL 
DEVELOPMENT 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development 
Directorate C – Strategy, Simplification and Policy Analysis 
Unit C.4 — Monitoring and Evaluation  

Contact: AGRI Evaluation 

E-mail:  AGRI-EVALUATION@ec.europa.eu  

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Evaluation of the impact of the 
CAP on generational renewal, 
local development and jobs in 
rural areas 

Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development  

 
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 

This  document  has  been  prepared  for  the  European  Commission  however  it  reflects  the  views  only  of  the 
authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any 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, 2019 

ISBN: 978-92-76-09262-9 
doi: 10.2762/335524 
KF-01-19-656-EN-N 

© European Union, 2019 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on generational renewal, local 
development and jobs in rural areas 

Authors:  Janet  Dwyer,  Nenia  Micha,  Katarina  Kubinakova,  CCRI ;  Patrick  van 
Bunnen, ADE ; Bernd Schuh, Ambre Maucorps, OIR ; Francesco Mantino, CREA. 

University of Gloucestershire 
Francis Close Hall Campus 
Swindon Road 
Cheltenham GL50 4AZ (UK) 

Austrian Institute for Regional Studies  
Franz-Josefs-Kai 27 
A-1010 Wien/Vienna (Austria) 

Rue de Clairvaux 40, Bte 101 
B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium) 
Tel: +32 10 45 45 10 
Fax: +32 10 45 40 99 
E-mail: ade@ade.be 
Web: www.ade.be 

Date: August 2019 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF THE CAP ON GENERATIONAL RENEWAL,  
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT AND JOBS IN RURAL AREAS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Aims and Approach 

The aim of this evaluation was to assess how different Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 
measures  and  instruments  affect  generational  renewal  (GR)  in  rural  areas,  with  a 
secondary focus on rural jobs.  

The evaluation focused on CAP instruments and measures having both direct and indirect 
impacts  on  generational  renewal in  rural  areas.  It  has  in  particular  assessed  the  impact 
of young farmer supplements to Direct Payments in Pillar 1; young farmer business start-
up aid in Pillar 2 (Measure 6.1), Pillar 2 investment measures when modulated in favour 
of  YF (e.g.  M4.1), supporting measures which are tailored to accompany them (e.g. M1 
training,  M2  advice,  M16  co-operation);  and  brief  comparison  of  the  2007-2013  early 
retirement  measure.  It  has  also  covered  CAP  measures  promoting  wider  rural  GR, 
wherever  this  goal  is  explicit  in  targeting  or  selection  /eligibility  criteria  (e.g.  under 
LEADER,  Measure  7  (basic  services  in  rural  areas),  or  Measures  6.2-6.3  (business  start 
up).  In  overview,  the  ‘CAP  measures  relevant  to  generational  renewal’  vary  between 
countries  and  regions  according  to  the  specific  choices  of  Programming  Authorities.  The 
evaluation covers the programming period from 2014-2020 (although earlier evidence is 
also cited, where relevant), and all EU-28 Member States (MS). 

The challenge to foster ‘balanced territorial development’ is enshrined in EU policy in the 
Lisbon Treaty and Europe 2020 Strategy. Within this, rural vitality – ‘a living countryside’ 
– has been an increasing concern of structural and agricultural policies since the 1970s. 
The EU has an ageing population and in the farm sector, this is more visible: older people 
account for 31% of the farming population and 55% of EU farmers are 55 or older. The 
Commission Communication 'The Future of Food and Farming', 29 November 2017 states 
strengthening  the  socio-economic  fabric  of  rural  areas  as  a  key  objective  of  the 
CAP post-2020, in two  main aspects: 1) growth and jobs; and 2) generational renewal; 
in rural areas.  

The  methodology  adopted  a  mixed-method,  triangulated  approach  with  five  main 
elements: 

  EU  level  informed  opinion  -  literature  review,  selected  key  stakeholder 
interviews and an online survey of MS administrations accessed via ENRD contact 
points; 

  EU  level  data  analysis  -  exploring  relations between  context,  input and  impact 
indicators  of  the  CMEF,  including:  maps  of  key  variables;  correlation  analyses; 
econometric  multicriteria  analysis  (MCA);  and  generating  two  rural  typologies  at 
NUTS  3  level  which  influenced  case  study  selection  and  supported  identification 
and estimation of certain impacts; 

  Case-based  detailed  analysis  of  causal  effects,  delivery  approaches  and  their 
impacts,  efficiency  and added  value in  case  studies  covering  seven  contrasting 
Member  States  (France,  Belgium-Flanders,  Italy,  Estonia,  Hungary,  Poland, 
Ireland); 

  Additional,  focused  quantitative  analyses:  counterfactual  analysis  of  FADN 
panel  data  in  France  and  Italy  to  assess  the  impact  of  YF  aids  upon  farm 
performance;  and  CGE-based  modelling  to  examine  the  implications  of  GR 
expenditure upon rural employment, based in Poland but considering its wider EU 
relevance; 

  Triangulation via comparative analysis of case study findings; EU level evidence 
and  modelling  results;  and  validation  in  seven  workshops  at  national level,  and 
three  workshops  at  EU  level  involving  stakeholders  and  policy  officials  -  two 
hosted by ENRD.    

Case  studies  analysed  material  at  national,  regional  and  local  (NUTS  3)  levels.  This 
included  secondary  sources  (previous  evaluations,  research),  interviews  with  policy 
officers,  experts,  stakeholders  and  beneficiaries,  and  primary  data  on  delivery  and 

I 

EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF THE CAP ON GENERATIONAL RENEWAL,  
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT AND JOBS IN RURAL AREAS 

beneficiary impacts, plus examples of good practice in policy design/delivery, innovation 
and coordination.     

The  study  provided  answers  to  17  Evaluation  Study  Questions  (ESQs)  specified  in  the 
Terms  of  Reference.  ESQs  were  grouped  under  the  following  themes:  Effectiveness  and 
Relevance; Efficiency; Coherence and EU Added Value, as well as overall performance.  

Effectiveness covered the impact of YF measures on GR (ESQ 3); also the impact of CAP 
GR  measures  upon  key  factors  including:  intergenerational  knowledge  transfer  and 
innovation  (ESQ  2),  social  capital,  infrastructure  and  governance  (ESQ  4);  rural  jobs, 
their  quality  and  durability  (ESQs  5,  13  and  15);  and  access  to  land,  capital  and 
knowledge (ESQs 12, 16). Efficiency questions addressed the efficiency of delivery of CAP 
GR measures and the nature of administrative burdens (ESQs 6, 8). Coherence included 
the internal coherence of CAP GR measures and the whole CAP (ESQ 9); coherence with 
other non-CAP EU policies (ESQ 10) and with non-EU policies and external factors (ESQs 
11,  14).  Overall  performance  included  the  effectiveness  of  the  whole  CAP  in  promoting 
GR  (ESQ  1),  the  efficiency  of  its  indirect  impacts  upon  Quality  of  Life,  and  EU  added 
value for GR (ESQ 7, 17).  

Study Findings 

Conclusions on overall effectiveness and relevance  

Overall impact of the whole CAP upon GR: The study found evidence that the CAP as 
a whole has a positive effect in fostering generational renewal, particularly in agriculture, 
which varies in extent from significant to only weakly effective between different MS and 
territories.  Differences  in  the  magnitude  of  impact  are  determined  by  a  combination  of 
the  underlying  socio-economic  and  cultural  context,  also  CAP  instrument  selection  and 
measure  design,  as  well  as  delivery  choices  and  provision.    The  best  evidence  of 
sustained  and  positive  impact  is  in  MS  and  regions  in  which  a  variety  of  measures  and 
instruments  is  used  in  complementary  ways,  including  funding  and  investment  aids  for 
business  start-ups,  advice  and  training,  incentives  for  collaborative  institutional,  legal 
and/or  fiscal  arrangements  easing  inter-generational  transfer,  also  broader  support  for 
rural services, infrastructure and quality of life. FADN counterfactual analysis in Italy and 
France demonstrated the additionality of CAP YF aid in enhancing farm performance and 
business resilience. 

In  respect  of  non-agricultural  GR  (encouraging  young  people  to  live  and  work  in  rural 
areas),  the  study  found  less  evidence  overall  concerning  CAP  impacts,  which  is  likely 
because  this  specific  goal  is  less  prioritised,  despite  significant  need  being  evident  in 
many situations, and because of the strong influence of non-CAP factors. However, where 
CAP  resources  are  focused  upon  non-farm  GR,  principally  through  LEADER  and  other 
Pillar  2  measures  including  M7  and  non-farm  elements  of  M6;  significant  and  positive 
impacts at local level were found. 

The  CAP  measures  most  relevant  for  GR  vary  between  countries  and  territories  within 
countries, reflecting the different barriers and opportunities for GR in each, as well as the 
choices of managing authorities. The case studies and econometric analysis suggest that 
CAP YF measures have some ability to promote rural vitality in marginal  rural territories 
suffering  economic  and  demographic  decline,  poor  infrastructure  and  services,  with  low 
economic  diversification  and  little  value-added  in  agriculture  and  forestry;  particularly 
when  they  are  delivered  with  good  supporting  advice.  However,  in  some  situations  the 
impact  of  CAP  YF  aid  is  constrained  by  these  other  limitations,  often  compounded  by 
wider  economic  and  cultural  disincentives  to  farm.  Where  this  is  the  case,  farmers, 
experts and policy makers in case studies, also previous research and EU level evidence, 
suggest that parallel approaches which support broader rural development, more diverse 
economies and quality of life are needed. 

The  study  found  that  CAP  GR  measures  in  agriculture  are  very  effective  in  cases  where 
complementary  national,  regional  and  local  policies  support  and  enhance  GR.  These 
include institutional mechanisms and fiscal incentives to increase land mobility and ease 
the  process  of  inter-generational  transfer  for  older,  as  well  as  younger,  generations. 
Examples  include  creating  farm  partnerships;  incentivising  share-farming  and  other 

II 

EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF THE CAP ON GENERATIONAL RENEWAL,  
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT AND JOBS IN RURAL AREAS 

collective  business  models;  providing  help  with  retirement  income  planning  and  tax 
breaks  for  the  gradual  transfer  of  assets;  and  using  land  banks  or  creating  new  non-
profit organisations to consolidate and re-let landholdings to new entrants. Older farmers 
may be disincentivised to transfer their farms  to a younger generation if their access to 
income  and  a  reasonable  quality  of  life  depends  upon  continuing  receipt  of  CAP  pillar  1 
aids. Initiatives using ‘soft’ approaches including awareness-raising, advice and planning 
for successful handover may also help.  

It  is  too  early  to  identify  clear  evidence  of  the  impact  of  the  YF  supplement  to  direct 
payments under Pillar 1, introduced in 2015. This ‘top-up’ has very different significance 
to  farms  in  different  MS,  and  its  pattern  of  distribution  is  very  different  to  that  for 
planned  spending  on  GR  in  Pillar  2  RDPs.  Case  studies  highlight  situations  where  the 
supplements  support  GR  in  complementary  ways  to  Pillar  2,  but  this  depends  upon 
careful design of the delivery approach which is not widespread among MS.  

This  study  has  gathered  much  evidence  which  supports  the  adoption  by  MS  of  a 
multifaceted and co-ordinated approach to  GR  in agriculture, in which  various CAP (and 
non-CAP)  measures  operate  together  in  a  coherent  way.  In  proven  effective  and  long-
established  cases,  co-ordination  means  the  promotion  and  integrated  delivery  of  a 
‘package’ of aids, information and incentives to YF and their farms, with a single point of 
application  and  a  jointly-devised  budgetary  and  assessment  process.  This  reflects  the 
role  and  responsibilities  of  Member  States  having  made  certain  policy  choices  in 
designing  and  calibrating  CAP  aids.  Comparative  evidence  from  case  studies  suggests 
this  is  a  most  cost-effective  approach.  However,  the  current  logic  of  programming  by 
single  measure  is  not  best  designed  for  using  integrated  packages  of  measures,  as  the 
financial requirements and selection criteria are specific to individual measures and this is 
not efficient for a set of co-ordinated interventions. 

In  the  case  of  support  for  new  entrants  to  farming,  evidence  from  most  case  studies 
suggests that current measures may not be optimally tailored to their needs.  This group 
generally  faces  a  greater  diversity  of  challenges  than  farm  successors  who  inherit  from 
their  parents.  Stakeholders  and  experts  report  that  they  tend  to  be  older  and  to  lack 
knowledge  about  the  aids  and  how  to  apply  for  them.  The  kinds  of  holding  that  they 
typically  take  on  are  smaller  and  perhaps  less  conventionally  viable  than  the  average 
farm,  also  their  (often  novel)  business  plans  may  involve  more  risk  or  be  unfamiliar  to 
agricultural  assessors.  Thus  they  more  often  fall  short  of  eligibility  or  selection  criteria, 
despite  their  potential  to  make  a  positive  contribution  to  GR  and  rural  innovation. 
Without inheriting a farm, they face particular difficulties from rigidity in the land market 
and  tough  credit  rules  for  people  who  lack  financial  collateral.  Finally,  they  may  lack 
farmer  support  networks  and  integration  into  the  knowledge  and  information  system, 
which  leaves  them  more  vulnerable  than  successor  YFs.  New  entrants  in  all  CS  agreed 
that CAP YF aids were more difficult and costly for them to access.  

There  remain  important  obstacles  to  successful  agricultural  GR  in  many  MS  which  are 
probably  more  efficiently  addressed  through  institutional  and  fiscal  arrangements  than 
through direct funding of beneficiaries. These include some types of access to land, and 
helping  older  farmers  with  a  gradual  transition  process  in  transferring  to  a  younger 
generation. Financial Instruments (which case studies suggest have not been widely used 
for YF) may offer opportunities to address the significant challenge of start-up access to 
credit. 

The balance of impacts of current support in Pillar 1 of the CAP upon rural quality of life 
depends  upon  wider  socio-economic  conditions  and  other  economic  and  social  policies, 
which vary considerably between countries and regions (case studies). So, the efficiency 
of  spending  money  on  CAP  Pillar  1  income  support,  as  a  way  to  promote  GR  indirectly 
through enhanced quality of life, will vary in space and over time, as conditions change. 
Nevertheless,  MCA  analysis  suggests  that  on  a  per-Euro  basis,  for  the  EU  as  a  whole, 
putting  money  into  general  Pillar  1  support  will  have  a  weaker  impact  in  increasing  YF 
numbers than if the same amount of funding were devoted to CAP YF measures. 

III 

EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF THE CAP ON GENERATIONAL RENEWAL,  
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT AND JOBS IN RURAL AREAS 

Conclusions on more specific impacts of CAP GR and YF measures 

Pillar  2  measures  relevant  to  GR  show  a  positive,  but  relatively  limited,  connection  to 
fostering knowledge exchange and innovation within agriculture.  A significant proportion 
of farmers, experts and policy makers in case  studies and  EU interviews cited improved 
knowledge,  skills  and  innovation  occurring  through  CAP  GR-supported  farm  transfers. 
Across  the  EU,  access  to  Pillar  2  YF  aid  is  conditional  upon  beneficiaries  having  an 
adequate  level  of  training  and  this  condition  is  also  applied  in  nine  Member  States  or 
regions  to  the  receipt  of  the  Pillar  1  YF  DPs  supplement.    Case  studies  show  how  these 
conditions  indirectly  promote  knowledge  exchange,  improve  YFs’  technical  and  business 
skills  and  increase  skills  in  the  farming  population.  The  value  of  delivering  advice  and 
business  planning  in  a  coherent  process,  throughout  the  installation  period,  was  also 
demonstrated.  LEADER  has  promoted  innovation  by  offering  support  to  new  entrants  to 
farming and to non-farm business start-ups, which are seen as increasingly important for 
rural  GR.  Positive  impact  on  innovation  is  anticipated  from  EiP-Agri  operational  groups; 
some embrace GR goals, but impact is not yet assessed (2019).  

On the impact of CAP YF measures: a range of evidence suggests these aids have a 
positive  impact  upon  GR  in  agriculture,  supporting  YF  incomes,  performance  and 
employment. MCA  of EU data, also FADN counterfactual analysis of farms in France and 
Italy,  and  CGE  modelling  of  the  regional  economy  in  Poland,  all  provide  quantified 
evidence  for  this.  Case  study  evidence  for  significant  impact  from  CAP  YF  measures, 
directly  or  indirectly,  is  weak  in  some  MS  (Flanders,  Estonia),  strong  in  others  (France, 
Italy)  and  intermediate  in  a  third  group  (Hungary,  Poland,  Ireland).  Stakeholders  (farm 
and non-farm) and policy makers are generally strongly in favour of these aids and most 
YF  are  keen  to  use  them,  but  many  also  face  barriers  to  access  land,  capital,  and 
information  which  are  not  easily  addressed  by  funding.  Some  MS  have  developed 
additional  approaches  to  tackle  barriers.  It  is  widely  agreed  that  CAP  YF  aids  support 
succession more than new entry, but with evidence of additionality.  

Particularly in marginal or remote areas, the impact of CAP YF measures may be dwarfed 
by negative influences including socio-cultural and wider economic disincentives to farm 
or live in rural areas. In more prosperous agricultural areas, the YF aids enable GR when 
the  amount  of  aid  offered  and  the  conditions  of  the  offer  are  significant  in  relation  to 
farm  business  size,  land  values  and  knowledge  provision,  but  there  are  also  case  study 
examples where aid is either too small or too costly to access, reducing its GR impact. 

Big differences in MS decisions concerning rates of aid, maximum eligible areas and links 
to  national  reserve  entitlements1,  mean  that  the  Pillar  1  YF  supplement  is  reportedly 
having  little  effect  in  some  regions,  while  in  others  it  is  felt  to  have  a  significant  and 
positive impact upon agricultural GR. These views are shared by policy makers, farmers 
organisations  and  experts.  Pillar  2  YF  aids  are  assessed  as  effective  in  a  variety  of 
situations,  but  low  additionality  was  found  in  cases  lacking  sufficient  advisory  and 
technical assessment support (Poland, Estonia).  

CAP  YF  aids  and  their  value  should  not  be  assessed  in  isolation  from  wider  socio-
economic  conditions  in  rural  areas.  Even  the  best  YF  packages  will  be  ineffective  if 
farming cannot offer a sufficient standard of living and quality of life to attract a younger 
generation.  Also,  rural  areas  lacking  basic  infrastructure  and  services  will  struggle  to 
retain  young  people  even  if  the  returns  to  farming  are  broadly  comparable  to  other 
sectors.  Generally, if national economies are buoyant and unemployment low then rural 
exodus  is  favoured  wherever  city  living  offers  young  people  a  better  quality  of  life. 
Conversely, when economies are in recession and unemployment is high, returning to the 
family  farm  can  appear  an  attractive  alternative  to  subsisting  on  welfare  benefits  or 
short-term,  low  paid  jobs  in  a  city.  The  YF  share  in  total  farmer  numbers  increased 
during the early years of the recent global recession, in many MS.   

It  is  possible  to  design  YF  packages  which  give  appropriate  and  significant  additionality 
by  tailoring  aid  rates  and  delivery  to  local  conditions,  using  measures  in  a  co-ordinated 
way and co-ordinating them with non-CAP policies. The best examples of YF effectiveness 

1  

In those MS using the Basic Payment Scheme, not those adopting the SAPS where these entitlements do not apply 

IV 

                                                 
EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF THE CAP ON GENERATIONAL RENEWAL,  
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT AND JOBS IN RURAL AREAS 

in CS are seen when CAP measures are designed to work alongside other legislative and 
fiscal  arrangements,  with  support  from  specific  institutions  and  processes  at  local  level. 
Through creative use of the Pillar 2 menu, many of these elements could already be CAP-
funded. 

In fostering social capital, infrastructure and good governance in rural areas, case study 
evidence  suggests  CAP  GR  measures  have  a  limited,  mainly  positive  direct  and  indirect 
impact.  It  suggests  that  measures  targeting  rural  services  (notably  Pillar  2  M7  and 
LEADER)  have  more  significant  impact  in  this  respect,  and  that  when  applied 
synergistically  with  YF  aids  and  initiatives,  benefits  to  both  arise  (in  Italy,  France  and 
Hungary).  Evaluation  of  RDPs  2007-2013  indicated  that  investment  in  rural  services, 
infrastructure  and  economic  diversification  can  boost  rural  vitality  and  promote  positive 
social and governance outcomes.  

CAP  GR  impacts  upon  rural  employment,  its  quality  and  durability:  CAP  YF 
measures  have  an  impact  on  maintaining  employment  in  agriculture  relative  to  the 
counterfactual.  In  some  MS,  the  reported  impact  is  significant.  The  MCA  indicated  that 
CAP spending has a small but positive impact upon numbers of YFs in most rural areas of 
the  EU,  which  implies  a  positive  impact  upon  total  employment  in  agriculture,  although 
this  depends  upon  the  rate  of  retirement  of  older  farmers  being  lower  than  the  rate  of 
recruitment of young ones. The Polish CGE modelling indicated positive net employment 
impacts, for both CAP Pillar 1 DPs and CAP YF aids, in agriculture and in related up- and 
downstream sectors of the economy. It suggests that the relative impact of Pillar 2 YF aid 
upon up- and downstream sectors is greater than the impact of CAP Pillar 1 aid on these 
sectors (both total Direct Payments and the YF DPs supplement), while total CAP Pillar 1 
aid  stimulates  greater  employment  in  agriculture  than  Pillar  2  YF  aids.  This  finding  is 
consistent with literature and expert opinion in the CSs. 

Regarding  non-farm  employment,  great  variation  between  MS  was  indicated  in  case 
studies and from the MCA results. Some CSs report increases in young people employed 
in rural areas as a result of CAP spending, while others indicate a decrease but found no 
evidence linking this to CAP funds. Trends in rural employment are strongly influenced by 
EU-wide  economic  phenomena,  of  which  CAP  resources  are  only  a  small  part.  Broadly 
speaking,  rural  employment  depends  on  particular  provisions  of  national  legislation  and 
the economic climate. It can be favoured indirectly by CAP funds to provide facilities for 
young  people  in  small  towns  and  villages,  also  business  start-ups  and  farm 
diversification: several CSs provide evidence. 

To  the  extent  that  CAP  GR  measures  promote  more  robust  farm  succession,  they  are 
likely to increase the socio-economic sustainability of farm businesses. The FADN analysis 
provides quantified evidence from France and Italy. The study found very little evidence 
concerning  whether  the  non-farm  jobs  promoted  with  CAP  funding  were  sustainable  or 
not,  but  in  case  studies  the  opinion  of  stakeholders  (experts  and  beneficiaries)  was 
positive.  The  impact  of  CAP  GR  measures  on  both  farm  and  non-farm  rural  jobs  was 
widely  perceived  as  positive,  although  hard  to  estimate,  in  case  studies.  This  is  due  to 
multiple  intervening  and  often  much  stronger,  influences  from  wider  economic  policies 
(e.g. national growth plans, public spending cuts), market trends and conditions. Against 
these,  it  is  likely  that  CAP-induced  employment  changes  will  be  relatively  modest:  the 
findings of the Polish CGE analysis support this. 

CAP  GR  impacts  on  access  to  land,  capital  and  knowledge:  Significant  evidence 
from  case  studies,  EU  survey  and  research  literature  confirms  these  as  key  factors  for 
successful  GR  in  EU  agriculture.  However,  their  causes,  and  therefore  the  best 
mechanisms for addressing them, vary considerably according to local context and farm 
types  –  from  very  marginal  to  highly  productive  areas,  and  from  remote  and  declining 
regions to growing peri-urban areas. 

In  respect  of  their  relevance  to  address  access  to  land,  capital  and  knowledge,  CAP  GR 
aids  fall  into  three  categories.  Firstly,  aids  which  provide  funding  to  assist  with  the 
general costs following set-up (Pillar 1 supplement and M6.1) and early years investment 
(M4.1)  have  relevance  and  potential  value  but  they  will  often  be  insufficient,  on  their 
own,  to  address  these  barriers  because  the  funding  cannot  address  wider  issues  which 

V 

EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF THE CAP ON GENERATIONAL RENEWAL,  
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT AND JOBS IN RURAL AREAS 

prevent a good functioning of land and credit markets. Secondly, aids which promote co-
operation,  innovation,  training  and  advice  may  be  highly  relevant  in  helping  YF  gain 
knowledge and think about new ways to access land and capital and to overcome these 
barriers,  also  helping  older  farmers  to  manage  transfers  positively.  Finally,  aids  which 
promote  rural  economic  diversification,  added  value  and  better  services,  including 
broadband, may not appear directly relevant but they are relevant and potentially vital to 
create  a  wider  economic  climate,  particularly  in  remote  areas,  in  which  the  barrier  of 
access  to  land  and  credit  is  reduced  because  there  are  alternative  income  and 
employment opportunities for YF and family members. Thus all CAP GR measures may be 
relevant and necessary if targeting and criteria are well-tailored to local conditions. 

Overall,  CAP  GR  measures  appear  to  play  only  a  modest  role  in  enabling  YF  to  gain 
access to land by impacts upon land mobility. Providing financial support to YF alone does 
not  free  up  the  land  market  (e.g.  Poland,  Estonia,  Ireland).  However,  effectiveness  is 
greatly  enhanced  if  combined  with  appropriate  national  policies  that  support  land 
transfers,  favourable  attitudes  among  agricultural  banks,  also  financial  instruments 
(interest-free loans, credit associations, loan guarantees) to reduce the cost of borrowing 
or  make  more  resources  available  to  YF.  In  these  situations,  it  is  a  combination  of 
national  effort  and  CAP  funding  for  start-ups,  investments,  advice,  training  and/or  co-
operation  which  provides  a  secure  route  to  accessing  land  and  capital.  MS  with  the 
longest  history  of  supporting  agricultural  GR  under  the  CAP  also  tend  to  be  those  that 
have developed the most versatile and multi-faceted approaches to ease access to land 
and capital through national policies (Italy and France).   

Conclusions on efficiency and the administrative burden 

The study gathered new evidence on these points. Key efficiency factors include the ratio 
of applicants to available funds (a high ratio can swamp the delivery system and lead to 
long delays) and the quality of information (including transparent selection and eligibility 
processes).  Making  advice  and  support  available  to  ensure  high  quality  applications  (to 
reduce  delays  and  requests  for  more  information);  and  ensuring  adequate  skills, 
resourcing  and  co-ordination  of  the  public  administration  are  also  key.  This  facilitates 
swift and robust appraisals, enables funding to focus on cases offering best additionality, 
and  eases  associated  permissions  or  checks.  Operational  continuity  and  frequent,  high 
quality  communication  between  beneficiaries  and  administrative/  advisory  personnel  is 
vital, for trust and efficiency. 

Case  studies  show  efficiency  is  not  necessarily  inversely  linked  to  the  complexity  of  the 
delivery model. Although Pillar 1 YF aids have a low administrative burden because they 
are  standardised  aids,  comparative  analysis  demonstrated  that  a  package  of  Pillar  2 
measures can be more efficient than an approach based on single measures. Efficiency in 
mixing  different  instruments  to  purse  the  objective  of  generational  change  is  more 
evident  in  French  and  Italian  cases,  France  able  to  combine  RDP  instruments  and 
national  policies  accompanying  installations,  Italy  mixing  different  instruments  and 
simplifying applications in a “one-stop shop”. Targeting by MS or regional administrations 
appears  an  efficient  way  to  address  instruments  toward  certain  goals,  evidence  shows 
that  offering  higher  rates  of  aid  or  prioritising  applications  (in  scoring)  can  facilitate 
significant public investments and impacts in the most fragile areas. Efficiency is strongly 
conditioned by State and regional institutions. Delivery models using an integrated set of 
CAP measures and national policies can stimulate positive learning in administrations and 
the  private  sector:  they  require  more  co-ordination  effort  among  the  different  bodies 
responsible  for  policy  management;  and  foster  more  holistic  farm  and  development 
strategies among young entrepreneurs.  

Conclusions on coherence 

The evaluation found varied evidence of the coherence of CAP measures with each other. 
In  most  cases  the  measures  are  coherent  but  in  some  local  situations  Pillar  I  payments 
contribute to limit land availability and therefore, make it more difficult for Pillar 2 YF aids 
to  have  greatest  effect.  Conflicts  and  coherence  of  the  CAP  with  particular  national  and 
regional polices were identified, particularly for land and capital availability.  

VI 

EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF THE CAP ON GENERATIONAL RENEWAL,  
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT AND JOBS IN RURAL AREAS 

Spatial  planning  and  infrastructure  policies  in  MS  directly  affect  farm  business 
development  and  also  influence  the  wider  rural  economy.  Insofar  as  these  policies 
promote quality of life in rural areas, business opportunities and increased social capital, 
they  should  contribute  to  GR.  Positive  examples  are  cited  in  CS  (Estonia,  Hungary, 
Poland,  France).  Fiscal  and  legal  elements  in  national  policies  are  crucial  for  the 
successful  implementation  of  CAP  GR  support.  There  are  examples  where  coherent 
approaches  on  land  laws,  advisory  provisions  and  effective  monitoring  enhance  the 
implementation  of  CAP  GR  measures,  but  also  examples  where  this  does  not  happen. 
CAP-funded  co-operation  and  institutional  processes  (land  banks,  financial  instruments, 
partnerships,  national  reserves)  help  to  reduce  barriers  to  access  land,  capital  and 
knowledge. Complex requirements for funding may cause reluctance of YF to participate 
(France), especially if linked to a lack of affordable advisory support (Poland). 

Recommendations 

For the YF supplement and Pillar 2 YF start-up aids, the study recommends adjustment to 
allow  more  MS  choice  in  how  they  are  designed  and  deployed  between  and  within 
regions, to enable multi-measure packages and one-stop shops working in a streamlined 
way and tailored to local needs. In some situations it may be important to enable small, 
part-time  and  less  highly-educated  beneficiaries  to  access  funding,  with  appropriate 
advice, so MS do not target support only to the most conventional businesses and don’t 
establish  eligibility  and  selection  criteria  that  always  favour  big  holdings  or  only  young 
people  with  an  agricultural  background:  these  tactics  reduce  additionality.  A  general 
move  away  from  just  giving  financial  aid  to  successors  on  farms,  and  towards  using 
support  to  build  broader  networks  of  farmer  learning  and  collaboration,  and  a  balanced 
transfer  process  which  helps  the  older  generation  at  the  same  time  as  encouraging  the 
younger generation, could bring significant dividends. 

For  all  CAP  aids  relevant  to  GR,  we  recommend  that  MS  are  encouraged  to  make  more 
use  of  the  co-operation  measure  to  devise  or  enhance  institutional  mechanisms  to  aid 
GR,  and  also  to  provide  adequate  administrative  support  for  an  efficient  delivery. 
Providing  appropriate  advice,  networking  and  learning  opportunities  as  part  of  the 
package  also  appears  essential.  For  new  entrants,  in  addition  to  these  changes  new 
approaches  may  be  needed  to  reflect  the  more  diverse  needs  of  this  group  and  their 
potential:  for  example,  allowing  more  bottom-up  co-design  of  projects  for  rural 
innovation through GR.   

Facilitating  improved  access  to  land  and  capital  may  require  changes  to  improve  the 
coherence  of  national  legal  and  fiscal  policy  with  CAP  GR  goals.  In  addition,  working  to 
enhance  the  application  of  financial  instruments  to  support  GR,  building  upon  the  2019 
EIB and Commission initiative to increase access to credit, appears worthwhile. 

For non-farm GR, more attention to investment in rural services, broadband and quality 
of  life  measures  is  particularly  needed.  This  point  is  especially  important  when  overall 
CAP resources are reducing, as farm-level adjustment will be eased if families can access 
income from other sectors and have reassurance that basic services will be sustained. 

There  is  considerable  scope  for  MS  administrations  and  managing  authorities  to  learn 
from  good  practices  in  other  MS  –  especially  concerning  the  scope  for  more  creative 
application of measures to enable institutional and social innovations, also to encourage 
new  entrants,  and  to  exchange  experience  about  the  types  of  non-CAP  policy 
development that can assist GR. 

The proposed holistic, cross-pillar and strategic approach to meeting the GR goals of the 
new CAP is a positive development which should promote enhanced policy performance, 
in future. 

Experts,  policy  makers  and  farmers  organisations  agree  that  more  practical  help  for 
innovation  in  land-based  businesses  is  needed,  particularly  in  the  context  of  the  global 
climate challenge. Support for broader self-help learning among farmers and other  rural 
actors,  for  mentoring,  facilitation  and  digital  literacy,  is  widely  favoured  among 
contributors to this study. 

VII 

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All  over  the  European  Union  there  are  hundreds  of  Europe  Direct  information 
centres.  You  can 
the  centre  nearest  you  at: 
the  address  of 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

find 

On the phone or by email 

Europe  Direct  is  a  service  that  answers  your  questions  about  the  European 
Union.  You  can  contact  this  service:  –  by  freephone:  00  800  6  7  8  9  10  11 
(certain  operators  may  charge  for  these  calls),    –  at  the  following  standard 
number:  +32  22999696,  or    –  by  email  via:  https://europa.eu/european-
union/contact_en  

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online  

Information  about  the  European  Union  in  all  the  official  languages  of  the  EU  is 
available on the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 

You  can  download  or  order 
from: 
free 
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications.  Multiple 
publications  may  be  obtained  by  contacting  Europe  Direct  or  your  local 
information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

free  and  priced  EU  publications 
of 

copies 

EU law and related documents 

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all 
the official language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu 

Open data from the EU 

The  EU  Open  Data  Portal  (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en)  provides  access  to 
datasets  from  the  EU.  Data  can  be  downloaded  and  reused  for  free,  for  both 
commercial and non-commercial purposes. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
K
F
-
0
1
-
1
9
-
6
5
6
-
E
N
-
N

doi:10.2762/335524 
Isbn 978-92-76-09262-9 

Page 9