Opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board
Date: 2021-04-08
Institutions: European Commission, Regulatory Scrutiny Board
Subjects: EU aid, agricultural situation, aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy, farmer, farming sector, generation renewal, rural development, rural region, young farmer

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 8.4.2021  SWD(2021) 78 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION of the impact of the CAP on generational renewal, local development and jobs in rural areas {SWD(2021) 79 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................... 2 

GLOSSARY OF REFERENCED RURAL-DEVELOPMENT MEASURES ......................... 3 

1. 

2. 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 4 

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ................................................................ 5 

2.1.  Description of the intervention and its objectives ...................................................... 6 

2.2. 

Points of comparison ................................................................................................... 10 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION/STATE OF PLAY..................................................................... 13 

3.1.  CAP Pillar I .................................................................................................................. 13 

3.2.  CAP Pillar II ................................................................................................................ 15 

4. 

METHOD ......................................................................................................................... 17 

4.1. 

Short description of methodology. ............................................................................. 17 

4.2.  Limitations and robustness of findings...................................................................... 18 

5. 

ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ..................... 18 

5.1.  Effectiveness ................................................................................................................. 19 

5.2.  Efficiency ...................................................................................................................... 33 

5.3.  Coherence ..................................................................................................................... 38 

5.4.  Relevance ...................................................................................................................... 43 

5.5.  EU added value ............................................................................................................ 50 

5.6.  Non-agricultural generational renewal in rural areas ............................................. 52 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................. 57 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ........................................................................ 62 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ................................................................... 65 

ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS ....................................................... 70 

ANNEX 4: CURRENT INTERVENTION LOGIC FOR INSTRUMENTS AND 
MEASURES AFFECTING GENERATIONAL RENEWAL ................................................. 77 

ANNEX 5: VIEWS FROM OTHER INSTITUTIONS ............................................................ 81 

ANNEX 6: SOME MEMBER-STATE MEASURES IN THE AREA OF GENERATIONAL 
RENEWAL .................................................................................................................................. 86 

1 

 
 
 
GLOSSARY 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

CAP 

CGE 

CMEF 

EAFRD 

EAGF 

EIB 

ENRD 

EU 

FADN 

GAEC 

NUTS 

RDPs 

SAFER 

SFS 

Common agricultural policy 

Computable general equilibrium (type of econometric 
model) 

Common monitoring and evaluation framework 

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 

European Agricultural Guarantee Fund 

European Investment Bank 

European network for rural development 

European Union 

Farm accounting data network 

Groupement Agricole d’Exploitation en Commun 
(Joint Farming Group) 

Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics 

Rural development programmes 

Société d’aménagement foncier et d’établissement rural 
(Land development and rural establishment company) 

Small farmers scheme 

2 

 
 
GLOSSARY OF REFERENCED RURAL-DEVELOPMENT MEASURES  

Term 

Meaning 

M01 

Measure 1: Knowledge transfer and information actions 

M02  

Measure 2: Advisory services, farm management and farm-relief services 

M04 

Measure 4: Investment in physical assets 

M04.1 

Sub-measure 4.1: Support to improve the overall performance and sustainability of an 
agricultural holding 

M04.2 

Sub-measure 4.2: Support for the processing, marketing and/or development of 
agricultural products 

M04.3 

Sub-measure 4.3: Support for infrastructure related to the development, adaptation or 
modernisation of agriculture or forestry, including: (i) access to farm and forest land; 
(ii) land consolidation and improvement; and (iii) the supply and saving of energy and 
water 

M04.4 

Sub-measure 4.4: Support for non-productive investments linked to the provision of 
agri-environmental climate objectives 

M06 

Measure 6: Farm & business development 

M06.1 

Sub-measure 6.1: Business start-up aid for young farmers 

M06.2 

Sub-measure 6.2: Start-up aid for non-farm rural businesses 

M06.3 

Sub-measure 6.3: Small-farm business development 

M06.4 

Sub-measure 6.4: Creation and development of non-farm businesses 

M06.5 

Sub-measure 6.5: Small-farmers’ transfer scheme 

M07 

Measure 7: Basic services and village renewal in rural areas 

M08 

Measure 8: Investments in forest areas 

M10 

Measure 10: Agri-environment and climate 

M11 

Measure 11: Organic farming 

M13 

Measure 13: Areas facing natural constraints 

M16 

Measure 16: Cooperation 

M19 

Measure 19: LEADER 

M113  Measure 113: Early retirement (2007-2013) 

3 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  age  structure  of  European  farmers  is  such  that  for  every  farm  manager  under  40  in  2016, 
there were three farm managers over 65. The ageing of the farming population is one of the top 
challenges facing rural areas in the European Union (EU). Many farms may have no successors, 
and  farm  demographics  accentuate  the  risks  of  concentration  in  land  use.  In  addition,  the 
agricultural sector is increasingly in need of skilled hired labour. This labour is essential to make 
EU farming: (i) more sustainable; (ii) able to adapt; and (iii) able to contribute to climate action 
in the context of a major technological shift.  

Moreover, many potential entrants to farming are deterred by what they view as the poor quality 
of  life  that  farming  offers1.  This  is  the  case  for  farm  successors  as  well  as  hired  workers.  To 
make  agriculture  more  attractive,  policy  objectives  should  address  the  social  image  of  farming 
and revitalise rural areas. 

In  2017,  the  European  Court  of  Auditors  published  a  special  report  on  generational  renewal 
(bringing young people into agriculture to replace the retiring generation) entitled EU support to 
young  farmers  should  be  better  targeted  to  foster  effective  generational  renewal.  The  report 
focused  on  the  common  agricultural  policy’s  (CAP)  young-farmers’  measures2.  After  the 
publication of this report, the European Commission decided to evaluate the impact of the CAP 
on generational renewal, local development, and jobs in rural areas.  

The  purpose  of  the  evaluation  is  to  assess  whether  the  instruments  offered  by  the  CAP  are 
appropriate  and  sufficiently  used  to  address  the  concerns  of  young  farmers  and  the  issue  of 
generational  renewal3.  The  evaluation  examines  all  evaluation  criteria,  i.e.  the  effectiveness, 
efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value of CAP measures to support generational 
renewal in rural areas. The evaluation has a strong focus on farming.  

On scope, the evaluation focuses on the following three main areas. 

-  CAP measures directly targeted at generational renewal in farming:  

o  direct-payment  support  to  young  farmers  (Chapter  5  of  Title  III  of  Regulation 

(EU) 1307/2013); 

o  support  to  business  start-ups  for  young  farmers  (Article  19.1  of  Regulation 

(EU) 1305/2013 (the Rural Development Regulation)); 

o  early  retirement  of  farmers  (Chapter  1  of  Title  IV  of  the  Council  Regulation 

(EC) No 1698/2005). 

-  CAP measures with an indirect impact on generational renewal in farming:  

o  other direct payments (Title III of Regulation (EU) 1307/2013); 
o  cooperation (Article 35 of Regulation (EU) 1305/2013);  
o 

investment  support  (Articles  17,  21,  25,  26,  45  and  46  of  Regulation 
(EU) 1305/2013);  

1   SURE Farm research project https://www.surefarmproject.eu/wordpress/wp-

content/uploads/2020/04/D3.6_Policy-brief-on-future-farm-demographics.pdf. 

2   https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=41529   
3   ‘Young  farmer’  means  a  person  who:  (i)  is  no  more  than  40  years  of  age  at  the  moment  of  submitting  the 
application; (ii) possesses adequate occupational skills; and (iii) is setting up for the first time in an agricultural 
holding as head of that holding (Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013).  

4 

 
                                                           
o  knowledge 

transfer  and 

information  actions  (Article  14  of  Regulation 

(EU) 1305/2013);  

o  advisory  services,  farm  management  and  farm-relief  services  (Article  15  of 

Regulation (EU) 1305/2013).  

-  To a lesser extent, CAP measures not directed at farming but that: (i) are linked to local 
development, growth and jobs in rural areas; and (ii) seek to make rural areas more vital 
and attractive for the younger generation4: 

o  business development in rural areas (Article 19 of Regulation (EU) 1305/2013); 
o 
investments (Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 1305/2013); 
o  LEADER5 (Articles 42-44 of Regulation (EU) 1305/2013); 
o  basic  services  and  village  renewal  in  rural  areas  (Article  20  of  Regulation 

(EU) 1305/2013). 

The  geographical  coverage  of  the  evaluation  encompasses  the  EU  of  28  Member  States, 
including  the  UK,  as  it  was  a  Member  State  when  the  evaluation  was  carried  out  (from 
December 2018 to November 2019)6.  

The examination period of the evaluation covers the period following the implementation of the 
2013 CAP reform (2014-2020).  

This  Commission  staff working document is  primarily based on the corresponding external 
evaluation  support  study7  but  also  draws  selectively  from  additional  analysis,  as  well  as 
complementary data from various sources. In the subsequent chapters, any reference to analyses, 
interviews,  findings,  etc.  should  be  interpreted  as  coming  from  the  support  study,  unless 
otherwise indicated and referenced. 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

The proportion of farm managers under 40 is low in most European countries (11% in 2016 in 
the EU), while almost a third of farm managers are aged 65 years or more. Over the last decade, 
the proportion of young farmers in the overall farming population declined, while that of older 
farmers (above 40) increased. Farm demographics have been recognised as an important driver 
of structural change in European agriculture.  

While this reflects to a certain extent the general ageing of rural societies, it is also linked to the 
slow  inter-generational  transfer  of  farms.  Furthermore,  the  oldest  farmers  have  the  smallest 
farms: the average size of younger farmers’ farm is slightly more than 2.5 times bigger than the 

4   The analysis of some elements such as broadband and research projects is limited.  
5   The LEADER programme (an acronym in French – Liaison entre actions de développement de l'économie rurale 
– meaning Links between actions for the development of the rural economy) is a European Union initiative to 
support rural development projects initiated at the local level in order to revitalise rural areas and create jobs. 
6   For the purposes of the evaluation, which covers the period 2014-2020, the United Kingdom is considered as a 
member of the European Union (EU-28). To recall, the United Kingdom withdrew from the European Union as 
of 1 February 2020, entering a transition period until 31 December 2020, during which Union law, with a few 
limited exceptions, continued to be applicable to and in the United Kingdom. 

7   https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/cmef/rural-

areas/impact-common-agricultural-policy-generational-renewal-local-development-and-jobs-rural-areas_en  

5 

 
 
                                                           
average older farmer’s farm. The proportion of young farmers thus cannot be expected to grow 
as quickly as the proportional decline in older farmers.  
Young farmers in the EU are characterised8 by: 

  a low proportion in total farm numbers, agricultural land and standard output;  
  average-sized farms;  
  higher levels of professional qualification than older farmers;  
  below-average income levels;  
 
  high levels of net investment;  
  below-average levels of liabilities;  
  high return-on-assets ratios.  

low capital stocks and levels of land ownership;  

At the beginning of their farming careers, these young farmers are thus positioning their farms 
for the future, but they may be constrained by a lack of access to land and credit.  

2.1.  Description of the intervention and its objectives 

The  CAP’s  goals  as  enshrined  in  the  Treaty  of  Rome  (1957)  acknowledge  the  challenge  to 
support  ‘a  fair  standard  of  living’  for  farmers.  The  focus  of  market  management  in  the  first 
decade  of  the  CAP  (1962-1972)  was  predominantly  on  creating  the  conditions  necessary  to 
attract  investment  and  promote  modernisation  and  mechanisation  in  farming.  This  aimed  at 
driving economies of scale and increasing labour productivity (and thus increasing the outflow of 
workers away from agriculture). In this context, generational renewal was not a significant focus 
for policy attention. 

Explicit policy measures to support young farmers under the age of 40 were first introduced to 
the CAP in Council Directive 81/528/EEC on the modernisation of farms9. Conceived as aids to 
modernisation  and  productivity,  the  use  of  these  measures  expanded  and  became  linked  to 
broader  rural  development  within  regionally-targeted  programmes  (notably  Objective  5b)  in 
1994-1999.  Since  then,  with  the  Cork  Declaration  (1996)  and  Agenda  2000  reforms,  the  CAP 
has increased its focus on generational renewal and rural vitality. 
After 2000, the CAP  diversified its structure and focus with  the introduction of two ‘pillars’10. 
The  CAP  has  thus  offered  instruments  and  measures  of  greater  range  and  complexity.  These 
instruments  and  measures  are  designed  to  promote:  (i)  rural  economic  diversification  and 
development; and (ii) rural ‘quality of life’ through better services, better infrastructure, and new 
opportunities  for  employment.  As  part  of  this  more  comprehensive  approach,  generational 
renewal both within and beyond agriculture has been a focus of policy support in many Member 
States and regions. 

8   European Commission, Brief No 7 Structural change and generational renewal (2019): 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/cap-briefs-7-structural-
change_en.pdf. 

9   OJ L 197, 20.7.1981, p. 41. 
10   Pillar I covers income support through direct payments and market measures, while Pillar II encompasses rural 

development measures. 

6 

 
                                                           
The  creation  of  an  obligatory  supplement  for  young  farmers  within  the  direct-payments 
provisions  from  2015  affirmed  a  commitment  to  fostering  generational  renewal  in  agriculture. 
This supplement addresses the specific needs of younger farmers who have a lower income: in 
2012-2016, EU farmers under 40 had on average 20% lower income than farmers aged 40 and 
older. 

Figure  1  –  Farm  income  by  age  class  of  farmers  in  EUR/annual  working  unit,  (average 
2015-2018) 

 25.000

 20.000

 15.000

 10.000

 5.000

 -

Less than 40

40 and more

All ages

Note: Farm net value added/annual working unit.  
Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, based on Farm Accountancy Data Network. 

For the payment to young farmers, national authorities must: 

set aside up to 2% of their total funding under the direct-payments envelope; 

 
  decide  on  the  number  of  hectares  per  farm  to  be  supported  under  the  young-farmers 

 

payment (up to 90 ha); 
choose  a  calculation  method  (e.g.  setting  the  payment  level  at  some  percentage  of 
farmers’ income-support payments – up to a maximum level of 50%); 

  decide whether the beneficiaries of the young-farmers payment should have appropriate 

skills and/or fulfil certain training requirements; 

  grant the young-farmers payment for a period of 5 years after choosing the eligible young 

farmers. 

In  addition  to  the  above,  Member  States  that  operate  the  basic-payment  scheme  with  payment 
entitlements must also give priority to young farmers to receive basic-payment entitlements from 
the national/regional reserve11.  

In  addition  to  Pillar  I,  rural  development  programmes  (under  Pillar  II)  provide  additional 
measures to help young farmers get started. These Pillar II measures fall under Focus area 2B12, 

11   In EU countries that implement the basic-payment scheme via entitlements, this priority is important for young 
farmers  who:  (i)  do  not  have  payment  entitlements;  (ii)  have  fewer  payment  entitlements  than  hectares  of 
agricultural land; or (iii) have low-value payment entitlements. 

12   Pillar  II  support  is  distributed  according  to  six  priorities:  (1)  fostering  knowledge  transfer  and  innovation  in 
agriculture, forestry and rural areas; (2) enhancing the viability and competitiveness of all types of agriculture, 
and promoting innovative farm technologies and sustainable forest management (including Focus area 2B); (3) 

7 

 
 
                                                           
 
designed to facilitate the entry of appropriately skilled farmers (in particular young people) into 
agriculture. This support can include advice or grants, loans and guarantees designed to help the 
development of rural businesses. Some newly introduced elements in the 2013 CAP reform are:  
  business  start-up  aid  for  young  farmers  granted  on  the  basis  of  a  business  plan 

(eligible for an EU contribution of up to EUR 70 000);  

  a 20% higher level of support for investments in physical assets;  

  an obligation for the farm-advisory services to provide specific advice to farmers setting 

up for the first time.  

The  support  to  business  start-ups  in  rural  areas  (outside  farming)  is  also  analysed  in  this 
evaluation. 

Between 1992 and 2013, there has been a measure in place to support the  early retirement of 
farmers  and  farm  workers.  Early  retirement  from  farming  ought  to:  (i)  help  young  farmers  to 
start off in farming; or (ii) increase the average farm size. It could help provide a fair standard of 
living to farmers, as a reasonable complement to their pensions, giving them some incentive to 
transfer the land to younger generations. However, this measure was discontinued in the current 
programming  period,  as  it  was  not  suited  to  older  farmers’  specific  needs.  This  fact  led  to 
significant  differences  in  the  implementation  of  this  measure  (it  was  mainly  implemented  in 
Poland). In addition, the measure was criticised (including by the European Court of Auditors) 
for  being  cost-inefficient.  The  early-retirement  scheme  was  nevertheless  included  as  a 
transitional measure in the programming period 2014-2020, so that farmers who applied for the 
scheme in the former programming periods could still get paid. 

Pillar  II  also  supports  the  ‘human  capacity  building’  of  farmers  and  non-farmers.  ‘Human 
capacity  building’  covers  the  passing  on  of  knowledge,  training,  advice,  cooperation  and 
business  planning  to  attract  a  new  generation  of  business  leaders  into  the  farming  sector.  Aid 
targeted  at  rural  business  start-ups  and  farm  diversification  can  offer  farmers  and  other  young 
people  in  rural  areas  new  opportunities:  (i)  opportunities  to  increase  their  incomes; 
(ii) opportunities to provide greater value added and/or resilience to their businesses; and (iii) job 
opportunities for other family members or rural residents13.  

Under priority 6 (to promote social  inclusion, poverty  reduction and economic development  in 
rural areas), Pillar II investments in rural infrastructure aim to improve basic rural services 
and stimulate village-level  renewal  (both social  and economic renewal).  Local  initiatives (such 
as LEADER) also directly help to improve: (i) rural economic growth; (ii) rural job creation; and 
(iii) rural quality of life. Indirectly, these initiatives help to maintain rural population levels and 
community  spirit.  Help  to  install  broadband  in  rural  areas  is  also  essential  for  generational 

promoting food-chain organisation, animal welfare and risk management in agriculture; (4) promoting resource 
efficiency and supporting the shift toward a  low-carbon and climate-resilient economy in the agriculture, food 
and forestry sectors; (5) restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems related to agriculture and forestry; and 
(6) promoting social inclusion, poverty reduction and economic development in rural areas. 

13   Some inspiring examples can be found in this ENRD brochure 

https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/sites/enrd/files/enrd_publications/projects-brochure_08_youth_en_web.pdf.  

8 

 
                                                                                                                                                                                           
renewal and rural businesses. Other measures may also be relevant in  specific local or regional 
circumstances14.  

After  the  2013  CAP  reform,  financial  instruments  (loans  and/or  guarantee  funds)  were  made 
more widely available to farmers. These instruments were also used by Member States to address 
young  farmers’  difficulties  in  accessing  finance  for  their  investment  plans.  These  financial 
instruments (on their own or combined with grants) provide an important possibility for  young 
farmers  to  access  funding  under  more  attractive  conditions  than  the  financing  offered  by  the 
market.  The  instruments  are  also  available  for  working-capital  finance  and  for  land  purchase. 
These financial instruments also have fewer eligibility restrictions and allow investments in areas 
such as animals and annual crops.  

Joint initiatives with the European Investment Bank (EIB) have enriched the spectrum of support 
offered by the CAP15 through the ‘young-farmers’ initiative’. This initiative brings together loans 
available  through  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  (EAFRD)  and  the 
expertise of the EIB for a total amount of EUR 1 billion. These loans are managed by local banks 
and  leasing  companies  operating  across  the  EU.  A  minimum  of  10%  of  the  amount  lent  to 
participating  banks  must  be  dedicated  to  farmers  under  41  years  old,  who  will  benefit  from 
competitive financing terms. 

Intervention logic 

The figure below illustrates a specific intervention logic for generational renewal under the CAP, 
showing the linkages between: (i) relevant measures; (ii) specific objectives in rural development 
(priorities and focus areas); and (iii) CAP strategic goals contributing to generational renewal. 

Out  of  the  three  CAP  goals,  the  goal  on  achieving  balanced  territorial  development  can  be 
identified as the overarching objective for generational renewal.  In addition to this overarching 
objective, there are also specific objectives that are relevant for achieving generational renewal: 
(i) maintaining a diverse agriculture across the EU; (ii) social inclusion; (iii) poverty reduction; 
(iv) rural  economic development; (v)  greater  competitiveness; and (vi)  ensuring  farm viability. 
The implicit goal of these specific objectives is to retain/increase the number and share of young 
people in rural areas. 

The  most  prominent,  direct  measures  for  agricultural  generational  renewal  in  farming  aim  to 
bolster  the  economic  viability  of  farm  holdings  managed  by  young  farmers  (whether  they  be 
successors  or  new  entrants).  These  direct  measures  include:  (i)  the  young-farmers’  supplement 
under Pillar I; (ii) support under Pillar II for young-farmers’ business start-ups; (iii) investment 
support under Pillar II (with a higher rate of EU co-financing); (iv) training under Pillar II; and 
(v) advisory services under Pillar II. Through these interventions, the ‘pull factor’ of leaving the 
sector to  enter other economic sectors within or outside rural  areas should be counterbalanced. 

14   Lack  of  broadband  infrastructure,  or  its  poor  quality,  has  often  been  reported  as  an  obstacle  to  business 
development, especially in rural areas where attempts have been made to redirect traditional economies towards 
innovative and knowledge-based businesses. See SWD(2012)44 final of 7.3.2012. 

15   See 

for 

the 

example 

https://www.fi-
Initiative 
compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications/Joint_initiative_for_improving_access_to_funding_for_European_Un
ion_Young_Farmers.pdf.  
The analysis on financial instruments and access to finance is also limited, as work that is more detailed is/was 
already carried out as part of the EAFRD’s fi-compass stream - https://www.fi-compass.eu/esif/eafrd.  

AGRI-EIB 

farmers: 

young 

for 

9 

 
                                                           
The Pillar II cooperation and innovation measures (as well as investments in other rural business 
start-ups and other sectors such as forestry, tourism  and heritage) aim to  enlarge the economic 
base by supporting the growth and coordination of several sectors (along the agricultural value 
chain,  but  also  outside  of  it).  These  interventions  may  lead  to  a  more  balanced  and  resilient 
sectoral  mix,  and  may  thus  promote  generational  renewal  by  increasing  the  economic 
attractiveness of rural areas. 

Support  for  basic  services  and  infrastructure  (including  information  and  communication 
technologies)  makes  regions  more  attractive  and  improves  settlement  in  rural  areas.  It  also 
addresses  generational  renewal  by  increasing  the  quality  of  life  and  knowledge  base,  and 
providing employment. This increases opportunities and improves the quality of services. This in 
turn strengthens the basis for: (i) general economic services (a prerequisite for sufficient income 
and improved working conditions); and (ii) easier social ties and networks.  

The impact of CAP measures on generational renewal depends critically on national or regional 
choices about the design and delivery of the measures at national and local level.  In their rural 
development  programmes,  Member  States  have  set  targets  (and  accompanying  indicators)  for 
2023, reflecting the targeted coverage of measures. These indicators will be used to monitor the 
progress of Member States in the implementation of the planned measures. If the CAP is not the 
main instrument of support, the targets might be small. For example, these smaller targets could 
be the number of jobs  created or a certain percentage of the rural population gaining access to 
information communication technologies by means of the CAP.  

The  impacts  of  CAP  measures  also  depend  on  how  these  impacts  interact  with  the  underlying 
context  of  each  area,  including  national  policy  instruments  and  measures.  For  example,  fiscal 
policies to promote or prevent easy inter-generational transfer of farmland or businesses directly 
affect  the  pace  of  generational  renewal.  Demand  for  land  for  non-farm  uses  and/or  spatial-
planning policies influence the relative attraction of inter-generational transfer. CAP instruments 
operate alongside the strong influence of: (i) market conditions and trends; (ii) governance and 
regulatory  frameworks;  and  (iii)  the  shifting  expectations  and  capabilities  of  people  and 
communities. 

More detail on the logic of the measures and instruments can be found in Annex 4. 

2.2.  Points of comparison 

To better analyse the success of the generational-renewal measures, the contractor who carried-
out  the  support  study  hypothesised  a  counterfactual  situation  with  no  generational-renewal 
measures. It allowed seeing what outcomes were the result of generational-renewal measures and 
what outcomes would have taken place without these measures in place. 

In  the  counterfactual  situation,  the  farms  did  not  receive  any  support  for  young  farmers.  The 
comparison period was the first half of the 2014-2020 programming period (between 2013 and 
2016)  for  two  Member  States,  France  and  Italy.  A  ‘difference-in-difference’  analysis  of  farms 
was  made  after  matching  similar  farms:  those  receiving  the  young-farmer  payment  and  those 
others not receiving it. The objective of this analysis was to compare the difference between the 
pre-generational-change  and  post-generational-change  situations  of  the  two  groups  of  farms 
(with and without support). This comparison was carried out across several characteristics: (i) the 
main  structural  and  economic  characteristics;  (ii)  labour  use;  (iii)  type  of  farming;  (iv) 
investment intensity; and (v) economic performance.  

10 

 
In  addition,  the  impact  of  CAP  measures  on  generational  renewal  was  estimated  by  using 
‘common general equilibrium’ modelling work on Polish data. This modelling work was used to 
assess:  (i)  whether  jobs  were  created  or  sustained  directly  in  the  agricultural  sector;  (ii)  what 
scale  of  multiplier  effects  these  measures  had  on  employment  in  other  sectors;  and  (iii)  how 
these jobs contributed more broadly to the development of rural areas. 

11 

 
Figure 2 Specific intervention logic for CAP generational renewal

12 

 
3. 

IMPLEMENTATION/STATE OF PLAY 

1.1.  CAP Pillar I 

The  mandatory  young-farmer  payment  available  under  Pillar  I  gives  enhanced  income 
support to newly established young farmers during their initial setting-up period (a period 
of  5  years).  In  general,  this  period  is  characterised  by  greater  income  risk  and  greater 
need for investment.  

Direct payments constitute the largest area of expenditure in the CAP (73%) amounting 
to EUR 41.3 billion in 201816. The young-farmers’ payment in the EU accounted for an 
average  of  1.3%  of  this  EUR 41.3  billion,  below  the  maximum  2%  ceiling.  However, 
when  looking  at  all  direct  payments  received  by  beneficiaries  of  the  young-farmers’ 
payment,  these  represented  about  8%  of  direct-payments  expenditure.  The  number  of 
beneficiaries  in  claim  year  2018  for  the  young-farmers’  payment  was  close  to 
464 000 young farmers, or 7.5% of direct-payment17 applicants in the EU-28. 

Details on the young-farmer payment 

The young-farmer payment targets farmers of no more than 40 years of age who: (i) are 
setting  up  for  the  first  time  an  agricultural  holding  as  head  of  the  holding;  or  (ii)  have 
already set up such a holding during the 5 years preceding their first application for the 
young-farmer payment. The scheme is compulsory for all Member States. The payment, 
which is additional to other direct payments, is limited to a maximum period of 5 years.  

The  changes  that  entered  into  force  in  2018,  with  the  so-called  Omnibus  Regulation, 
improved the design of the young-farmer payment. These changes gave Member States 
the  possibility  to  increase  the  level  of  the  young-farmer  payment18.  Denmark,  Spain, 
Estonia,  France,  Italy  and  Finland  significantly  increased  the  payment  level.  As  a 
consequence,  the  EU  average  young  farmers  payment  increased  from  less  than 
EUR 1 700  per  beneficiary  in  2017  to  almost  EUR  2 000  in  2018.  This  led  to  a 
significant increase in the share of the young-farmers’ payment in direct payments, from 
0.8%  in  2015  to  1.3%  in  2018.  This  share  is  now  closer  to  Member  States’  initial 
estimates.  Some  Member  States  (such  as  Czechia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Finland, 
Hungary,  Poland  and  Slovenia)  exceeded  their  initial  estimates  –  in  some  cases  by  a 
significant amount19. 

In addition, starting in claim year 2018, the payment for young farmers must be granted 
for  a  period  of  5  years,  if  the  young  farmer  applies  for  the  payment  within  the  5 years 

16   https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/Financing.html?select=EU28_FLAG,1  
17   Basic payment scheme/single-area payment scheme/small-farmer scheme. 
18   The calculation of the payments can be based on payment entitlements or on the number of hectares (up 
to  a  maximum  fixed  by  the  MS  between  25  and  90).  Since  2018,  after  the  entry  into  force  of  the 
Omnibus Regulation, the fixed percentage of 25% may be increased up to 50% of the average value of: 
(i) entitlements held by a farmer; (ii) the basic income support; or (iii) the national average payment per 
hectare. Alternatively, the fixed percentage of 25% can be an annual lump-sum payment irrespective of 
the size of the holding, representing 25-50% of the national average payment per hectare multiplied by 
a figure corresponding to the average farm size of young farmers. The payment cannot be more than the 
total basic payment that the holding has received in any given year. 

19   Even though Czechia’s expenditure on young farmers under the Pillar I young-farmer payment remains 

at less than 0.5% of direct-payments expenditure. 

13 

 
 
 
                                                           
following his/her first setting-up. In practical terms, this means that the number of years 
elapsed  between  the  first  setting  up  and  the  first  application  for  the  young-farmer 
payment will no longer be deducted.  

These  improvements  partly  explain  the  increase  of  about  13%  in  the  number  of 
beneficiaries since 201720.  

Figure  3  –  Average  young-farmers’  payment  in  2018  compared  to  2017  (EUR  per 
beneficiary)  

8.000
7.000
6.000
5.000
4.000
3.000
2.000
1.000
0

s
r
e
d
n
a
l
F
E
B

a
i
n
o
l
l
a

W
E
B

G
B

Z
C

K
D

E
D

E
E

L
E

S
E

E
I

R
F

R
H

T
I

Y
C

V
L

T
L

U
L

U
H

T
M

L
N

T
A

L
P

T
P

I

O S
R

I

K F
S

E
S

…
n
r
e
h
t
r
o
N
K
U

s
e
l
a

W
K
U

d
n
a
l
t
o
c
S
K
U

d
n
a
l
g
n
E
K
U

e
g
a
r
e
v
A
U
E

2017

2018

Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, based on the Audit database. 

In claim year 2018, the beneficiaries under the young-farmer payment scheme as a share 
of total beneficiaries within that country was the highest in Czechia (17.2%), followed by 
the  Netherlands  (16.5%),  Austria  (12.3%)  and  Germany  (12.2%).  It  shows  an  upward 
trend in almost all Member States and is above 6% in most Member States. By contrast, 
the  share  of  beneficiaries  of  the  young-farmers’  payment  was  below  3%  in  Cyprus, 
Spain, Malta and Portugal.  

The possibility for young farmers to receive payment entitlements from the reserve 

Member  States,  which  apply  the  basic  payment  scheme  with  payment  entitlements,  are 
obliged  to  allocate  payment  entitlements  from  the  national/regional  reserve  to  young 
farmers  and  to  farmers  starting  their  agricultural  activity  (so-called  new  entrants).  In 
2018,  around  40 000  farmers  entered  the  basic  payment  scheme  via  the  reserve 
(representing  nearly  1.2%  of  all  beneficiaries  of  the  basic  payment  scheme),  of  which 
close to 18 700 were young farmers.  

In  2018,  the  highest  shares  of  young  farmers  among  the  farmers  ‘entering’  the  basic 
payment scheme via the reserve were from Belgium (96%), Ireland (91%), Malta (84%), 
Luxembourg (77%) and Spain (71%). 

Taking into account all allocations from the reserve, the share of allocations in claim year 
2018 (as a proportion of EU level allocation) consisted of 54% young farmers, 25% ‘new 
entrants’21 and 11% from the other categories of farmers22. 

20   https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/summary-

report-implementation-direct-payements-claim-2018.pdf 

21   Non-young farmers starting their agricultural activity. 
22   To  prevent  the  ‘risk  of  land  abandonment’  and  address  ‘specific  disadvantage’  (defined  pursuant  to 
Article 30(7)(a) and 30(7)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013), or to linearly increase the value of all 
payment entitlements (pursuant to Article 30(7)(e)). 

14 

 
 
                                                           
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure  4  –  Share  of  allocations  from  the  reserve  for  the  different  categories  of 
farmers, 2018 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

BE DK DE IE EL ES FR HR IT LU MT NL AT PT SI
Total allocations to young farmers
Total allocations to other categories

Total allocations to 'new entrants'

FI SE UK

Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, based on Member States’ notifications23. 

3.1.  CAP Pillar II 

Under  Pillar  II,  support  for  business  start-ups  helps  young  farmers  to  set  up  and 
structurally adjust their holdings by providing cash flow and financial security during the 
first 5 years of farming. The support is conditional on correctly implementing a business 
plan and meeting minimum requirements in training and skill acquisition. 

From the rural development envelope of EUR 100 billion for 2014-2020, 7% is allocated 
under  Focus  area  2B  to  facilitate  generational  renewal  and  the  entry  of  appropriately 
skilled  farmers  to  the  agricultural  sector.  This  expenditure  is  allocated  as  follows:  (i) 
EUR 5.4 billion  for  installation  grants  (sub-measure  6.1)24;  (ii)  EUR 1.2 billion  for 
investments;  (iii)  EUR 185 million  for  training,  information  and  advisory  services;  and 
(iv)  EUR 18 million  for  cooperation.  In  addition,  more  than  EUR 1.4 billion  is 
programmed  for  start-up  aid  for  non-farm  rural  businesses  (sub-measure  6.2)  and  for 
small-farm business development (sub-measure 6.3). 

For the programming period 2014-2020, the Commission plans to support 176 000 young 
farmers with a start-up grant25. Installation grants have been introduced in 75% of rural-
development  programmes.  By  the  end  of  2019,  more  than  127 000  young  farmers  (or 
72%  of  the  above-mentioned  target)  had  already  benefited  from  this  support.  This 
represents close to 1% of all EU agricultural holdings in 2016. Moreover, about 30% of 
the supported young farmers were women.  

At  the  beginning  of  the  programming  period,  Member  States  set  targets  for  the 
supported  business  development 
percentage  of 
plans/investments for young farmers. This target was 1.5% for the EU-28 in 2023. It was 
around  7%  in  France  and  Luxembourg,  but  less  than  1%  in  Romania,  the  UK,  Latvia, 

agricultural  holdings  with 

23   https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/summary-

report-implementation-direct-payements-claim-2018.pdf 

24   The total planned EAFRD amount for 2014-2020 for Measure 6 on ‘farm and business development’ is 

EUR 6.62 billion, including business start-up support outside farming. 

25   Around 1.5% of the number of EU holdings in 2010, used as  a reference for the establishment of this 

target by most Member States. 

15 

 
 
                                                           
Croatia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Malta, Lithuania and Sweden. On implementation, there was 
also  great  variation  in  the  percentage  of  agricultural  holdings  with  supported  business 
development  plans/investments  for  young  farmers  (Focus  area  2B).  In  2018,  this 
percentage  reached  1%  for  the  EU-28  and  varied  from  above  5%  in  Austria  to  4%  in 
France and Luxembourg, and to less than 1% in most Member States. 

Figure 5 – Percentage of agricultural holdings with supported business development 
plan/investments for young farmers (Focus area 2B), 2018 

6%

5%

4%

3%

2%

1%

0%

Note: CMEF Pillar II result indicator R.03, calculated using the number of holdings in 2016.  Cumulative 
indicator, covering 2014-2018. 
Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, CAP indicators data explorer26. 

The  maximum  amount  paid  for  the  young-farmers’  installation  grant  varies  between 
countries.  For  example,  it  is  EUR 17 000  in  Greece  but  reaches  the  maximum  of 
EUR 70 000 in Malta, Finland, most regions in Spain and five regions in Italy27. Within 
Member States, the level of support can also vary according to the geographical location 
of farms (such as in Italy, where mountain areas receive more support), the type of farm 
(in Greece), the type of beneficiaries, and the value of the farm’s output (in Romania).  

More than 900 000 farmers benefited from early retirement in the EU in the 2007-2013 
programming period. This early retirement cost EUR 2.6 billion28. More than 60% of the 
beneficiaries  of  the  early-retirement  scheme  were  located  in  Poland,  followed  by 
Lithuania  (14%),  Spain  and  Greece  (8%  each).  The  measure  was  discontinued  in  the 
current  programming  period.  However,  early  retirement  was  included  as  a  transitional 
measure,  with  a  small  budget  (EUR 504  million  for  the  period  2014-2020).  This 
transitional  measure  was  implemented  in  twelve  Member  States  in  the  programming 
period  2014-202029.  Between  2015  and  2019,  EUR 0.41 billion  was  granted  to  almost 
280 000 beneficiaries.  

26   https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU28_FLAG,1  
27   ENRD, ‘Business start-up aid for young farmers’: https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/publications/business-start-

aid-young-farmers_en. 

28   Implementation figures for 2007-2016, with budget from the 2007-2013 programming period. For the 
programming  period  2007-2013,  Member  States  were  allowed  to  make  expenditure  until  the  end  of 
2015. This implies that the last quarter of 2015 is declared as expenditure for financial year 2016.  
29   Cyprus,  Czechia,  Greece,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Italy,  Lithuania,  Latvia,  Poland,  Portugal,  Slovenia  and 

Spain. 

16 

 
 
                                                           
4.  METHOD 

4.1.  Short description of methodology  

The methodology developed by the external contractor for the evaluation support study30 
builds on five main parts, as set out below. 

EU-level  informed  opinion  -  literature  review,  EU-level  interviews,  key  stakeholder 
interviews, and an online survey of Member-State administrations via European Network 
for Rural Development (ENRD) contact points. 

EU-level  data analysis - exploring relations between context,  inputs and impacts.  This 
analysis  covered  planned  expenditure  for  2014-2020,  and  completed  expenditure  for 
2015-2016.  It  also  covered  completed  expenditure  for  2017  provided  these  data  were 
available. The analysis included: (i) maps of key variables; (ii) correlation analyses; (iii) 
econometric  multi-criteria  analysis  (MCA).  The  latter  included  the  generation  of  two 
rural typologies at Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) 3 level (these 
typologies had an impact on case-study selection, and on the identification and estimation 
of certain impacts) and the classification of regions by clusters.  

Case studies - case-based detailed analysis of: (i) causal effects; (ii) delivery approaches 
and their impacts; (iii) efficiency; and (iv) added value. The case studies covered seven 
contrasting  Member  States  (France,  Belgium-Flanders,  Italy,  Estonia,  Hungary,  Poland 
and  Ireland).  The  case  studies  analysed  material  at  national,  regional  and  local  levels. 
This included: (i) secondary sources (previous evaluations and research); (ii) interviews 
with policy officers, experts, stakeholders and beneficiaries; (iii) primary data on delivery 
and  beneficiary  impacts;  and  (iv)  examples  of  good  practice  in  policy  design/delivery, 
innovation and coordination. 

Additional, focused quantitative analyses. This included: (i) a counterfactual analysis of 
data  from  the  Farm  Accounting  Data  Network  to  assess  the  impact  of  aid  to  young 
farmers  on  farm  performance  (focusing  on  France  and  Italy  and  covering  2013-2015); 
and  (ii)  computable  general  equilibrium  (CGE)  modelling  to  examine  the  impact  of 
generational-renewal expenditure on rural employment in Poland. 

Triangulation  via:  (i)  comparative  analysis  of  case-study  findings;  (ii)  EU-level 
evidence and modelling results; and (iii) validation in seven workshops at national level, 
and  three  workshops  at  EU  level  (these  workshops  involved  stakeholders  and  policy 
officials – two of the workshops were hosted by the ENRD).   

Further description of the methodology is provided in Annex 3. To clarify the wide range 
of evidence sources used in this process, and to demonstrate the principle of triangulation 
(using multiple sources to avoid bias), the table at the end of Annex 3 summarises how 
sources contributed to evaluation questions. 

No specific public consultation was carried out. The public consultation of reference for 
this evaluation is the public consultation on the future of the CAP31. 

30   Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on generational renewal, local development and jobs in rural areas, 
European  Commission  (2019):  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/4bd0b0a2-0503-
11ea-8c1f-01aa75ed71a1. 

31   ‘Modernising  and  simplifying  the  CAP’,  public  consultation  held  from  2.2.2017  to  2.5.2017: 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/modernising-and-simplifying-common-agricultural-policy. 

17 

 
                                                           
4.2.  Limitations and robustness of findings 

On the robustness of analysis and solidity of findings, the underlying analysis had some 
limitations, such as the uneven level of detail of the different instruments in the various 
questions.  In  the  modelling  exercise,  the  effects  of  Pillar  I  and  Pillar  II  on  support  to 
young  farmers  could  not  be  well  separated.  This  was  because  the  sample  of  young 
farmers granted the relevant support in the FADN was too small to create two separate 
groups.  Moreover,  the  recording  of  support  to  young  farmers  was  sometimes  grouped 
with other support. In addition, interviewees had difficulties distinguishing between the 
effects of the young-farmer support and of the overall CAP direct payments. 

The  analysis  of  generational  renewal  in  rural  areas  (outside  farming)  is  mainly 
qualitative, given the complexity of the question and the smaller role of the CAP outside 
farming. 

The  difficulty  in  identifying  a  clear  causal  link  between  the  application  of  the  relevant 
measures and the impacts concerned is a further issue. In particular, this difficulty is due 
to the significant influence of non-CAP factors on generational renewal. 

With such a broad scope and such a wide range of measures to be evaluated within the 
timeframe of the evaluation, the analysis needed to focus on a limited number of Member 
States and regions. Moreover, the answers of stakeholders interviewed at EU level were 
sometimes coloured heavily by the situation in their home countries. This makes it more 
difficult to extrapolate the results and the drafting of conclusions for the whole EU.  

There were also data limitations for the analytical work carried out by the contractor in 
2018-2019.  Although  data  were  generally  available,  both  at  EU  level  and  at  national 
level, sometimes they were not sufficiently precise or timely. For example, financial data 
for  the  programming  period  2014-2020  mainly  refer  to  planning  and  not  to 
implementation (due to the time lag between planning and implementation). In addition, 
in  the analysis of EU-level  data, some difficulties and challenges  arose largely because 
the data were either: (i) less comprehensive than originally thought; or (ii) less precisely 
specified or geographically differentiated than necessary to carry out the comparative and 
correlation analyses. Moreover, some of the quantitative analysis focused on a very small 
number  of  Member  States  (France  and  Italy  for  the  FADN  analysis  and  Poland  for  the 
CGE modelling). This needs to be considered when extrapolating the results to the EU as 
a whole. 

To address some of these shortcomings, additional analysis and data were used to prepare 
this  report,  such  as  the  latest  information  on  the  implementation  of  the  policy  and  a 
recent brief on generational renewal32. In addition, this report refers to the reports of the 
European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) and of the European  Parliament  on 
generational  renewal.  Finally,  the  World  Bank  study  on  the  CAP  was  also  used  to 
complement the analysis. 

32   ‘CAP  specific  objectives…  explained  –  brief  No  7  -  Structural  change  and  generational  renewal’. 
(11/2019):  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/cap-
briefs-7-structural-change_en.pdf.   

18 

 
 
 
                                                           
5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

the  five  evaluation  criteria: 
The  evaluation  questions  are  structured  following 
effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value. Chapters 5.1 to 5.5 
focus on the impact of the CAP on generational renewal in the farming sector by looking 
at  each  of  these  criteria  in  turn.  The  effect  of  the  CAP  outside  farming  is  presented  in 
Chapter 5.6.  

5.1.  Effectiveness 

The  evaluation  criterion  on  effectiveness  shows  to  what  extent  the  set  objectives  were 
achieved, how they were linked to the specific intervention, and whether there were any 
unexpected  or  unintended  effects.  The  effectiveness  analysis  therefore  considered  how 
successful  the  CAP  interventions  have  been  in  achieving  or  advancing  generational 
renewal.  

Effectiveness questions 3, 2 and 1 (see  Figure 23) are presented in this order to present 
firstly  the  effectiveness  of  young-farmer  measures,  secondly  the  effect  of  innovation 
measures on generational renewal, and thirdly the effectiveness of the CAP as a whole on 
the number of new farmers. The last two questions (4 and 5) address the environment in 
which young farmers operate, i.e. local development and the attractiveness of rural areas. 

5.1.1.  Impact  of  CAP  measures  on  increasing  the  number  of  young 

farmers employed in agriculture 

Question 3.  To  what  extent  have  the  CAP  measures/instruments  related  to  young 
farmers been effective in promoting generational renewal?  

This  evaluation  question  sought  to  investigate  whether  the  young-farmers’  measures  of 
Pillars I and II resulted in more young farmers and their greater economic performance.  

Two correlation analyses were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of: (i) the Pillar I 
young-farmers’ supplement  (2015-2016 data);  and (ii) the Pillar  II  expenditure planned 
under Focus area 2B (entry of skilled farmers into the agricultural sector) for 2014-2020 
on  changes  in  the  number  of  young  farm  managers  (2013-2016  data).  These  analyses 
demonstrate  a  very  weak,  negative  correlation  between  this  aid  and  the  change  in  the 
number  of  young  farm  managers.  Finally,  a  third  analysis  focusing  on  early-retirement 
aid for 2007-2013 shows no significant correlations between this aid and the number of 
young  farm  managers.  The  conclusion  is  that  these  relationships,  if  they  exist,  are 
dependent on context and should be explored with other methods. 

Thus, another exploratory method was applied, a multi-criteria analysis, which took into 
account  the significant  inter-regional  differences at  NUTS  3 level.  In this  analysis, five 
different types of regions were identified according to: (i) the level of CAP expenditure 
(payment  indicator33); (ii)  the level  of infrastructure;  and (iii) the level  of employment. 
The effects of the CAP vary significantly in these clusters. The young-farmers’ payments 
taken together imply the highest potential increase in the number of young farmers in 
less developed areas with many small farmers as set out in the five points below. 

33   A  composite  indicator  combining  population,  education  and  spending  for  the  CAP  young-farmers’ 

supplement and programming for Focus area 2B. 

19 

 
                                                           
1.  In sparsely populated, less developed areas with many small farms34, an increase 
of 1% in the payments indicator would cause a potential increase of 2.2% in the 
number of young farmers. 

2.  In  non-agricultural,  developed  regions  with  a  small  number  of  large  farms  and 
low CAP expenditure35, an increase of 1% in the payments indicator would cause 
a potential increase of 1.2% in the number of young farmers. 

3.  In developed rural areas where other sectors dwarf the impact of agriculture, with 
few and large farms36 an increase of 1% in the payments indicator would cause a 
potential increase of 1% in the number of young farmers. 

4.  In  developing  regions  with  rapid  agricultural  restructuring/abandonment37,  an 
increase of 1% in the payments indicator would cause a potential increase of 0.5% 
in the number of young farmers. 

5.  In  agricultural  regions  with  large  farms,  high  CAP  expenditure,  and  an  ageing 

farm population38, the result was not statistically significant.  

Taking  all  regions  together,  the  multi-criteria  analysis  suggests  that  the  CAP  young-
farmers’  measures  have  a  mostly  positive  impact  on  the  number  of  young  farmers. 
However,  the  magnitude  of  the  impact  reflects  significant  regional  differences  that 
depend  on  the  different  structural  characteristics  of  farming  in  various  regions.  On  the 
(weak)  effect  of  generational-renewal  measures  on  rural  employment  as  a  whole,  see 
Chapters 5.1.3 and 5.6. 

Aid to young farmers and the value of this aid should not be assessed in isolation from 
wider socioeconomic conditions in rural areas. Even the best  young farmer packages 
will be ineffective, if farming cannot offer a sufficient standard of living and quality of 
life to attract younger people. 

In more prosperous agricultural areas, aid to young farmers enables generational renewal. 
This occurs when the amount of aid offered and the conditions of the offer are significant 
in  relation  to:  (i)  the  size  of  the  farm  business;  (ii)  land  values;  and  (iii)  knowledge 
provision.  However,  there  are  also  examples  where  the  aid  is  either  too  small  or  too 
costly to access.  

In  addition,  rural  areas  that  lack  basic  infrastructure  and  services  will  struggle  to  keep 
young  people  even  if  the  returns  to  farming  are  broadly  comparable  to  those  of  other 
sectors. If national economies are buoyant and unemployment low, then rural exodus will 
be 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  and 
low-paid employment in a city. 

This conclusion was supported by analysis of the case studies, which could also identify 
some differences between the impacts of Pillar I support and Pillar II support. 

34   This includes: (i) Greece, Croatia and Portugal; (ii) large parts of Italy and Spain; and (iii) some areas 

in France and northern Bulgaria.  

35   This includes: (i) some regions in Germany and Austria; and (ii) parts of Sweden and Finland. 
36   This includes: (i) some areas in Belgium and Germany; (ii) the largest part of the UK; (iii) large parts of 

Finland and Sweden; and (iv) western France, northern Italy and Austria.  

37   This includes: (i) the largest parts of Bulgaria, Romania, Czechia, Hungary, Slovenia and Slovakia; (ii) 
northwest  Poland,  Latvia,  Lithuania  and  Estonia;  and  (iii)  some  regions  in  Portugal  and  north-east 
Spain.  

38   This includes: (i) Ireland, Denmark and Cyprus; (ii) large parts of France, Spain and Poland; (iii) areas 

in northern Italy and the UK; and (iv) some regions in Czechia, Slovakia and Finland. 

20 

 
                                                           
Among the interviewed stakeholders in case studies, opinions differed about the extent of 
the  impact  of  the  Pillar  I  young-farmers’  supplement.  There  were  also  considerable 
differences in the support level (in the case studies, the highest was in Flanders with on 
average EUR 3 700 per beneficiary and the lowest was in Poland with around EUR 600 
per beneficiary). The young-farmers’ supplement helped to increase the income of these 
beneficiaries  by  EUR 540  million  in  2018,  a  73%  increase  in  the  total  young-farmers’ 
top-up compared to 201539.  

Stakeholders in the farming sector said that direct payments should be used to stabilise 
income,  and  in  some  Member  States  (Poland)  to  buy  land.  In  Italy,  the  perceived 
effectiveness  of  direct  payments  was  linked  to  farm  size.  Young  farmers  with  small 
farms and diversification strategies and/or high-quality food-production strategies do not 
perceive  direct  payments  as  necessary  for  their  survival  or  for  the  success  of  their 
strategy.  Conversely,  young  farmers  with  medium-to-large  farms  and  specialisation 
strategies see direct payments and other forms of area payment as a sort of safety net in 
an environment of unstable prices and risks associated with climate change. Most farmers 
are aware of the other impacts of direct payments. For example, direct payments might 
contribute to increase land prices and therefore make it harder for new entrants to access 
land or for those who would like to buy land to enlarge a farm. 

Pillar II measures targeted at young farmers were perceived by case-study interviewees 
from  the  farming  sector  to  be  effective  in  supporting  generational  renewal  in  Belgium 
(Flanders), Poland, Italy and to a certain degree in Ireland and Hungary.  

In  addition,  many  stakeholders  from  the  public  and  private  sectors  have  a  broadly 
positive  opinion  of  the  CAP  young-farmers’  support  from  both  Pillars.  These 
stakeholders  feel  that  the  support  makes  a  difference  and  helps  to  ensure  viable 
succession or start-ups of farms. 

Moreover, in Ireland, Estonia, Belgium (Flanders) and Poland, farmers reported that the 
young-farmers’ support had only a small influence on the decision to take over a family 
farm.  However,  they  reported  that  this  support  acts  as  an  impetus  to  make  the  change 
because it offers the possibility to improve farm performance. 

An analysis of farm-level data for 2013-2016 from the Farm Accounting Data Network 
was conducted to  assess the impact  of the installation grant  on farm performance. This 
analysis suggests that, in comparison to farms that do not receive this aid, farms with the 
installation grant in Italy and France showed stronger economic performance (as seen 
in  improvements  to  the scale  of  operations,  better  survival,  and  more  resilient  business 
strategies).  For  example,  in  France,  young  farmers  who  received  installation  grants 
increased their economic size and farm capital faster after the generational change. This 
in  itself  does  not  guarantee  generational  renewal,  but  it  can  be  seen  as  a  potentially 
influential factor. 

Figure  6  –  Changes  in  farm  performance  pre-  and  post-generational  change  -
French FADN sample.  

With young-farmers’ support  Without young-farmers’ support 

Increase of economic size by 
Increase of total output by 
Increase of farm capital by 
Decrease of rented land by 
Source: Evaluation support study. 

9% 
5% 
8% 
10% 

3% 
4% 
2% 
7% 

39   https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/agri_aar_2019_en.pdf  

21 

 
 
                                                           
The  Pillar  II  young-farmer  aid  mostly  supports  farm  succession  within  families.  This 
poses the challenge of assessing the additionality of the funding, because children may be 
motivated  to  inherit  from  their  parents  with  or  without  additional  support,  implying  a 
degree of deadweight.  

Interviewees  in  the  case-study  analysis  also  concluded  that  implementing  packages  of 
integrated  measures  was  an  effective  tool  to  promote  generational  renewal  in  a 
coordinated  way.  This  coordination  involves  linking  advice,  training  and  financial 
support with national and regional policies, such as tax policy or institutional policy.  

Where  measures  are  offered  in  a  coordinated  package  with  supporting  advice  to 
prepare  business  plans  for  the  investment  start-up  aid,  they  lead  to  an  increase  in 
knowledge and confidence (see examples in Question 2). Conversely, there are examples 
where low additionality was identified in delivery systems that lacked sufficient advisory 
and technical-assessment support (Poland, Estonia). The characteristics of young farmers 
and  their  business  aspirations  play  a  strong  role  in  some  mountain  regions  (e.g.  in  two 
Italian  case  studies),  where  innovative  strategies  for  diversification  or  high-quality 
products are creating sustainable and viable farms. 

Many of these supplements to start-up aid  could  be CAP-funded. In the case studies, it 
was also possible to identify a mixture of CAP and non-CAP factors working together 
to  make  measures  more  effective  (notably  in  France,  Italy,  Hungary,  Ireland  and,  to  a 
lesser  extent,  in  Poland).  It  is  indeed  possible  to  design  young-farmer  packages  that 
ensure appropriate and significant additionality. This can be achieved by: (i) tailoring aid 
rates  and  delivery  processes  to  local  conditions;  (ii)  using  a  range  of  measures  in  a 
coordinated  way;  and  (iii)  coordinating  measures  closely  with  non-CAP  policies  and 
institutional  arrangements.  Support  for  young  farmers  in  the  case  studies  was  most 
effective, when the CAP measures were designed to work alongside other legislative and 
fiscal  arrangements,  with  support  from  specific  institutions  and  processes  at  the  local 
level. 

Question 2. To what extent have the relevant CAP measures/instruments focusing on 
generational  renewal  contributed  to  fostering  innovation  and  inter-generational 
knowledge transfer? 

This  evaluation  question  seeks  to  investigate  the  extent  to  which  the  CAP  funding  and 
measures focusing on generational renewal assist in knowledge transfer and innovation.  

Actions  relevant  to  this  question  can  include:  (i)  encouraging  farmers  to  develop 
technical and business knowledge and skills; (ii) improving the level of knowledge and 
skills  among  farmers;  (iii)  promoting  farmer-to-farmer  innovation  by  sharing  and 
exchanging  information;  (iv)  assisting  business  coordination;  and  (v)  networking 
between farmers or along supply chains. 

Keeping up-to-date with the level of knowledge necessary to run a modern farm business 
is essential for all farmers. It is even more important for younger farmers, who are best 
positioned  to  foster  the  innovation  and  resource  efficiency  needed  to  achieve  EU 
objectives  for  environmental  sustainability  and  climate  action.  In  addition,  the  loss  of 
valuable skills and knowledge as older and more experienced farmers leave the sector is 
a cause for concern. Although the qualifications of young farm managers (under 35) have 
increased over time, in 2016, only 43% of them had more than practical experience, out 
of  which  only  22%  had  received  full  agricultural  training.  Nevertheless,  this  is 
significantly above the average for all EU farmers, of whom only 32% have more than 
practical experience, out of which 9% had received full agricultural training. 

Across  the  EU,  there  are  many  differences  in  the  level  of  training  attained  by  farm 
managers.  For  example,  there  are  very  few  young  farm  managers  with  more  than 
22 

 
practical experience in Romania. By contrast, more than 90% of young farmers have at 
least a basic formal qualification in Italy and France. 

Figure 7 – Agricultural training of farm managers, 2016 

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

m
u
i
g
l
e
B

a
i
r
a
g
l
u
B

a
i
h
c
e
z
C

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

a
i
n
o
t
s
E

d
n
a
l
e
r
I

e
c
e
e
r
G

n
i
a
p
S

e
c
n
a
r
F

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

y
l
a
t
I

s
u
r
p
y
C

a
i
v
t
a
L

a
i
n
a
u
h
t
i

L

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

a
t
l
a

M

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

d
n
a
l
o
P

l
a
g
u
t
r
o
P

a
i
n
a
m
o
R

a
i
n
e
v
o
l
S

a
i
k
a
v
o
l
S

d
n
a
l
n
i
F

n
e
d
e
w
S

K
U

8
2
-
U
E

Practical experience only

Basic training

Full agricultural training

Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, based on Eurostat. 

Figure 8 – Agricultural training of young farm managers (under 35), 2016 

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

m
u
i
g
l
e
B

a
i
r
a
g
l
u
B

a
i
h
c
e
z
C

k
r
a
m
n
e
D

y
n
a
m
r
e
G

a
i
n
o
t
s
E

d
n
a
l
e
r
I

e
c
e
e
r
G

n
i
a
p
S

e
c
n
a
r
F

a
i
t
a
o
r
C

y
l
a
t
I

s
u
r
p
y
C

a
i
v
t
a
L

a
i
n
a
u
h
t
i

L

g
r
u
o
b
m
e
x
u
L

y
r
a
g
n
u
H

s
d
n
a
l
r
e
h
t
e
N

a
i
r
t
s
u
A

d
n
a
l
o
P

l
a
g
u
t
r
o
P

a
i
n
a
m
o
R

a
i
n
e
v
o
l
S

a
i
k
a
v
o
l
S

d
n
a
l
n
i
F

n
e
d
e
w
S

K
U

a
t
l
a

M

8
2
-
U
E

Practical experience only

Basic training

Full agricultural training

Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, based on Eurostat. 

Of the total planned resources allocated to agricultural generational renewal in Pillar II, 
only  a  small  proportion  was  targeted  directly  at  knowledge  transfer  and  information 
actions  (1%  of  the  total  EAFRD  amount  in  the  financing  plan  for  2014-2020).  It  is 
therefore  likely  that  the  impact  of  this  spending  on  knowledge  exchange  will  be  very 
small, especially compared to other EU and national funding for these services. 

A  literature  review  on  training,  mentoring,  and  innovation  reveals  that  finance, 
information  technologies  and  business  skills  are  key  areas  where  more  support  for 
knowledge  exchange  is  needed.  Innovation  and  entrepreneurship  are  already  supported 
by rural development measures. However, networking and informal peer support can be 
as important as formal training.  

23 

 
 
 
In the public consultation, respondents said that the best way for the CAP to encourage 
innovation  (Question  30)  would  be  first  to  ‘support  the  engagement  of  farmers  in 
innovative  projects’  (28%  of  farmers,  25%  of  other  citizens  and  28%  of  organisations 
selected  this  option).  Respondents  said  that  the  second-best  option  was  to  ‘support 
knowledge  exchange  through  better  access  to  advisory  services,  networking  among 
farmers  and  demonstration  farms  (20%  of  farmers,  21%  of  other  citizens  and  20%  of 
organisations  selected  this).  The  third-best  option  according  to  respondents  was  to 
‘provide  better  access  to  finance/investment’.  In  addition,  the  EU-level  interviews 
suggest  that  training  programmes  that  promote  new  skills  by  supporting  business 
planning  and  investment  are  key.  Moreover,  interviewees  also  said  that  they  had  a 
positive perception of LEADER’s role in supporting innovation. 

The analysis shows a clear and positive link between generational-renewal measures and 
increased  inter-generational  knowledge  exchange  in  specific  circumstances.  Those 
circumstances are when training and advice are provided to young farmers and new rural 
entrepreneurs because it is a condition of accessing capital grants, start-up aid, and/or the 
Pillar  I  young-farmers’  supplement.  For  example,  in  Ireland  a  ‘green  certificate’40  is 
necessary to access Pillar I and II support schemes; in France, a minimum qualification is 
required  to  access  the  start-up  aid;  and  young  farmers  in  Poland  need  to  learn 
management in their business planning. 

Secondary sources and interviewed farmers also emphasise the added value of delivering 
advice  and  business  planning  in  a  coherent  process  throughout  the  installation  period. 
This was identified as important in 4 of the 7 case-study countries (Ireland, Italy, France 
and Hungary), and it was recommended for the future period by stakeholders in 2 more 
(Estonia  and  Poland).  In  the  EU  online  survey  of  Member-State  administrations,  an 
integrated approach was also mentioned as  relevant in 2 other Member States (UK and 
Croatia).  

5.1.2.  Impact  of  all  the  CAP  measures  on  generational  renewal  in 

agriculture 

Question 1.  To  what  extent  have  all  CAP  measures/instruments  had  an  effect  on 
fostering generational renewal in rural areas? 

This  question  seeks  to  investigate  whether  all  CAP  measures  provide  additionality  in 
generational  renewal.  This  was  assessed  in  comparison  with  the  achievements  of 
Member-State  policies.  It  is  necessary  to  see  whether  there  is  cumulative  evidence  to 
support  the  claims  that:  (i)  generational  renewal  is  a  key  focus  of  the  CAP;  and  (ii) 
generational  renewal  is  indirectly  promoted  by  the  support  for  local  development  and 
quality of life in rural areas. 

Overall  labour  input  in  EU  agriculture  (a  rough  measure  of  the  number  of  people 
working in agriculture) was 9.1 million full-time equivalents in 2019. This number has 
been  falling  in  recent  years,  although  the  decline  now  seems  to  be  levelling  off  (the 
decline was 3.8% per year in 2005-2011 but reduced to a decline of only 1.4% per year in 
2011-2019).  However,  this  decline  is  overestimated,  because  of  changes  in  survey 
thresholds (mostly between 2007 and 2010) that excluded some farms (e.g. those below 
1 ha  in  Poland)  from  the  statistics.  The  decrease  in  farm  labour  was  greater  in  those 
Member States that joined the EU in or after 2004 (EU-N13) than in the older Member 
States (EU-15)41, especially over the period 2005-2011. This reflects structural changes 

40   Training for non-agricultural award holders interested in farming. 
41   The decrease in the EU-N13 was 3% per year in 2007-2016 and in the EU-15 it was 2% per year for the 

same period.  

24 

 
                                                           
after  accession  to  the  EU.  The  greatest  reductions  in  the  number  of  farm  workers  took 
place in Bulgaria (throughout the period), and in Slovakia, Romania, Estonia and Latvia 
(in particular between 2005-2011). By contrast, in the Member States that joined the EU 
before 2004, farm labour increased between 2013 and 2016 and then stagnated, although 
the number of holdings continues to fall. 

From 2007 to 2016, the total number of farms in the EU decreased significantly, from 
close to 14 million in 2007 to almost 10.5 million in 2016.  

Figure 9 – Number of persons employed 
in agriculture (million) 

Figure 10 – Number of farms in the EU 
(million) 

10

8

6

4

5
1
-
U
E

,
3
1
N
U
E

-

14

12

10

8

8
2
-
U
E

  14
  12
  10
  8
  6
  4
  2
  0

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019

2007

2010

2013

2016

EU-N13

EU-15

EU-28

EU-28

EU-15

EU-N13

Linear (EU-28)

Note:  in  full-time  equivalents,  break  in  time  series 
in 2010. 
EU-15:  EU  Member  States  before  the  accession  of  10  candidate  countries  on  1 May 2004,  EU-N13: 
Member States which joined the EU after 1 May 2004. 
Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, based on Eurostat data.  

Linear (EU-N13)

Linear (EU-15)

In the light of the combination of evidence from the MCA and the case studies, it appears 
that the CAP is not the most significant factor influencing the number of young farmers 
across the EU as a whole. Nevertheless, there are specific regions or countries where the 
CAP’s  influence  is  felt  more  strongly  than  elsewhere.  In  policy  terms,  changes  in  the 
number  of  young  farmers  over  time  within  a  territory  can  be  considered  as  a  proxy 
indicator  for  generational  renewal  in  agriculture  in  that  territory.  The  contractor,  who 
carried-out  the  study  supporting  this  evaluation,  analysed  the  pattern  of  change  in  the 
share of young farmers within the total population of farmers in 2003-2016. This analysis 
highlighted  the  significant  impact  of  wider  economic  conditions  on  the  relative 
attractiveness of farming for young people in many Member States. The share of young 
farmers  increased  during  the  global  recession  (2007-2010).  In  the  Member  States  and 
regions with relatively low levels of economic development and relatively uncompetitive 
secondary and tertiary sectors, young people were more likely to return to their parents’ 
farms to try to make a living from the land, at least until the economy recovered and job 
prospects elsewhere improved again. 

There  are  also  some  areas  where  restructuring  in  agriculture  resulted  in  a  decline  in 
agricultural-sector 
jobs  regardless  of  wider  economic  conditions.  These  areas 
experienced  a  declining  share  of  young  farmers  as  young  people  chose  alternative 
careers. However, within this group there were also some places that saw a resurgence of 
popularity in farming among young people in very recent years (e.g. Germany). 

More  precisely,  the  cluster-specific  regressions  conducted  by  the  contractor  identified 
five  clusters  according  to  economic  development  and  policy  expenditure  with  a 
differentiated impact of generational-renewal measures. These five clusters are set out in 
the  bullet  points  below.  In  this  analysis,  the  payment  indicator  included  all  direct 
payments  and  not  only  the  direct-payment  support  to  young  farmers,  as  well  as  the 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
programmed spending under Pillar II measures falling under Focus area 2B, designed to 
facilitate generational renewal. 

  Non-agricultural developed regions with low CAP expenditure: In these regions, 
the  number  of  young  farmers  increased  with  higher  infrastructure  development, 
greater  direct-payment  and  support  under  Focus  area  2B  expenditure,  and  the 
number  of  large  farms.  The  employment  rate  in  rural  areas  did  not  play  a  role. 
Without change (higher CAP payments, more infrastructure or employment), the 
number of young farmers would have decreased. 

  Agricultural  developing  regions  with  rapid  agricultural  abandonment:  In  these 
regions, the analysis shows lower correlations between generational renewal and 
the  factors  studied  (infrastructure,  employment,  CAP  support,  number  of  large 
farms).  The  number  of  young  farmers  increased  slightly  in  these  regions  with 
greater  expenditure  on  basic  services  and  direct  payments.  The  level  of 
infrastructure or employment rate had no impact on the number of young farmers. 

  Sparsely  populated  developing  areas  with  many  small  farms:  In  these  areas,  the 
number of young farmers increased with the level of direct payments and support 
under  Focus  area  2B,  as  well  as  with  expenditure  on  knowledge  transfer.  The 
level of infrastructure or employment rate had no impact on the number of young 
farmers. 

  Agricultural regions with large farms, high CAP expenditure and an ageing farm 
population: In these regions, the number of young farmers decreased significantly 
with infrastructure level and the employment rate. However, the number of young 
farmers  increased  if  expenditure  on  knowledge  and  basic  services  went  up.  In 
addition,  the  level  of  direct  payments  and  support  under  Focus  area  2B  had  no 
impact on the number of young farmers. 

  Developed  rural  areas  where  other  sectors  hinder  the  impact  of  agriculture:  In 
these  areas,  the  number  of  young  farmers  increased  when  direct  payments  and 
expenditure  under  Focus  area  2B  increased.  However,  the  number  of  young 
farmers  decreased  if  employment  figures  in  all  sectors  together  went  up. 
Infrastructure had no impact  on the number of  young  farmers. Without  support, 
the number of young farmers will decrease42. 

This analysis shows that direct payments have a stronger positive role on the number of 
young farmers than the support given to basic services, infrastructure development, and 
knowledge  transfer.  Direct  payments  play  the  most  significant  positive  role  in  sparsely 
populated  developing  areas  with  many  small  farms  (cluster  3).  It  is  also  in  these  areas 
that the effect of knowledge support is significantly positive. 

The specific modelling exercise on Poland confirmed the positive impact of Pillar I CAP 
support on job creation in the agricultural sector. It indicates that without complementary 
young-farmer support (Pillar I), the number of jobs in agriculture would be 0.62% lower. 
The  effect  of  Pillar  II  measures  under  Focus  area  2B  is  less  significant,  adding  only 
0.17% more jobs in agriculture than would otherwise be the case.  

42   Young farmers will not set up in rural areas with a decreasing population. This makes these areas less 

and less attractive. 

26 

 
                                                           
Figure 11 – Impact of CAP measures on the number of young farmers – correlation 
analysis by cluster 

Infrastructure 
Payment indicator43 
Employment 

Support to basic services 
and  village  renewal  in 
rural areas (Measure 7) 

Support 
to  knowledge 
transfer  and  information 
actions (Measure 1) 

Number  of  farms  over 
50 hectares 

Cluster 1 

Cluster 2 

Cluster 3 

Cluster 4 

Cluster 5 

0.81*** 

1.07*** 

0.10 

2.43 

-0.44 

0.41*** 

-0.34 

0.70*** 

0.23 

-4.96*** 

1.91*** 

0.24 

0.72 

0.63 

-1.86*** 

0.61*** 

0.18 

0.74*** 

-0.66*** 

0.009 

-0.08 

0.09 

1.32** 

0.70*** 

0.16*** 

2.56** 

0.01 

1.99* 

-0.55 

0.79*** 

Constant 

-2.98** 

-0.53 

-0.37 

0.90 

-0.29*** 

Note:  Indicates  statistical  significance  at  ***  1%,  **  5%,  *10%  level.  A  positive  figure  means  positive 
correlation; a negative figure means negative correlation.  
Source: Evaluation support study.  

Case  studies  showed  that  decoupled  payments  in  Pillar  I  have  a  positive  impact  on  the 
overall development of the agricultural sector. However, these case studies also showed 
that, at a regional or sub-regional level, decoupled payments provide some disincentives 
to generational renewal, slowing inter-generational farm transfer. This slowing effect was 
also  suggested  in  the  World  Bank  report44.  This  is  because  some  older  farmers  use  the 
payments as income support beyond what would be a usual retirement age to compensate 
for low pensions. 

Older farmers may be disincentivised to transfer their farms to younger people if their 
access to income and a reasonable quality of life depends on continuing to receive CAP 
support under Pillar I. However, case studies showed the effectiveness of initiatives using 
‘soft’  approaches,  including  awareness-raising,  advice,  and  planning  for  successful 
handover.  Moreover,  some  Member  States  used  institutional  mechanisms  and  fiscal 
incentives to: (i) encourage changes in land ownership; and (ii) ease the process of inter-
generational  transfer  for  older,  as  well  as  younger,  generations.  Examples  of  these 
mechanisms  and  incentives  include:  (i)  creating  farm  partnerships;  (ii)  incentivising 
share-farming and other collective business models; (iii) providing help with retirement 
income  planning  and  tax  breaks  for  the  gradual  transfer  of  assets;  and  (iv)  using  land 
banks or creating new non-profit organisations to consolidate and re-let landholdings to 
new entrants.  

Nevertheless,  Pillar  I  support  is  only  one  of  many  factors  explaining  the  inactive  land 
market. The share of land for sale every  year is  low45, and national  legislation plays a 
key  role  in  this.  This  is  because  Member  States  have  control  over  inheritance  laws; 
restrictions on access to land; transaction costs (which are often very high); and taxes.  

43   A  composite  indicator  combining  population,  education  and  spending  for  all  direct  payments  and 
programming for Focus area 2B. The direct-payment expenditure reached EUR 41 billion in 2018 while 
the programming for Focus area 2B is around EUR 1 billion annually. This payment indicator measures 
thus mainly the effect of direct payments. 

44   http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/369851513586667729/Thinking-CAP-World-Bank-Report-on-the-

EU.pdf 

45   http://www.boerengroep.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/LAND-RUSH.-2016.-The-sell-out-of-
European-Farmland.pdf. According to this source, it is 8% for European land for food crops. 

27 

 
 
                                                           
The  conclusions  of  the  effectiveness  questions  on  the  impact  of  the  CAP  measures 
targeting young farmers and in general are as follows. 

1.  Funding  for  generational  renewal  from  the  CAP  makes  a  difference  to  the 
performance of farm businesses, their resilience, and the secure transfer of farms 
from the older to the younger generation.  

2.  By  contrast,  the  positive  effect  of  the  CAP  in  fostering  the  number  of  young 
farmers varies from effective to only weakly effective between different Member 
States and territories.  

3.  The measures most relevant for generational renewal vary between countries and 
territories within countries, reflecting the different  barriers and opportunities for 
generational renewal in each situation. 

4.  Differences  in  the  magnitude  of  impact  are  determined  by  a  combination  of:  (i) 
the  underlying  socioeconomic  and  cultural  context;  (ii)  the  selection  of  CAP 
instruments;  (iii)  the  design  of  CAP  measures;  and  (iv)  the  manner  of 
implementation.  

5.  The  best  evidence  of  a  sustained  and  positive  impact  between  the  CAP  and 
generational  renewal  is  in  Member  States  in  which  a  variety  of  measures  and 
instruments is used in a complementary way. This means combining: (i) funding 
and  investment  aid  for  business  start-ups;  (ii)  advice  and  training;  and  (iii) 
incentives  for  collaborative  institutional  and/or  fiscal  arrangements  easing  inter-
generational transfer. 

6.  CAP  generational  measures  have  some  ability  to  promote  rural  vitality  in 
marginal  territories  suffering  from:  (i)  economic  and  demographic  decline;  (ii) 
poor  rural  infrastructure  and  services;  (iii)  low  levels  of  rural  economic 
diversification;  and  (iv)  little  value  added  in  agriculture  and  forestry.  In  these 
circumstances,  CAP  measures  are  particularly  effective  when  delivered  with 
supporting advice, mentoring and reviews. 

5.1.3.  Impact  of  the  CAP  measures  relevant  for  generational  renewal 
on:  (i)  the  attractiveness  of  rural  areas;  and  (ii)  jobs  in  rural 
areas 

Question 4.  To  what  extent  have  the  CAP  measures/instruments  relevant  for 
the 
generational  renewal  contributed  (directly  and 
local 
development  of  rural  areas 
governance/capacities; and (iii) social capital? 

indirectly) 
infrastructure  and  services; 

improving 

(ii) 

in: 

(i) 

to 

To  enable  local  development  and  agricultural  jobs  in  rural  areas,  it  is  particularly 
important to close the gap between rural and urban areas in infrastructure, services, local 
governance  and  social  capital.  Access  to  broadband  internet  is  an  example  of  the 
continuing  inequality  between  some  rural  and  urban  areas  in  Europe.  This  inequality 
limits  the  possibilities  for  young  farmers  to  settle  in  rural  areas,  make  a  living,  and 
improve social capital in the EU.  

Interviewees from the farming sector suggested that CAP incentives can act as a driver 
for young people to become farmers. However, they note that this decision is much more 
complex  than  a  simple  economic  calculation:  even  if  farming  opportunities  exist, 
decisions to live in rural areas are influenced by considerations of the future welfare of 
the farmer’s household. Some experts and stakeholder representatives said that the most 
significant factors influencing this decision are labour opportunities for other household 
members (spouses) and the presence of schools for children. In addition, particularly in 
remote  areas,  social  services  (such  as  medical  care)  were  judged  expensive  and 
occasionally non-existent, because there is a limited and excessively dispersed market for 

28 

 
them.  Interviewees  also  mentioned  that  poor  infrastructure  was  a  negative  driver. 
However, they said that infrastructure development may be supported by a wide range of 
policies, including some CAP measures. Interviewees said that municipalities in remote 
areas have benefited from investment initiatives under LEADER. 

Case-study  evidence  showed  the  multiplier  impacts  of  CAP  generational-renewal 
spending on the development of rural areas. The level of support  going into rural areas 
from CAP generational-renewal measures seems  particularly important in rural  areas in 
need of local development (Ireland, France, Italy). In these areas, the multiplier effect of 
this  funding  could  be  essential  for:  (i)  sustaining  (in  the  case  of  Ireland)  or  developing 
local  services;  and  (ii)  economic  diversification  (in  the  case  of  Italy  and  France). 
However, in these situations, other funding (CAP Pillar I aid, aid for areas facing natural 
constraints, and other EU funding from regional and social policy) could also be equally 
or more important. 

The  case  studies  revealed  that  LEADER  is  seen  as  having  a  dual  role  in  generational 
renewal  and wider rural  development.  In all case studies,  LEADER  was identified as a 
measure  that  helps  to  improve  quality  of  life  in  rural  areas.  However,  LEADER’s 
primary  focus  is  on  developing  entire  rural  communities/areas  and  not  on  fostering 
generational renewal itself. Based on the case studies, LEADER-type development based 
on local  planning, supplementary  earning opportunities, diversification, and support for 
cooperation  was  seen  as  effective  in  a  number  of  countries  (Hungary,  Estonia,  Ireland, 
Belgium,  Italy  and  France).  Local  government  has  directly  benefited  from  LEADER 
assistance to improve infrastructure in some cases, and LEADER is known to help build 
social capital. Where LEADER projects and initiatives explicitly target young people and 
are  therefore  directly  relevant  to  generational  renewal,  there  is  evidence  from  the  case 
studies  that  these  measures  promote  social  capital,  infrastructure,  and  local  governance 
(in Hungary, Estonia, France and Ireland).  

Slightly more than one quarter of the EU population living in rural areas was exposed to 
the risk of poverty or social exclusion in 201646. The risk was highest in rural Bulgaria 
and Romania (at  54% and 52% of the rural  populations,  respectively). Also, more than 
one third of the rural populations of Greece, Lithuania, Latvia, Spain and Croatia faced 
the risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2016. A 2017 World Bank study47 argues that 
agriculture  and  the  CAP  contribute  significantly  to  the  eradication  of  poverty  in  rural 
areas, ‘but that role differs depending on where the country finds itself along the process 
of structural transformation’. Pillar I decoupled payments and Pillar II payments show a 
different link to poverty reduction over time, as set out below. 

1.  For  regions  with  high  levels  of  economic  development,  Pillar  II  is  the  only 

payment associated with regions in which poverty declined.  

2.  For  regions  with  low  levels  of  economic  development,  both  Pillar  I  decoupled 
payments and Pillar II payments are associated with regions that achieve greater 
reductions  in  poverty.  However,  in  regions  with  low  levels  of  economic 
development, the magnitude of the correlation for Pillar II is considerably lower 
than  in  the  regions  with  high  levels  of  economic  development.  This  suggests  a 

46   Source:  Living  conditions  in  Europe  2018  edition,  Eurostat  statistical  book,  European  Union,  2018. 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/9079352/KS-DZ-18-001-EN-N.pdf/884f6fec-2450-
430a-b68d-f12c3012f4d0. 

47   World  Bank  (2017),  Thinking  CAP  -  supporting  agricultural  jobs  and  incomes  in  the  EU,  Regular 
economic  report  4,  Washington  DC,  International  Bank  for  Reconstruction  and  Development,  The 
World  Bank. 
http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/369851513586667729/Thinking-CAP-World-Bank-
Report-on-the-EU.pdf. 

29 

 
                                                           
need to improve the basic conditions of quality of life in rural areas, which would 
improve the returns on the investments made.  

The  possibility  of  implementing  the  European  innovation  partnership  (EIP)  for 
agricultural productivity and sustainability (EIP-AGRI) was a novelty in the 2014-2020 
rural  development  programmes,  and  was  taken  up  by  26  Member  States.  The  main 
objective  of  EIP-AGRI  is  to  promote  agricultural  innovation  that  is  more  resource 
efficient,  productive,  climate  friendly,  and  in  harmony  with  the  essential  natural 
resources  on  which  farming  depends.  This  objective  is  partly  achieved  by  bottom-up 
‘operational  group’  projects.  Depending  on  their  theme,  these  group  projects  can  also 
contribute  indirectly  to  boosting  generational  renewal,  especially  when  they  involve 
young  farmers.  In  general,  all  operational  groups  help  to  build  social  capital  as  they 
contribute  to  creating  networks  of  people  around  different  topics  to  improve  and 
disseminate knowledge. 

On the strengthening of social capital in rural areas, it is also worth mentioning the most 
relevant  EIP  networking  activities.  These  include:  (i)  the  focus  group  on  new  entrants 
into farming48; (ii) the seminar on new skills for digital farming; and (iii) the workshop 
on  innovative  solutions  for  small  agricultural  and  forestry  holdings.  The  focus  group 
dealt with existing or potential solutions to address the challenges faced by newcomers. 
The seminar helped farmers and farm advisers to develop the skills they need to face the 
digital  transition  in  agriculture.  And  the  workshop  promoted  networking  among  people 
and  projects  dealing  with  innovation  and  the  adoption  of  new  technologies  in  small 
farms. 

Case studies showed that generational-renewal measures can also promote social capital 
and governance benefits via collective actions and institutional change. This was the case 
in  Poland,  where  generational-renewal  measures  fostered  informal  cooperation,  and  led 
to  an  increase  in  social  capital.  In  particular,  generational-renewal  measures  helped  to 
encourage networking among farmers and between farmers and advisers. In Italy, France, 
Ireland  and  Hungary,  support  for  young  farmers  was  found  to  have  stimulated 
cooperation,  networking  and  partnerships  among  farmers.  Other  evidence  from  case 
studies  and  national  workshops  supports  this  view,  and  there  is  also  some  similar 
evidence from the literature. 

Question  5.  To  what  extent  have  the  CAP  measures/instruments  relevant  for 
generational renewal impacted directly and indirectly on the maintenance/creation of 
jobs in rural areas? 

Agriculture  represents  less  than  5%  of  employment  in  the  EU.  In  Romania,  it  still 
employs  more  than  25%  of  the  population,  but  in  other  Member  States  such  as 
Luxembourg  it  employs  less  than  1%.  It  is  a  challenge  nowadays  to  encourage  young 
farmers to  embrace agriculture as a  future  career to  reverse the damaging demographic 
trends in agriculture. Encouraging young farmers to enter the agricultural sector, as either 
a manager or an ordinary employee, can contribute to job creation, greater sustainability 
and increased efficiency in the EU agricultural sector. 

This evaluation question assesses: (i) how many jobs are sustained or created directly by 
CAP  generational-renewal  funds;  (ii)  what  the  likely  scale  of  multiplier  effects  is  from 
CAP  generational-renewal  funding  on  employment  in  other  sectors;  and  (iii)  how  the 
jobs created contribute to the development of rural areas more broadly. 

48   https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/publications/eip-agri-focus-group-new-entrants-final-report  

30 

 
                                                           
Figure  12  –  Predicted  employment 
expenditure in Poland, 2014-2020   

National employment 

Upstream or 
downstream 

impacts  of  CAP  generational-renewal 

Pillar I young 
farmers: % change 
from baseline 

Pillar II Focus area 2B: 
% change from 
baseline 

Primary sector 

Food sector  

Construction 

Trade 

Tourism (Hotel & 
Restaurants) 

Education  

Public administration 

NA 

Downstream 

Upstream 

Downstream 

Downstream 

Upstream 

Upstream 

Other 
Note: The baseline depicts a situation without CAP support. 
Source: Evaluation support study. 

NA 

0.62 

0.13 

0.01 

0.01 

0.02 

0.05 

0.06 

-0.07 

0.17 

0.19 

0.02 

0.02 

0.04 

0.08 

0.09 

-0.02 

The  CGE  modelling  work  on  the  Polish  economy  indicates  that  support  for  young 
farmers under both Pillar I and Pillar II of the CAP creates employment in the regional 
economy in Poland. While the overall number of jobs created by each pillar was similar 
over the programming period 2014-2020, the composition of the employment differed by 
CAP instrument. The Pillar I supplement for  young farmers played a significant role in 
the  primary  sector  mainly  due  to  its  much  greater  scale,  creating  0.62%  more  jobs 
compared to the baseline situation without this supplement. The effect in the food sector 
is smaller but still significant (+0.13% compared to baseline). In the rest of the economy, 
the  role  of  Pillar  I  support  on  jobs  is  very  small,  except  for  public  administration 
(+0.06%). In Poland, the effect of the support under the Pillar II Focus area 2B is smaller 
than  Pillar  I  in  the  primary  sector  (+0.17%  jobs).  However,  the  effect  of  this  Pillar  II 
support  in  the  food  sector  is  significant  (+0.19%  jobs  compared  to  baseline).  Pillar  II 
support also has positive effects on education and public administration. However, these 
are  rough  estimates  for  Poland,  indicating  the  general  magnitude  of  impacts,  and  it 
cannot be assumed that all these new jobs would be in rural areas. 

For rural employment overall, these impacts are small in comparison to wider economic 
drivers  and  trends.  Polish  interviewees  from  the  farming  sector  also  observed  that  the 
situation in  the labour market  in  rural areas had  reversed compared to  10  years earlier. 
The interviewees said that there used to be many young people unemployed in rural areas 
but  that  now  there  was  almost  no  unemployment  and  that  employment  levels  in  rural 
areas  were  similar  to  those  in  urban  areas.  This  creates  an  important  ‘pull’  factor  for 
young farmers. 

For  Italy,  case-study  findings  show  some  employment  effects  on  beneficiaries  of  the 
young-farmers’  package  in  2007-2013  (Pillar  I  and  II),  as  set  out  in  the  bullet  points 
below.  

In Sicily, farm employment increased by about 1.5 workers per year on average in each 
farm.  This  increase  was  mostly  made  up  of  permanent  employees  (73%),  followed  by 
seasonal workers (11%) and family labour (16%). 

In one third of new farms in Marche,  young farmers started working full-time after the 
generational  change. Before the generational change, they were under-employed. In the 
other two thirds of new farms, there was no relevant change in employment status (full-
time or part-time) after the generational change. 

31 

 
In  France,  the  decline  in  agricultural  employment  expressed  in  annual  working  units 
between 2007 and 2016 was less marked than the EU average, or in most neighbouring 
countries. The ex-post evaluation49 of the French rural development programmes showed 
that the pattern of declining employment in agriculture slowed markedly after 2010. It is 
difficult  to  isolate  the  role  of  the  rural  development  programmes  in  influencing  this 
change  (wider  economic  conditions  had  a  significant  influence).  However,  a  dedicated 
study50  attempted  to  do  this,  and  found  a  positive  correlation  between  support  for 
knowledge  exchange/training,  agri-environmental  measures  and  diversification  on  the 
one  hand  and  levels  of  employment  in  agriculture  on  the  other.  But  this  study  did  not 
examine  support  for  young  farmers  specifically.  The  ex-post  evaluation  also  made  an 
interesting finding about mountain  areas that were sustained through considerable CAP 
support via: (i) aid for areas facing natural constraints; (ii) aid and higher rates of support 
for investments and the setting up of new farms; and (iii) generational-renewal measures. 
In  these  mountain  areas,  the  levels  of  farm  employment  were  less  likely  to  have  fallen 
than in other regions of France. 

In  Hungary,  the  most  successful  CAP  measures  for  retaining  the  workforce  and 
expanding employment in rural areas were those that supported greater labour intensity 
and that were implemented alongside greater capital investment.  

In Ireland, the case study reported that 7 000 new farmers had set up so far during the 
current programming period. However, the case study did not say what the figure would 
have  been  in  the  absence  of  CAP  support,  or  how  many  older  farmers  retired  as  these 
new  farms  were  set  up.  In  Ireland,  the  impact  of  generational-renewal  measures  on 
employment is likely to be greater when they target labour-intensive forms of agriculture 
rather  than  farm  succession  in  capital-intensive  sectors  where  opportunities  to  expand 
labour use are limited. 

The  MCA  indicated  that  CAP  spending  has  a  positive  impact  on  the  number  of  young 
farmers in most rural areas across the EU. The greatest positive impacts are on farms in 
marginal  areas  with  scope  for  economic  development.  By  contrast,  the  aid  might  not 
generate  much  employment  impact  in  farms  located  in:  (i)  areas  where  the  wider 
economy  is  depressed  or  undeveloped;  or  (ii)  completely  different  and  economically 
buoyant regions where agriculture is capital-intensive. 

The  case-study  evidence  shows  that  the  impact  of  generational-renewal  measures  on 
employment is likely to be greater when these measures target labour-intensive forms 
of  agriculture  rather  than  farm  succession  in  capital-intensive  sectors  where 
opportunities to expand labour use are limited. The case study also shows a link between 
diversified businesses and value-adding business development: generational-renewal aid 
that helps farmers to re-think their business strategies and have confidence to move into 
higher  value  markets  are  more  likely  to  generate  businesses  that  create  new  rural  jobs. 
Encouraging farmers to re-think their business strategies in this way also depends on the 
quality  of  supporting  advice  and  mentoring.  This  is  because  this  advice  and  mentoring 
needs  to  give  farmers  the  entrepreneurial  confidence  to  move  into  new  markets  or 
develop supply chains. 

49   See Evaluation ex-post du PDRH 2007-2013, rapport final tome 2, pp.319-332 (création d’emplois) et 
https://www.reseaurural.fr/centre-de-

pp.202-212 
ressources/documents/rapport-final-de-levaluation-ex-post-du-pdrh-2007-2013. 

(renouvellement 

générations) 

des 

50   ‘Evaluation of the impact of rural development measures on farm labour use: a spatial approach’, 2014, 

Y. Desjeux, P. Dupraz, L. Latruffe, E. Maigne, E. Cahusac, 

32 

 
                                                           
CAP measures mainly target the maintenance or protection of farming jobs rather than 
the  creation  of  new  farming  jobs.  The  case-study  evidence  shows  that  generational-
renewal measures help to maintain agricultural jobs, particularly in marginal areas. It is 
also  important  that  support  be  delivered  in  a  targeted  way  with  advice  and  training  to 
improve  the  quality  of  those  jobs  and  the  performance  of  supported  businesses.  In 
particular,  the  World  Bank  report  Thinking  CAP51  said  that  the  CAP  supported  the 
creation of better (i.e. more remunerative) jobs for the workers who remained behind in 
agriculture, while it reduced poverty in agricultural areas.  

5.2.  Efficiency 

The evaluation  criterion  on efficiency aims  to  show whether the effects  (benefits) were 
achieved  at  a  reasonable  cost.  This  criterion  firstly  assesses  the  measures  that  directly 
promote  generational  renewal  (Question  6),  and  secondly  assesses  the  measures  that 
indirectly  promote  generational  renewal  (Question  7).  It  also  looks  at  any  possible 
reduction in administrative burden created by the measures. 

5.2.1.  Administrative  efficiency  of  the  measures  to  foster  generational 

renewal and quality of life in rural areas 

Question 6. To what extent have the relevant CAP measures/instruments been efficient 
in directly fostering generational renewal? 

This evaluation question assesses the estimated administrative costs of delivering support 
for  generational  renewal.  It  also  evaluates:  (i)  how  implementation  costs  vary  across 
Member  States/regions:  (ii)  which  measures  are  most  expensive  and  why;  and  (iii) 
whether there are ways to reduce these costs without reducing outcomes.  

Interviews  and  online  surveys  showed  that  rural  development  programmes  in  some 
Member  States  changed  significantly  from  one  period  to  the  next.  This  may  cause 
uncertainty  and  give  rise  to  additional  costs.  Another  important  issue  raised  by 
interviewees  and  respondents  in  the  farming  sector  was  that  generational-renewal 
measures usually address young people that are already interested in these measures and 
informed about them. However, many young people could avail of funding opportunities 
but are not able to find out about them.  

Efficiency  has  been  measured  in  costs  and  time  to  complete  business  start-ups  and 
related investments linked to the business plan. Efficiency varies considerably between: 
(i)  different  countries;  (ii)  different  measures  that  are  delivered  individually  or  in 
packages; and (iii) different delivery approaches and actors within these processes.  

Case  studies  have  assessed  the  costs  of  delivering  support  for  generational  renewal. 
These costs have been calculated on the basis of: (i) the working time spent in preparing, 
approving  and  providing  payments  for  an  average  application;  and  (ii)  the  average 
salaries of administrative-technical personnel involved in processing applications in some 
Member States.  

For  example,  the  delivery  cost  of  support  to  Italian  young  farmers  is  reasonably  low 
(between EUR 5 000 and 5 500 per application in Marche and Sicily). It is especially low 
considering that the support package always includes at least two measures (sometimes 
three)  and  that  these  delivery  costs  represent  about  2%  of  the  total  public  expenditure 

51   http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/369851513586667729/Thinking-CAP-World-Bank-Report-on-the-

EU.pdf  

33 

 
 
                                                           
activated  by  the  package  in  the  two  regions  considered.  But  there  are  other  Member 
States  where  delivery  costs  are  higher.  In  some  regions,  a  higher  cost  (such  as  above 
EUR 7 000  per  application  in  the  French  Loire  region  for  Measure  6  on  ‘Farm  and 
business development’) is partly explained by the longer time devoted to advising young 
farmers on how to prepare the application. This increases the share of delivery costs in 
total expenditure, but this seems necessary to reach as many farmers as possible and to 
prepare viable projects. In Haute-Loire, the costs are lower (EUR 4 000 per application). 
In  both  French  regions,  the  costs  are  also  lower  for  investment  support  (sub-measure 
4.1), at between EUR 1 000 and EUR 2 500 per application. 

Delivery  costs  do  not  include  private  costs  (costs  borne  exclusively  by  the  applicant), 
which have been estimated separately in some countries. Private costs strongly depend on 
the complexity of the application and the size of the investment.  In general, the  cost of 
filling in applications has not been expensive in recent times, as it is fully digitalised in 
most  case-study  countries.  For  the  installation  grant  (paid  to  young  farmers  setting  up 
their  farms  for  the  first  time),  private  costs  were  estimated  at  between  EUR 375  and 
500 per  application  in  Poland,  between  EUR 400  and  1 000  in  Estonia,  and  around 
EUR 2 000 in Hungary. In Ireland, the estimated private costs (including the private costs 
of investment support) vary between EUR 375 and 1 175 depending on the complexity of 
the application. 

Efficiency in combining different instruments to promote generational change is more 
evident in France and Italy. France combines rural-development instruments and national 
policies to support the preparation of installation-grant applications. Italy mixes different 
instruments and simplifies the application process for the potential beneficiary in a ‘one-
stop-shop’ approach.  

Interviews  and  case  studies  show  other  examples  of  efficiency  and  inefficiency  in  the 
design  and  implementation  of  generational  renewal  measures  under  the  CAP.  In 
summary, Pillar I support for young farmers is comparatively cheap to deliver. Pillar II 
aid is perceived by some beneficiaries as relatively simple and easy to access, but it can 
also be associated with slow processes and relatively high implementation costs. The key 
factors for administrative efficiency in the delivery of aid include: 

o 

o 

o 

o 

the  ratio  of  applicants  to  available  funds  (a  high  ratio  can  easily  swamp  the 
delivery system and lead to long delays);  
the  quality  of  information  (including  transparent  selection  and  eligibility 
processes),  advice  and  support  available  to  applicants  to  ensure  that  their 
plans  and  applications  are  of  high  quality  (to  reduce  delays  and  repeat 
requests for more information);  
the  level  of  skills,  resourcing  and  coordination  of  relevant  personnel  within 
the  public  administration  to:  (i)  facilitate  swift  and  robust  appraisal  of 
applications  (to  enable  funding  to  be  offered  to  the  cases  offering  best 
additionality);  and  (ii)  smooth  the  process  of  associated  permissions  or 
checks;  
the  ease  of  operation,  continuity,  and  quality  of  communications  between 
beneficiaries  and  administrative/advisory  personnel  (to  encourage  trust  and 
efficiency in transactions). 

Targeting  aid  rates  –  or  using  selection  criteria  –  appear  to  be  efficient  ways  to  direct 
policy instruments towards certain issues. There is evidence that adjusting rates of aid in 
different areas can focus public expenditure on the most fragile areas (mountainous and 
remote areas). 

34 

 
Efficiency appears to be strongly conditioned by  institutional organisation at Member 
State and regional level. Every delivery model must be analysed taking into account any 
external  conditions  that  hamper  the  type  of  delivery  undertaken.  This  is  key  to  any 
evaluation: the different approaches cannot be assessed only in terms of costs and time; 
many more factors might play a role.  

Most  of  the  policy  instruments  under  examination  are  less  efficient  for  young 
entrepreneurs coming from outside the traditional family-farm setting, and for those 
without  experience  in  the  agricultural  sector.  Preparing  an  application  and  securing  aid 
takes longer and requires more effort for this group than it does for farm successors. This 
is because there is an important role played by knowledge transfer from older farmers to 
younger farmers within a family.  

In  conclusion,  no  significant  inefficiency  problems  were  found.  The  administrative 
costs of applying for and processing applications can be considered to be reasonably in 
line with the size and complexity of the projects. This is especially the case if the projects 
are implemented under the form of a package of measures.  

Question 7.  To  what  extent  have  all  CAP  measures/instruments  been  efficient  in 
fostering  generational  renewal  indirectly,  by  improving  the  quality  of  life  in  rural 
areas? 

The  analysis  of  this  evaluation  question  is  based  on  the  evidence  gathered  in  other 
evaluation questions. This evidence suggests that generational-renewal measures have a 
positive,  small,  indirect  impact  on  quality  of  life  for  farmers.  A  focus  on  generational 
renewal  without  a  balancing  investment  in  wider  rural  development  is  a  restrictive  and 
insufficient  approach.  It  therefore  seems  clear  that,  to  maximise  the  potential  for 
generational-renewal  measures to  enhance quality  of life, it is  important to  see them as 
only one component of a broader mixture of essential interventions. 

Rural-development  aid,  in  complement  to  other  EU  policies  such  as  the  regional  and 
cohesion  funds,  that  promotes  rural  economic  diversification,  added-value,  better 
services, and better infrastructure (including broadband) is potentially vital to improving 
the broader economic climate, particularly in remote areas. Within the rural development 
programmes, the share of funding devoted to economic diversification, job creation and 
rural  services  (including  broadband,  transport  and  social/community  activities)  is 
relatively  small  (around  15%).  However,  from  the  interviews  and  secondary  evidence 
reviewed,  this  expenditure  brings  value  at  local  level  and  indirectly  promotes 
generational  renewal.  For  example,  in  Member  States  that  fund  the  development  of 
broadband access with EAFRD, there is a direct link between the funded operations and 
the  impact  achieved:  in  Lithuania,  next-generation-access  (NGA)  broadband  in  rural 
areas increased from 15.6% to 28.7% between 2015 and 2019, while in Sweden it went 
up from 13.9% to 40.9%. 

In  addition,  several  case  studies  showed  that  the  significant  expenditure  on  agri-
environment-climate measures and on support for areas facing natural constraints had an 
indirect  but  important  effect  on  generational  renewal.  This  aid  does  not  have  a  direct 
impact on rural quality of life understood more broadly. However, it helps significantly 
to  keep  farmers  in  the  business  by  meeting  their  income  needs,  particularly  in 
economically marginal areas. This is seen as important by interviewees for maintaining 
communities and cultural value in these places.  

Without Pillar I support, modelling exercises showed that many farms would be unviable 
and  that  agricultural  employment  would  decline.  But  studies  reached  different 
conclusions about the effects of this on rural quality of life. Some studies suggested that 
this  could  lead  to  a  decline  in  the  quality  of  rural  life  associated  with  further  rural 

35 

 
depopulation. Other studies suggested it could release resources from agriculture which 
could  stimulate  other  kinds  of  rural  added  value  or  economic  activity,  adding  to  rural 
quality  of  life.  To  add  to  this  complexity,  the  diversity  of  situations  of  rural  change 
described in the case studies means that the balance of positive and negative impacts of 
direct  payments  on  rural  quality  of  life  depends  critically  on  wider  socioeconomic 
conditions and on other economic and social policies. These conditions and policies vary 
considerably between countries and regions. 

The  EAFRD  accounted  for  only  23%  of  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds 
(ESIF)  spending  in  the  2014-2020  period.  The  execution  rate  of  EAFRD  (60%)  is  the 
highest, together with the Youth Employment Initiative.  

5.2.2.  Administrative burden 

relevant  CAP 
Question 8.  What 
measures/instruments  linked  to  generational  renewal:  (i)  at  the  level  of  the 
beneficiaries; (ii) at the level of Member-State administrations; and (iii) at EU level? 

the  administrative  burden  of 

the 

is 

Efficiency is also affected by administrative burden. This question seeks to ascertain: (i) 
to what extent accessing and delivering generational-renewal measures is felt as a heavy 
administrative burden on applicants and delivery bodies; and (ii) whether there is scope 
to reduce this burden. It also asks at which policy level the burdens arise, so that remedial 
actions can be targeted appropriately.  

Evidence from the case studies shows that time requirements differ across programmes 
and  depend  on  three  broad  categories  of  factors:  (i)  the  requirements  of  the  rural 
development  programme  (designed  by  Member  States);  (ii)  the  role  of  institutions  and 
the  private  sector;  and  (iii)  general  socioeconomic  factors.  Inefficiency  arises  due  to 
inadequate  support  to  farmers  when  they  are  preparing  their  applications.  This  is  a 
specific  problem  in  Poland  and  Belgium  (Flanders),  where  case  studies  highlighted 
incomplete applications and the delays they cause in the approval process. More complex 
projects usually require more time, both in the assessment and implementing phases. This 
is  because  business  plans  often  cover:  (i)  new  buildings  or  the  restructuring  of  already 
existing  buildings  (Poland,  Hungary  and,  Ireland);  (ii)  more  innovative  investments 
(Sicily and Marche); or (iii) the diversification of farm activities (Hungary). 

According  to  interviewees  from  the  farming  sector,  few  people  can  apply  to  a  rural-
development scheme without help and this implies a cost. For example, the application 
processes for Measures 6 (farm and business development) and 4 (investment in physical 
assets)  can  be  complicated  for  applicants.  These  processes  may  therefore  require  skills 
beyond applicants’ knowledge and expertise. Furthermore, advice is not always relevant 
or accessible. In countries where the government provides an advisory service, it is easier 
for interested young farmers to apply for funding. Provision of private advisory services 
may vary.  For  example, in remote areas, private  advisory  services may be non-existent 
because  there  is  a  limited  market  for  them.  Other  issues  arise  from  the  perceived 
relationship  of  applicants  to  Member-State  authorities.  Interviewees  from  the  farming 
sector reported that, in  some Member States,  young  farmers wanting to  access  Pillar  II 
measures  have  become  frustrated  with  the  amount  of  detail  they  must  provide  and  the 
strict checks on applications. Some of the referred interviewees concluded that with less 
administrative  burden  –  or  more  help  from  effective  advisory  services  –  farmers  could 
better concentrate on effective and innovative entrepreneurship. 

Literature  reviews  show  mixed  findings  on  the  impact  of  bureaucracy.  Some  found 
excessive  administration  and  strict  requirements  to  be  a  barrier  to  farmers  accessing 
support.  Other  studies  reported  cases  where  the  administrative  requirements  – 
specifically, the requirement to submit a business plan – were found to be positive. This 
36 

 
is  because these requirements discouraged less  entrepreneurial farmers,  and taught  new 
skills  to  those  who  persevered.  Some  studies  found  that  farmers  were  only  able  to 
complete  the  paperwork  with  mentoring  support.  This  support  could  be  costly  if  not 
provided by government schemes, but it had a positive outcome by teaching new skills. 

The  evaluator  in  charge  of  the  support  study  sent  a  questionnaire  to  public  officials 
working  in  bodies  managing  rural  development  to  evaluate  data  on  the  time  it  took  to 
deliver  development  aid  across  the  EU.  The  results  of  the  questionnaire  compared 
delivery  times  in  Poland,  France  (Loire)  and  Italy  (Marche  and  Sicily).  These  results 
show that the preparation of applications in the Loire took longer than in other countries. 
This was due to the specific accompanying programme of supporting advice/training and 
planning.  Italian  application  packages  also  take  longer  than  average  to  approve  and 
complete (especially in Marche). In the specific case of Marche, these longer times are 
due  to  the  increasing  difficulties  faced  by  farms  in:  (i)  covering  investment  costs  with 
their own money during the transition period before the new production is set up; and (ii) 
finding  credit  support  from  banks.  The  administrative  capacity  of  regional/local  offices 
plays a crucial role in delivery time in Hungary and Italy. This capacity depends on the 
number  of  people  involved  and  the  ratio  between  technical  officials  and  applications 
submitted.  Delays  in  getting  funds  from  paying  agencies  were  emphasised  by  case 
studies from Belgium, Hungary and Italy. In particular, delays are linked to the procedure 
set up by the paying agency to check payment claims. 

Changes  in  implementing  rules  (between  calls,  from  one  programming  period  to  the 
next,  or  even  within  the  same  programming  period)  often  affect  the  speed  of 
preparation/submission of applications by potential beneficiaries. 

The  application  process  for  these  measures  may  also  be  made  more  burdensome  for 
applicants by poor policy design or inadequate resourcing at national or local levels. 
This can lead to a lack of administrative personnel to make appropriate checks and take 
decisions.  Proper  interpretation  of  legal  and  other  requirements  (such  as  planning 
permissions) can also delay the process and increase the perceived administrative burden 
by interviewees and applicants in the farming sector. In addition, the need to comply with 
the  selection  criteria  of  individual  measures,  and  the  practice  of  financial  allocation  by 
individual  measures,  unnecessarily  increases  the  complexity  of  selecting  packages  of 
measures and managing financial resources within the package.  

The delivery costs (i.e. the costs of management and checks) for the whole CAP budget 
borne  by  Member  States  are  estimated  at  3.5%  of  CAP  expenditure52.  This  is 
significantly  less  for  direct  payments  (2.1%)  than  for  rural  development  (5.4%).  This 
level is very reasonable and the CAP is cost-effective. For beneficiaries, delivery costs 
related  to  rural-development  measures  were  estimated  in  2011  at  4.7%  of  total  public 
expenditure (including national co-financing)53. 

5.3.  Coherence 

The evaluation criterion on coherence aims at demonstrating: (i) whether the intervention 
contradicts other interventions with similar objectives; and (ii) whether the intervention 
works  well  together  with  other  EU  interventions.  The  coherence  analysis  assesses  the 

52   https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/annual-activity-report-2019-agriculture-and-rural-

development_en  

53   SWD(2018)318final – Impact assessment -  

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:c1206abb-65a0-11e8-ab9c-
01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_3&format=PDF. 

37 

 
                                                           
‘internal’  coherence  (how  the  different  components  of  the  interventions  interact  with 
each other) and ‘external coherence’ (how the different components of the interventions 
interact  with  other  interventions  at  EU,  Member  States  or  international  level).  This 
chapter also assesses the influence of external factors on CAP measures. 

5.3.1.  Coherence  of  relevant  CAP  measures  linked  to  generational 

renewal with each other  

9.  To  what  extent  are  the  relevant  CAP  measures/instruments  linked  to  generational 
renewal in rural areas coherent with each other? 

This  evaluation  question  evaluates:  (i)  to  what  extent  the  different  measures  work 
together  to  support  generational  renewal  in  rural  areas;  (ii)  how  effective  integrated 
approaches/projects  (combining  different  measures)  are  in  supporting  young  farmers 
and/or  entrepreneurs;  and  (iii)  whether  there  is  good  local  coordination  at  the  point  of 
delivery of the generational-renewal measures. 

The  extent  to  which  measures/instruments  linked  to  generational  renewal  are  coherent 
with each other varies across the case studies. The delivery models vary, but in general, 
measures  are  considered  to  be  mutually  supportive  with  a  high  degree  of  synergies. 
Delivery  models  range  from  single  measures  of  support  (Belgium  (Flanders),  Estonia, 
Poland  and  Ireland)  to  complex  integrated  packages54  (Italy,  Hungary  and  France).  In 
Belgium  (Flanders),  Poland,  Estonia  and  Ireland,  no  coordinated  packages  of  measures 
are offered, although the managing authorities and beneficiaries have identified synergies 
between the measures proposed. 

The main parts of the integrated packages analysed in the case studies are set out in the 
points below55. 

1.  In Italy, the so-called young-farmers’ package builds on the integrated use of start-up 
aid  with  measures  on business plans, farm diversification and other investments 
from  the  rural-development-programmes  (RDP)  menu.  The  direct-payment 
support to young farmers is not part of the package. 

2.  In  Hungary,  the  young-farmer  thematic  sub-programme  supports  the  start-up  and 
development  of  farms  by  enhancing  knowledge,  developing  practical  skills,  and 
offering consulting and mentoring. 

3.  In France, complementarity between measures is particularly strong for the livestock 
sectors  and  in  areas  facing  natural  constraints.  This  is  because  of:  (i)  the 
elimination of the age limit for support in areas facing natural constraints; (ii) the 
revaluation  of  income-support  entitlements  in  disadvantaged  areas;  and  (iii)  the 
lowering of minimum density thresholds. 

There  are  also  a  few  interesting  examples  of  coherence  in  Member  States  that  do  not 
implement integrated packages. These examples are set out below. 

1. 

In  Ireland,  young-farmer  schemes  under  Pillars  I  and  II  of  the  CAP  are  mutually 
supportive.  These  schemes  include:  (i)  Pillar  I  young-farmers’  support;  (ii)  the 
national reserve56; (iii) the top-up investment aid; and (iv) legal  advice through the 

54   Integrated  packages  are  packages  that  include  several  measures  tailored  to  one  objective  (e.g.  young 
farmers). The main benefit of this approach is that it is a single entry point for young farmers to benefit 
from all the support they are entitled to, thus reducing administrative burden. 

55   See also Annex 6. 
56   More information on the Irish national reserve is provided here: https://www.gov.ie/en/service/a53f86-

national-reserve-young-farmer-category/. 

38 

 
                                                           
cooperation measure. These four measures operate together to create registered farm 
partnerships. 

2.  In Estonia,  young farmers receive a higher level of financial support in  Measures  6 
(farm and business development) and 4 (investment). Estonia was the first Member 
State  to  launch  EAFRD  financial  instruments  for  young  farmers  during  the  2014-
2020 programming period. The objective of the financial instruments is to improve 
access to credit for micro, small and medium-sized agricultural and rural enterprises. 
In Poland, young interviewees underlined how the coherence of the country’s three 
measures for young farmers helped to encourage them in their decision to run farm 
businesses. One young interviewee explained that he was encouraged to take over a 
farm  when  his  father  took  early  retirement,  and  that  the  young  farmer  had  himself 
benefited from start-up-support and the income-support supplement. 

3. 

Across the examined case studies, the various Pillar I and Pillar II generational-renewal 
measures  were  found  coherent  with  each  other.  Nevertheless,  some  case-study  reports 
showed  more  coherence  than  others.  In  general,  while  serving  different  purposes57,  the 
two  Pillars  support  each  other  by  having  a  common  goal  of  supporting  generational 
renewal. The coherence is especially strong where integrated packages or multi-measure 
approaches are designed and implemented. In addition, young-farmer supplements under 
Pillar I are being modified in  some countries to improve coherence with  modernisation 
programmes.  
However, as reflected in the European Parliament study, in some local situations58 Pillar I 
payments  can  limit  land  availability  by  keeping  older  farmers  in  business.  These 
payments can therefore make it more difficult for Pillar II measures to be implemented to 
the greatest effect, particularly for new entrants in agriculture that do not inherit land.  

In addition, the World Bank report argues: 

CAP  subsidies  drive  up  the  price  of  land,  making  it  more  difficult  for  potential  new 
farmers, including the young and the poor, to enter agriculture and for existing farms to 
expand  through  renting  or  purchasing  land.  Land  prices,  of  course,  depend  on  many 
factors,  other  than  CAP  subsidies  (coupled  or  decoupled):  land-market  regulations, 
commodity prices, infrastructure provision, interest rates, urbanisation, taxation, etc.” 

5.3.2.  Coherence of relevant CAP measures with other EU policies 

Question 10.  To  what  extent  are  the  relevant  CAP  measures/instruments  linked  to 
generational renewal coherent with other EU policies and actions? 

The CAP intervention needs to be coherent with other EU interventions on generational 
renewal, local development, and employment in rural areas. 

This  evaluation  question  therefore  evaluates  to  what  extent  the  CAP  measures  of  the 
EAFRD are coherent with other funds within the Common Strategic Framework (CSF): 
(i)  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF);  (ii)  the  European  Social  Fund 
(ESF);  and  (iii)  in  coastal  areas,  the  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  (EMFF). 
More  particularly,  this  question  evaluates  whether:  (i)  these  measures  contradict  or 
duplicate other CAP funding and goals; and (ii) there is good local, regional and national 
coordination  between  CAP  generational-renewal  measures  and  other  EU  policy 
measures. 

57   Pillar I measures aim to provide direct income support to beneficiaries, whereas Pillar II measures aim 

to improve the development of rural areas.  

58   As reflected in the European Parliament study as well. 

39 

 
                                                           
The EAFRD represents  around 23% of the CSF funds. By Member States, Poland gets 
the most funding from the CSF budget, followed by Italy. Luxembourg and Malta get the 
least  funding  from  the  CSF  budget.  In  addition  to  the  EAFRD  (which  finances  rural 
development),  there  is  the  European  Agricultural  Guarantee  Fund  (EAGF),  which 
finances direct payments, including the supplement to young farmers. 

Case-study  interviewees  perceived  there  to  be  limited  coherence  between  the  relevant 
CAP  measures  on  generational  renewal  and  other  EU  or  national  policies.  There  are 
some national-level  strategies (e.g. in  Ireland) where:  (i)  clear links are  drawn between 
EU and national-level policies; and (ii) support is targeted at rural areas. These national-
level strategies lead to a perception of coherent delivery. However, there is little evidence 
of any integrated delivery or interaction between CAP measures on generational renewal 
and other EU or national policies. 

Through  the  new  CSF,  there  is  a  requirement  for  the  planning  of  rural  development 
programmes  to  coordinate  closely  with  Member  States’  programming  of  the  other  EU 
CSF  funds.  This  has  encouraged  a  more  disciplined  and  strategic  approach  to  the 
coordination  and  complementarity  of  funding  than  existed  previously.  However,  much 
still  depends  on  the  quality  of  communication  processes  at  Member-State  level. 
Coordination at Member-State level and the drafting of a common strategic document at 
EU level (partnership agreement) help to reduce conflict and overlap between the main 
funds of the CSF and EAFRD.  

There  is  also  coherence  with  research  funding.  On  EU  research,  there  are  relevant 
projects running under the Horizon 2020 programme for EU research, which examine the 
challenges of generational renewal in Europe’s rural areas and provide possible solutions 
to  these  challenges.  The  evaluation  has  not  found  direct  evidence  of  these  studies 
working  in  a  coherent  way  with  CAP  funding.  Nevertheless,  these  studies  are  able  to 
increase  understanding  of  the  challenges  of  generational  renewal  in  these  contexts  and 
ways to overcome these challenges.  

The Commission is  currently running several  research projects  on  generational  renewal 
in  farming.  One  of  these  is  a  thematic  network  on  new  entrants  into  farming  called 
NEWBIE59 (a coordination and support action with a budget  of EUR 2 million). These 
projects look at ‘entry models’ and ‘business models’ of new entrants (both ‘successors’ 
who have inherited farms and people who enter with no family background) and at their 
needs for support. The aim of the project is to produce tools and knowledge to facilitate 
entry into farming. The NEWBIE project is based on 90 case studies in nine countries, all 
illustrated  through  a  storytelling  video  gallery60  that  can  inspire  other  newcomers.  The 
analysis of the NEWBIE case studies highlighted a lack of knowledge and data on new 
entrants to farming in the nine countries analysed. This analysis also revealed that access 
to  land,  finance,  markets,  knowledge  and  appropriate  advice  (especially  on  the 
formulation of business plans) were the main barriers to entering the sector.  

After  NEWBIE,  two  research  and  innovation  actions  (costing  EUR 6 million  each), 
RURALIZATION61  and  POLIRURAL62,  started  in  May  and  June  2019,  respectively. 
Both  projects  analyse  the  drivers  and  trends  affecting  rural  demography  and  conduct 
foresight  activities  (results  in  2021).  RURALIZATION  is  working  on  an  inventory  of 

59   CORDIS factsheet: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/212394/factsheet/en. 

Project website: http://www.newbie-academy.eu/. 

60   http://www.newbie-academy.eu/word-map/  
61   CORDIS factsheet: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/817642 - Project website: https://ruralization.eu/.  
62   CORDIS factsheet: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/818496 - Project website: https://polirural.eu/.  

40 

 
                                                           
‘futures dreams’ by the youth. It is also: (i) studying promising practices enabling rural 
newcomers, new entrants to farming, and farm successors to settle in rural areas; and (ii) 
analysing  rules,  policies  and  actions 
land.  The 
RURALIZATION  team  has  published  10  country  factsheets  providing  an  overview  of 
the  situation  for  newcomers  to  rural  areas  and  farming63.  In  addition  to  the  challenges 
identified in NEWBIE, the RURALIZATION team highlights difficulties for newcomers 
in integrating into rural communities. POLIRURAL has developed a participatory vision 
of  rural  attractiveness  alongside  data  analysis  and  modelling  tools64.  The  three  projects 
were inspired by the focus group on new entrants into farming65 conducted by the EIP-
AGRI66. 

improve  access 

that  can 

to 

There is also coherence with the EIB. In April 2019, then-Commissioner for Agriculture 
Phil  Hogan  and  the  EIB  Vice-President  Andrew  McDowell  launched  an  initiative  on 
young farmers jointly run by the European Commission and the EIB. The initiative aims 
to bring together all forms of EAFRD support and the financial firepower and expertise 
of the EIB group. The main building blocks of the initiative are:  

  a  new  EIB  lending  envelope  of  EUR  1  billion  for  farmers,  channelled  through 
specialised  intermediary  banks,  and  with  a  dedicated  component  for  young 
farmers with several preferential conditions; 

  continued use of EAFRD grants for young farmers and start-ups, which may also 

be used as interest-rate subsidies or for technical assistance; 

  EIB  advisory  support  through  fi-compass,  or  on  a  bilateral  basis,  to  EAFRD 

managing authorities. 

Managing  authorities  might  also  benefit  from  the  expertise  of  the  European 
Investment Fund (EIF) in managing EAFRD-backed financial instruments to secure 
additional funding and expertise from specialised financial intermediaries67.  

5.3.3.  Influence of external factors 

11. To what extent are the CAP measures on generational renewal influenced 
positively or negatively by external factors?  

14. What are the external factors that affect the CAP policies on generational renewal? 

External factors may help or hinder the policy measures. For generational renewal, these 
external factors play a major role and can directly act as entry barriers for newcomers in 
agriculture.  

Firstly,  on  access  to  land,  institutional  arrangements  (e.g.  tax  regimes,  rules  on  land 
management,  rules  on  tenure,  inheritance  laws)  economic  factors  (e.g.  land  availability 
to 
and  prices),  and  socio-cultural  factors  (e.g.  retirement  support  and  access 
pensions/housing  for  older  farmers)  can  play  a  major  role  in  reducing  land  availability 
and affordability. Secondly, on access to knowledge, the provision of advice depends on 
the national institutional situation (for example, if there are institutions in the country that 

63   https://ruralization.eu/2020/12/15/facilitating-rural-newcomers-new-entrants-into-farming-and-

successors-eu-countries-conceptualization/  

64   https://polirural.eu/resources/reports/  
65   https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/focus-groups/new-entrants-farming-lessons-foster-innovation-

and 

66   https://ec.europa.eu/eip/agriculture/en/publications/eip-agri-focus-group-new-entrants-final-report  
67   Source: EIB (fi-compass): https://www.fi-compass.eu/news/2019/05/eur-1-billion-europes-next-

generation-farmers.  

41 

 
                                                           
can  provide  advice  to  young  farmers).  Thirdly,  on  access  to  credit,  economic  factors 
make it financially risky to provide young farmers that are just starting their businesses 
with many loans. Finally, the attractiveness of rural areas is determined much more by 
external  factors  (job  opportunities,  poverty,  access  to  broadband,  health  and  school 
services) than by the CAP or any other EU policy.  

Many  of  these  aspects  are  decided  by  the  Member  States  themselves,  and  there  is 
therefore a large variety of situations in the EU.  

Access to land, credit and knowledge are discussed in detail in Chapter 5.4 on relevance. 

External  factors  that  prevent  generational  renewal  in  agriculture  and  rural  areas  also 
include: (i) lack of succession planning; (ii) tax incentives and financial penalties for the 
early transfer of property; (iii) cultural perceptions about the importance of keeping land 
in  the  family;  (iv)  fears  of  retirement,  primarily  due  to  inadequate  safety  nets  for 
pensioners;  and  (v)  young  people’s  negative  perceptions  of  agricultural  work  or  rural 
quality of life. The barriers created are often region-specific, and they are linked to the 
presence or absence of opportunities in each area for farm and non-farm employment. 

Related national policies cover issues such as: (i) land inheritance; (ii) taxation of land; 
(iii)  transfers  of  property  and  business  assets;  and  (iv)  requirements  to  rent  land. 
According  to  evidence  from  the  case  studies,  in  Member  States  that  take  a  coherent 
approach to generational renewal, these national policies generally work in parallel with, 
and complementary to, CAP generational-renewal support.  

These  positive  examples  include  the  comprehensive  approaches  detailed  in  the  case 
studies in France and Italy on access to land (e.g. the Societés d’Aménagement Foncier et 
d’Établissement  Rural  –  SAFER  -  in  France).  Another  positive  example  is  the  high 
degree  of  coherence  in  both  countries  between  young-farmer  payments  and  national 
policies  on:  (i)  land  mobility  or  access;  (ii)  advice  and  training;  and  (iii)  institutional 
options  for  farm  transfer  between  generations.  In  addition,  there  is  more  limited  –  but 
still significant – help in promoting generational-renewal measures in: (i) Flanders (social 
support and training); (ii) Ireland (the Land Mobility Service and the management of the 
mandatory national reserve for the basic-payment scheme); (iii) Hungary (help provided 
through national and local governance); and (iv) Poland’s land laws. However, there are 
also examples where complementarity is lacking, and some national policies hinder the 
effectiveness  of  CAP  policies.  This  is  the  case  with  inheritance  tax  in  Hungary,  for 
example. 

On  schemes  that  support  land  transfer,  some  interviewees  from  the  farming  sector 
declared  that  Germany’s  Höfeordnung  was  a  helpful  instrument  in  enabling  farm 
succession.  Others  cited  the  UK’s:  (i)  inheritance-tax-relief  schemes;  (ii)  shorter-term 
farm-business tenancies; (iii) large private/public partnerships offering starter tenancies; 
and  (iv)  farming  partnerships  between  parents  and  younger  farmers  to  allow  gradual 
transfer of assets.  

Strong  cultural  norms  and  traditions  can  either  help  or  significantly  hinder  effective 
generational renewal as promoted via the CAP. Tackling these norms and traditions may 
require interventions that go far beyond the realm of the CAP. Member States have used 
advice programmes, mentoring and other information events designed to change people’s 
preconceptions  about:  (i)  farming  as  a  career;  or  (ii)  the  challenges  of  living  far  away 
from a big city. These activities have had mixed results.  

EU-level  interviewees  discussed  rural  disadvantage  and  its  causes.  In  remote  areas, 
many  said  that  roads  are  hardly  maintained  and  local  public  transport  can  be  very 
expensive, if it exists at all. Rural  areas that have received significant  public or private 

42 

 
investment in infrastructure, housing and services will tend to be much more attractive to 
young people. 

Spatial-planning policies are also directly relevant to the development and diversification 
of  farms  in  ways  that  are  commonly  associated  with  generational-renewal  plans.  In 
general, these policies are not a problem. However, they are a frequent cause of delayed 
processes when farmers and others apply for investment or start-up aid, but the funding is 
conditional on them having already obtained prior planning consent. 

In  some  respects,  the  limits  to  what  can  be  achieved  for  generational  renewal  with  the 
CAP are mostly limits of funding. However, the instruments under Pillar II of the CAP 
have expanded. These instruments now include measures with institutional capabilities – 
notably  Measure  16  on  cooperation.  These  measures  mean  that  it  is  now  increasingly 
possible  to  integrate  CAP  measures  into  stronger  and  more  supportive  institutional 
frameworks to promote generational renewal. These frameworks can be built in a variety 
of different historical, cultural and legislative contexts.  

The key to successful interaction between CAP measures and non-CAP measures is the 
intelligent design of generational-renewal measures in full knowledge of the impacts and 
influence of the other instruments and initiatives. This requires good analytical capability 
and continuous monitoring and evaluation.  

5.4.  Relevance 

The  relevance  analysis  looks  at  the  relationship  between  the  needs  and  problems  in 
society and the objective of the generational-renewal intervention. The analysis focuses 
on:  (i)  the  main  entry  barriers  to  farming;  (ii)  the  ability  of  the  CAP  to  lower  these 
barriers;  and  (iii)  the  relevance  of  the  CAP  in  creating/maintaining  jobs  in  agriculture. 
Chapter 5.6 addresses jobs outside the agricultural sector. 

5.4.1.  The  CAP’s  success  in  addressing  the  main  entry  barriers  for 

young farmers 

Question 12.  To  what  extent  have  the  CAP  measures/instruments  focusing  on 
generational  renewal  been  relevant  in  enabling generational  renewal  in  agriculture? 
Do they correspond to the needs identified, in particular enabling access to: a) land? b) 
capital? c) knowledge? 

This evaluation question assesses whether CAP measures enabling generational renewal 
in agriculture improve access to land, capital and knowledge. 

The  public  consultation  demonstrated  that  the  main  barriers  to  becoming  a  farmer 
(Question 8) are: ‘low profitability’ (cited by 23% of respondents), ‘high prices of land’ 
(cited  by  17%),  ‘administrative  requirements’  (cited  by  13%),  and  ‘a  lack  of  available 
land’ (cited by 14%). In addition, according to the farmers questioned, the CAP should 
better  help  young  farmers  or  other  young  rural  entrepreneurs  (Question  29)  by 
‘supporting  business  start-ups’  (18%  agreed),  followed  by  ‘incentivising  the  transfer  of 
farms and providing more support for investments’ (17% agreed). 

On average in the EU, the capital per farm is close to EUR 200 000 for farmers aged 45 
to 54. The  youngest farmers (below 24) start with average farm capital  of EUR 50 000 
and they invest heavily when they get started. 

43 

 
 
Figure  13  –  EU  average  farm  capital  per  farm  in  EUR  by  age  class  of  farmers 
(average 2012-2016). 

250.000

200.000

150.000

100.000

50.000

0

From 18 to 24
years

From 25 to 34
years

From 35 to 44
years

From 45 to 54
years

From 55 to 64
years

From 65 to 84
years

Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, based on FADN ‘CAP-specific objectives… explained’ – 
brief No 7 - Structural change and generational renewal’. 

The survey report conducted by the European Commission in 2018 (fi-compass report68) 
indicated  that  access  to  finance,  especially  bank  loans,  was  critical  for  12%  of  all 
farmers  using  banks  for  investment.  Access  to  finance  was  critical  for  10%  of  farmers 
using  banks  for  working  capital.  Access  to  finance  was  particularly  difficult  in  Greece 
(where  more  than  half  of  farms  experienced  difficulties  in  accessing  finance  in  2017), 
Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Bulgaria and Portugal. For farms in Poland, Sweden, Italy 
and Austria, access to finance was less problematic than for the rest of the EU. Farms run 
by  young  farmers  are  less  successful  in  obtaining  finance  across  all  types  of  financial 
product. More than a quarter (27%) of all applications submitted by young farmers in the 
EU  are  rejected  by  banks  compared  to  a  much  lower  rate  of  9%  rejection  for  older 
farmers. Banks refuse financing due to: (i) the high risk associated with the business and 
the young farmer himself or herself (in 60% of all cases); (ii) the lack of collateral (24%); 
or  inadequate  business  plans  (18%  of  all  cases).  There  are  quite  significant  differences 
between Member States in their refusal of finance to young farmers. 

There  is  great  variation  in  arable  land  prices  between  –  and  in  some  cases  within  – 
Member States. On average, arable land prices are the highest in the Netherlands, where 
they are above EUR 70 000/ha, while the lowest prices are found in Estonia, Latvia and 
Lithuania (below EUR 3 000/ha). This variation can also be seen in rental prices for land. 
Land rental prices are the highest on average in the Netherlands, at around EUR 800/ha 
with a wide distribution (from more than EUR 1 500/ha to more than EUR 600/ha). The 
lowest rent prices can be found in Latvia (less than EUR 100/ha). 

68   DG AGRI fi-compass (2018) Survey report on financial needs and access to finance for EU agricultural 

enterprises: https://www.fi-
compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications/Survey_on_financial_needs_and_access_to_finance_of_EU
_agricultural_enterprises_0.pdf.  

44 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 14 – Arable land prices in the EU, 2018 (EUR per hectare) 

70.000

60.000

50.000

40.000

30.000

20.000

10.000

0

Note: * For Belgium, the value corresponds to 2014 as it is the most recent value available. 
Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, based on Eurostat, Agricultural land prices.  

A new entrant to farming will often take over an existing farm, since most suitable land is 
already in use. Land may be difficult to find for this new entrant if it is not inherited. The 
higher proportion of rented land among young farmers indicates their desire to increase 
the size of their farming operation. 
A European Parliament study69 stated that ‘access to land is the major barrier for young 
farmers and new entrants. Dealing with this problem requires re-evaluation of the direct-
payment  scheme  and  creating  incentives  for  older  farmers  to  pass  their  farms  on  to 
younger generations70’. 

The CAP also has an impact on the ease of buying and selling land. On this issue, the 
European Council of Young Farmers (CEJA) reported in its 2013 Recommendations for 
enhancing youth employment in agriculture for a more sustainable Europe that access to 
land  and  access  to  credit  were  the  main  barriers  faced  by  young  people  attempting  to 
enter the agricultural sector. On access to land, CEJA therefore recommends promoting 
new  models  of  collaboration  between  generations.  These  models  could  include:  (i) 
partnership; 
leasing  and  other  contractual 
arrangements; and (iv) promoting the concept of retirement planning.  

(ii)  share-farming; 

long-term 

(iii) 

On inheritance, some interviewees from the farming sector declared that inheritance was 
the  main  way  young  farmers  have  access  to  land  (Sweden,  Greece,  Ireland,  Latvia, 
Malta, Slovenia, Finland and Lithuania). Other interviewees from the farming sector said 
that  the  inheritance  tax  in  their  countries  was  very  high  (Finland,  Greece,  Ireland,  the 
Netherlands  and  Belgium),  while  interviewees  from  other  countries  said  that  tax  relief 
was  available  for  land  transfer  (Czechia,  Ireland  and  Sweden).  Some  interviewees  said 
that  inheritance  laws  were  complicated  (UK,  Sweden,  Austria  and  Malta)  while  others 
said that inheritance was facilitated through legislation (Lithuania, Germany and Latvia). 

69   European  Parliament  (EP):  Study  ‘Research  for  AGRI  Committee  –  Young  farmers  –  Policy 
implementation after the 2013 CAP reform’, DG for internal policies, policy department B – Structural 
and cohesion policies, (2017): 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/602006/IPOL_STU(2017)602006_EN.pdf.   

70   This would mean that, in some cases, direct payments do not work consistently with Pillar II support 

for setting up new farms.  

45 

 
 
                                                           
 
On  the  availability  of  land  to  purchase  or  lease,  some  interviewees  from  the  farming 
sector declared that there was a shortage of available land (Ireland and Slovakia). Others 
added that land for purchase or lease was scarce and expensive (Sweden, Italy, Czechia 
and Greece). Farmland is sometimes extremely fragmented due to inheritance traditions 
which mean it is shared by multiple heirs (a problem cited by interviewees from Spain, 
Greece  and  Italy).  By  contrast,  in  Denmark  respondents  declared  that  land  was  a  free 
market and not a specific source of concern. Others added that land needed to be bought 
from  siblings  or  parents  (Sweden,  Austria  and  Finland)  and  that  this  requires  capital. 
Other  interviewees  said  that  banks  did  not  give  loans  for  purchasing  or  leasing  land 
(Sweden).  Other  interviewees  said  that  available  fertile  land  was  too  costly  to  buy  or 
lease for most farmers (Ireland). 

On skills, most respondents to the public consultation from organisations said the CAP 
should  improve  its  contribution  to  rural  areas  (Question  28)  in  ‘fostering  innovation 
through knowledge transfer, advice and vocational training’. Individual  members of the 
public said the CAP should better help young farmers or other young rural entrepreneurs 
(Question 29) by ‘supporting knowledge transfer, advice and vocational  training’ (20% 
agreed)  followed  by  ‘supporting  business  start-ups’  (19%  agreed)  and  ‘supporting  new 
forms of cooperation’ (16% agreed). 

The case studies demonstrated that there are agricultural colleges in most Member States. 
The  increase  in  knowledge  among  young  farmers  makes  it  possible  for  them  to  access 
young-farmer support under Pillar I and Pillar II investment aid at a higher support rate.  

The  staff  working  document  on  the  findings  of  the  evaluations  of  European  Structural 
and  Investment  Funds  programmes71  states  that:  ‘the  quantification  of  secondary 
contributions  (…)  helped  showing  the  cross-cutting  contribution  of  measures  related  to 
knowledge  transfer  (e.g.  training,  farm-advisory  services,  pilot  projects)  towards  other 
rural-development-programme focus areas’, such as generational renewal. 

The 2019 EESC report also said that it would be beneficial for generational renewal to 
invest more in soft measures (education and social conditions). Although some Member 
States have provided education and training facilities for young farmers, there is evidence 
that  funding  for  education  and  training  needs  to  be  increased.  The  report  added  that 
‘coordinated implementation of communication and guidance programmes is important’ 
and  that  ‘the  entrepreneurial  skills  development  programmes  could  make  an  important 
contribution  to  the  start-up  and  successful  functioning  of  autonomous  agricultural 
enterprises’.  Finally,  the  report  considered  that  the  strategic  plans  of  the  future  CAP 
should include a section on education in the agricultural schools to promote the positive 
contribution of agriculture to the broader economy.  

The European Parliament study released in 2017 also stressed that ‘new forms of support 
should  be  taken  into  account,  accentuating  innovative  ways  of  sharing  knowledge  and 
targeted support for specific farm businesses, focusing on particular scales and forms of 
agriculture’. 

Access  to  land,  capital  and  knowledge  are  indeed  key  factors  in  ensuring  successful 
generational  renewal  in  EU  agriculture.  However,  these  factors  vary  considerably  in 
importance across the EU, and play a different role in each Member State and area. This 
means that the best mechanisms for improving access to land capital and knowledge will 
also  be  different  in  every  area.  As  a  simple  example,  we  can  consider  the  contrasting 

71   SWD(2019) 445 final: 

https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/evaluations/2019/synthesis-of-the-
findings-of-the-evaluations-of-european-structural-and-investment-funds-programmes.  

46 

 
                                                           
cases  of:  (i)  highly  productive  and  capital-intensive  agricultural  systems  and  sectors; 
versus  (ii)  economically  marginal,  remote,  low-intensity  agriculture  in  rural  areas  with 
few other economic activities. In the first case, the barriers to accessing land will include 
high  prices  from  competition  by  established  businesses  and  perhaps  competition  from 
non-farm uses. The second situation may also lead to high land prices, but for a different 
reason.  In the second case, older farmers may retain land  as  security  even though their 
earnings are low, because they have few alternatives. In the first case, access to capital 
may not be an issue in principle, but the young farmer’s need for capital to buy out the 
existing farm (even from  a parent) can be  a challenge until  the  younger generation has 
amassed enough assets against which to generate a bank loan. In the second case, capital 
needs may not be high, but renovating a semi-abandoned holding will nonetheless require 
some investment and the young farmers will probably lack the proof of viability or asset 
value that may be demanded by banks to borrow. On knowledge, the first case may not 
find this to be an issue for a successor, whereas in the second case it is a major challenge 
to  be  able  to  develop  new  business  models  that  can  innovate  and  enhance  farm 
profitability.  

Overall,  CAP  generational-renewal  measures  appear  to  play  only  a  modest  role  in 
enabling:  (i)  land  to  change  ownership  easily;  and  (ii)  young  farmers  to  gain  access  to 
land.  The  CAP  provides  financial  support  to  young  farmers,  and  direct  payments 
represent a guarantee that makes banks more inclined to grant access to credit. However, 
the availability of credit alone does not free up the land market (as shown from the case-
study  experiences  of  Poland,  Estonia  and  Ireland).  The  effectiveness  of  the  CAP 
measures is enhanced if they are combined with appropriate national policies that support 
land  transfers,  such  as:  (i)  the  Irish  service  to  promote  land  transfer;  (ii)  favourable 
attitudes  among  agricultural  banks;  (iii)  interest-free  loan  facilities;  or  (iv)  credit 
associations  that  reduce  the  cost  of  borrowing  in  favour  of  young  farmers.  In  these 
situations, it is a combination of factors that provides a secure route to accessing land and 
capital: (i) a national effort; (ii) CAP funding for start-ups; (iii) investments; (iv) advice; 
(v) training; and/or (vi) cooperation. 

The  Member  States  with  the  longest  history  of  supporting  generational  renewal  in 
agriculture through the CAP also tend to be those that have developed the most versatile 
and  multi-faceted  approaches  to  facilitating  access  to  land  and  capital  through  national 
policies, institutions and legislation. For example, France has made access to land easier 
via the SAFER72 land agencies and institutional options for gradual land transfer such as 
GAECs73.  In  Italy,  the  two  case-study  areas  had  interesting  local  examples  of  how 
agencies  and  legal  entities  can  facilitate  access  to  land  for  young  farmers  and  new 
entrants when supported by national policies (see evaluation Question 12). Training and 
advice for young farmers funded by the CAP can also help young farmers to explore their 
options for accessing land. In addition, they can help them to become more proficient in 
planning  carefully  so  that  they  choose  wisely  between  options  such  as  purchasing  or 
leasing, and partnerships or share-farming arrangements.  

Other  interviewees  added  that  EU  rural-development  grants  to  support  farm  businesses 
helped to incentivise land transfers (Greece). Some declared that tax relief for farmers to 
lease  land  over  long  periods  was  also  helpful  (Ireland).  And  other  interviewees  added 
that public land was available for lease to young farmers (Czechia).  

72   SAFER is Société d´aménagement foncier et d´établissement rural or the Land Development and Rural 

Establishment Company. 

73   GAEC is Groupement Agricole d’Exploitation en Commun or Joint Farming Group. 

47 

 
                                                           
There is also a need to consider mechanisms to help older farmers to release land by 
providing  them  with:  (i)  options  for  the  gradual  transfer  of  assets;  and  (ii)  ways  to 
increase  their  retirement  income  or  quality  of  life,  possibly  by  exploring  possibilities 
under  social  policy.  Some  case-study  evidence  (Ireland  and  France)  showed  that  the 
former  CAP  early-retirement  measure  had  not  been  appropriately  designed  to  fit  the 
specific  needs  and  concerns  of  older  farmers.  This  was  because  it  required  the  older 
farmer to completely cease farming activities and involvement in the farm. 

The  World  Bank  report  acknowledged  that  the  ‘CAP  does  (…)  provide  an  important 
social  safety  net  for  existing  landowners,  including  the  elderly’.  Older  farmers  may  be 
unwilling  to  sell  land,  and  in  several  case  studies  (Ireland,  Hungary,  France  and  Italy) 
beneficiaries and some government officials stated that farmers use direct payments as a 
form of income support  in retirement. This increases older farmers’ reluctance to make 
the  land  available  to  younger  farmers  (although  share-farming  might  provide  such  an 
opportunity).  In  more  market-oriented  economies  (like  Denmark,  the  UK,  or  Belgium-
Flanders)  where  land  comes  more  easily  onto  the  market,  land  is  still  expensive  and 
requires  access  to  significant  resources  for  anyone  who  needs  to  rent  or  buy  it  (most 
likely for non-family entrants to farming). 
In  its  report74,  the  EESC  recommended  that  the  Member  States  create  a  specific  legal 
framework for farm transfers, saying that ‘Member States should incentivise generational 
renewal  by  minimising  the  costs  and  taxation  associated  with  the  inter-generational 
transfer of farms’.  

On  relevance,  the  following  conclusions  can  be  drawn  about  CAP  support  for 
generational renewal.  

1.  The support provides funding to assist with general costs for young farmers setting 
up their farms for the first time (Pillar I supplement and installation grant). It also 
provides  investment  and  basic  income  support  in  the  early  years  of  a  young 
farmer’s activity. But this support will often be insufficient on its own to address 
the barriers described in this study. This is because either those barriers are non-
financial (e.g. where very little land is available on the market) or the support on 
its  own  does  not  unlock  access  to  the  capital  that  may  be  needed  for  young 
farmers to start out in farming. 

2.  CAP  generational-renewal  measures  that  involve  financial  support  play  only  a 
modest  role  in  enabling  young  farmers  to  gain  access  to  land.  By  contrast,  in 
some regions this financial support contributes to increasing land prices although 
it  is  not  the  only  factor  affecting  land  prices,  especially  in  the  most  productive 
areas or in areas where competition for non-agricultural use is very high. 
3.  The CAP tends to slow down land release by older farmers, providing them income 

support in retirement, in the absence of adequate pension systems. 

4.  The most effective types of support are those that promote cooperation, innovation, 
training, advice, and access to knowledge. The cooperation measure can be used 
to  create  new  forms  of  incorporated  business  that  facilitate  inter-generational 
transfer (as in Ireland with its farm-partnership scheme). Support for innovation, 
training and advice can also help to: (i) raise farmers’ awareness and confidence 
to  manage  land  transfers  effectively;  and  (ii)  prepare  the  young  farmer  for  a 
successful start in business.  It is also essential to develop basic services such as 

74   EESC: Information report  Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on generational renewal, NAT/766  – 
EESC-2019-02014-00-00-RI-TRA  (EN),  Section  for  Agriculture,  Rural  development  and  the 
Environment, 
https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-
reports/information-reports/evaluation-impact-cap-generational-renewal.  

(2019): 

48 

 
                                                           
broadband.  These  are  essential  tools  that  allow  young  farmers  to  access 
knowledge and information. However, these tools are not sufficient on their own 
to guarantee farmers access to knowledge.  

5.  Support that promotes rural economic diversification and added value may not appear 
directly relevant to the needs of young farmers. Nonetheless, it may be important 
in improving broader economic conditions. The availability of nearby off-farm 
work  for  young  farmers  and  their  spouses  may  make  it  easier  for  them  to 
accumulate the savings needed to access bank loans and investment aids. 

To  summarise,  we  can  conclude  that  the  CAP  measures  for  generational  renewal  are 
relevant  and  necessary  if  their  selection  and  eligibility  criteria  are  suitably  tailored  to 
local  conditions.  However,  these  measures  are  not  sufficient  on  their  own.  There  is 
therefore  value  in  using  a  variety  of  approaches,  including  financial  support  and  legal, 
fiscal and institutional measures (e.g. financial guarantees, such as those newly promoted 
by the European Commission-EIB initiative of April 201975).  

5.4.2.  Relevance of the CAP in maintaining/creating jobs in agriculture 

Question 13.  To  what  extent  have  the  CAP  measures/instruments  focusing  on 
generational 
rural  development  by 
maintaining/creating jobs? 

renewal  been 

fostering 

relevant 

in 

This  evaluation  question  builds  on  the  evidence  from  evaluation  Question  5,  which 
sought to assess the extent to which CAP measures had impacted directly or indirectly on 
the maintenance or creation of jobs in rural areas. 
The  data  analysis76  demonstrates  that  young-farmers’  payments  under  Pillar  I  and 
investment support under Focus area 2B of Pillar II have helped to maintain and create 
jobs in rural areas. This was investigated through the correlation analysis described in the 
evaluation support study. It was also assessed by analysing changes from 2013 to 2016 in 
the  labour  force  directly  employed  by  farm  managers  aged  under  35,  across 
predominantly rural and intermediate regions. 

In  both  cases,  the  negative  (though  small)  value  of  the  correlation  coefficient  indicates 
that CAP  measures/instruments focusing on  generational  renewal  tend to be directed at 
regions  where  the  number  of  agricultural  jobs  offered  to  young  farm  managers  is 
decreasing.  Therefore,  it  is  possible  that  the  CAP  measures  are  indeed  targeted  at 
maintaining  and  creating  agricultural  job  opportunities  in  areas  where  they  are  fast 
declining.  Case  studies  provide  evidence  for  the  relevance  of  a  variety  of  Pillar  II 
measures in directly supporting new business start-ups and farm diversification.  

In addition, the SURE-Farm research project highlights that CAP measures target mainly 
ownership and farm succession, although there is also a need to attract young non-owner 
workers to be hired on farms. 

Nevertheless, the impact of the generational renewal measures on employment levels in 
farming is generally seen positive by interviewees in rural areas. By way of contrast with 

75   https://www.fi-

compass.eu/sites/default/files/publications/Joint_initiative_for_improving_access_to_funding_for_Euro
pean_Union_Young_Farmers.pdf  

76   Based on a combination of correlation, MCA, FADN analysis, and a Polish common-general-

equilibrium model. 

49 

 
                                                           
these  positive  opinions,  it  is  likely  that  CAP-induced  employment  changes  will  be 
relatively modest at macro level77 although with significant impact at local level.  

The World Bank report confirms these findings. It said:  

Supported  by  the  CAP,  the  successful  transformers  have  turned  agriculture  into  a  key 
sector  for  good  jobs  in  rural  areas.  And  the  incomplete  transformers78  can  use  a  well-
targeted  and  coordinated  CAP  to  reduce  poverty  and  start  creating  better  jobs  for 
farmers…As  labour  moved  out  of  agriculture,  the  CAP  supported  the  creation  of 
reasonably remunerative jobs for the workers who remained behind in agriculture, while 
poverty  in  agricultural  areas  was  reduced.  It  is  in  this  sense  that  agriculture  and  the 
CAP mattered for inclusive growth in the EU. 

5.5.  EU added value 

The  evaluation  criterion  on  EU  added  value  aims  to  demonstrate  the  additional  value 
resulting  from  EU  activities,  compared  to  what  could  be  achieved  by  Member  States 
acting alone at national and/or regional levels. The greater the EU added value, the more 
likely that Member-State action alone would have been insufficient. The analysis focuses 
on the CAP measures that have a direct impact on generational renewal. 

Question 17. What is the EU added value of the respective CAP measures/instruments 
studied in their contribution to generational renewal? 

This question builds on the evidence from Question 1 on the impact of the whole CAP on 
generational  renewal  and  Question  7  on  the  efficiency  of  CAP  measures  in  indirectly 
fostering generational renewal by promoting quality of life in rural areas. 

Stakeholders at EU level (from interested parties and Member-State administrations) and 
beneficiaries interviewed in the case studies agree that funding for generational renewal 
from  the  CAP  makes  a  difference  at  local  level  and  makes  an  important  and  valued 
contribution. 

EU  data  analysis  using  multivariate  and  econometric  methods  provides  some  evidence 
that  the  combined  impact  of  CAP  generational-renewal  measures  on  the  number  of 
young  farmers  is  positive.  Nevertheless,  this  impact  varies  according  to  national  and 
local  socioeconomic  conditions.  DG  AGRI  conducted  a  detailed  examination  of  how 
these measures and instruments are applied within the case-study countries via national, 
regional  and  local  implementation  strategies.  This  examination  showed  that,  to  a  large 
degree,  these  measures  and  instruments  are  valued  and  effective.  They  can  also  be 
efficient and coherent with other policies and have a low degree of overlap. The FADN 
counterfactual  analysis  provides  evidence  of  the  additionality  of  CAP  young-farmers’ 
support  in  Italy  and  France.  This  counterfactual  analysis  demonstrated  how  financial 
assistance  with  start-up  and  investment  aid  led  to  improvements  in  the  business 

77   The low impact is not only a question of external factors, it is also linked to the low weight of 

agricultural employment in total employment figures. 

78   The  countries  named  incomplete  transformers in the report are those  where agriculture takes place in 
the  poorest  regions,  with  CAP  support  targeting  these  regions.  Pillar  I  decoupled  funds  reach  the 
poorest regions. As expected, there are several new Member States in this category (Romania, Bulgaria, 
Latvia and Slovenia). 
For the successful structural transformers, the CAP no longer targets the poorer regions in the country. 
CAP support is consistent with countries where poverty and agriculture are no longer associated with 
each other. These are the successful transformers: they have a CAP policy that is consistent  with this 
success. 

50 

 
 
                                                           
performance  of  beneficiary  farms  that  were  greater  than  those  of  similar  farms  which 
did  not  receive  this  aid.  While  this  does  not  demonstrate  generational  renewal,  it  is  an 
important  factor  in  increasing  farmers’  confidence  in  generational  renewal  and  the 
positive  impacts  that  should  flow  from  it.  The  evaluation  also  found  evidence  of  the 
added value of LEADER as a mechanism for generational renewal for  new entrants to 
farming. LEADER operates only at a small scale, but it has a high impact in comparison 
to the resources it provides. In addition, all case studies discuss and support the view that 
there would be little generational renewal within agriculture without CAP funding.  

However,  it  is  also  clear  that  national  policies  and  provisions  play  a  key 
complementary  role.  The  EU  added  value  of  CAP  generational-renewal  measures  is 
greatly increased in situations where the national, regional and local governments create 
institutional and fiscal measures to support generational renewal in agriculture and rural 
areas. This includes measures such as: (i) make it easier to change ownership of land; 
and (ii) ease the process of inter-generational transfer for both the older and younger 
generation.  

A concern remains over the more limited ability of CAP generational-renewal measures 
to  promote  rural  vitality  in  local  areas  that  lack  investment  in  broader  rural 
infrastructure,  services,  and  economic  diversification.  In 
these  areas  of  broad 
socioeconomic  decline  and/or  vulnerability,  the  EU  added  value  of  CAP  generational-
renewal funding is constrained. 

Quantitative  and  qualitative  evidence  suggests  that  EU  added  value  is  greater  in  those 
Member  States  and  regions  where  the  problem  of  generational  renewal  is  well-
understood by national and local policy makers. This supports the case for an integrated 
approach  to  tackling  the  problem,  using  in  a  coherent  way:  (i)  CAP  and  non-CAP 
instruments;  (ii)  institutions;  and  (iii)  broader  legislative  and  fiscal  provisions. 
Furthermore, the evaluation has found evidence that the scope for this kind of approach is 
greater  than  has  been  realised  in  many  areas.  The  existing  menu  of  Pillar  II  measures 
(including  Measure  16  on  cooperation;  Measure  7  on  basic  services;  Measure  19  on 
LEADER;  financial instruments; and EIP-AGRI) can be used in  more creative ways to 
achieve precisely this sort of coordinated approach. There may also  be opportunities to 
bring direct payments into such an approach. 

Finally, significant obstacles to successful generational renewal remain in many Member 
States.  In  particular,  these  obstacles  involve  access  to  land  and  how  to  transfer  farms 
from  older to  younger farmers, including new entrants.  Many policies that could  tackle 
these obstacles remain under the control of national and local governments, limiting the 
EU’s added value. 

5.6.  Non-agricultural generational renewal in rural areas 

The  first  five  chapters  have  so  far  provided  an  overview  of  the  impact  of  generational 
renewal  in  agriculture.  This  section  will  analyse  the  non-agricultural  aspects  of 
generational renewal. 

The  employment  rate  in  rural  areas  continues  to  increase  despite  the  decline  in  the 
number  of  people  employed  in  agriculture.  The  employment  rate  reached  69%  of  the 

51 

 
 
working-age  population  (aged  15  to  64)  in  201979  and  the  gap  with  urban  areas 
disappeared in 2017. 

Even though agriculture is gradually accounting for a lower share of overall employment, 
around 10.5 million farms still provide work for roughly 20.5 million80 people (full and 
part-time  jobs)  in  the  EU-28.  Together  with  food  processing,  food  retail  and  food 
services, agriculture is part of a sector supporting about 44 million jobs81 in the EU (see 
Figure 15).  

Figure 15 – Jobs in rural areas  

Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, based on Eurostat data, JRC, nova-Institut, and industry. 

Although support for non-farm generational renewal is not currently a major focus of the 
CAP,  this  support  can  still  help  generational  renewal  in  rural  areas  thanks  to  Pillar  II 
measures (in complement to other EU policies such as the regional and cohesion funds). 
However,  its  impact  is  likely  to  be  low,  due  to  a  low  level  of  budget  in  many  rural 
development  programmes  dedicated  to  ‘wider  rural  development’  beyond  the  farm 
sector.  

By  comparison  to  2007-2013,  the  2014-2020  rural  development  programmes  generally 
offer  much  smaller  allocations  of  funds  towards  Measure  7  on  ‘Basic  services  and 
village renewal’, but increased funding to LEADER. Total public funding between both 
periods  is  similar.  The  Pillar  II  amount  spent  on  broader  rural  development  is  modest 
compared  to  spending  on  other  priorities.  And  of  the  amount  spent  on  broader  rural 
development,  the  proportion  that  explicitly  targets  generational  renewal  appears  to  be 
very small (according to indications from the case studies). Nevertheless, the CAP or any 
other  EU  policy  measure  to  support  generational  renewal  cannot  change  the  situation 
much on its own. 

79   CMEF context indicator C.5 

https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/DashboardIndicators/DataExplorer.html?select=EU28_FLAG,1   

80   Corresponding to 9.1 million annual work units, source: Eurostat Farm Structure Survey 2016. 
81   DG  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  calculations  based  on  Eurostat  data  for  2016  and  2017 

(agriculture, food industry and retail food services). 

52 

 
  
                                                           
In their rural development programmes, Member States set targets for a number of social 
aspects  beyond  farming.  These  targets  relate  to  the  rural  population  covered  with 
LEADER  strategies,  job  creation,  and  the  development  of  improved  infrastructure  and 
services (including information and communication technology).  

The  targets  cover:  (i)  local  development,  notably  via  LEADER  (Focus  area  6B);  (ii) 
economic  diversification;  (iii)  the  development  of  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises; 
and (iv) job creation (Focus area 6A).  

A valuable  local contribution made by  LEADER is  highlighted in  several  case studies. 
Member  States  must  spend  a  minimum  of  5%  of  Pillar  II  on  LEADER.  In  2014-2020, 
11% of total planned rural-development public expenditure was allocated to Focus area 
6B. Member States also set a target to cover more than 50% of the rural population with 
local-development strategies by 2023. This target has already been achieved. Only 3% of 
public expenditure was allocated to job creation under Focus area 6A. 

On  job  creation,  EU  targets  are  relatively  small  (120 500  jobs  in  total  by  2023)  and 
progress towards the target is slow. This is partly because Member States only notify the 
jobs created once projects are completed. However, the multi-criteria analysis showed a 
higher impact from job-creation measures (see below). 

Broadband  is  available to  98%  of  Europeans  and  80%  of  European  homes  can  access 
fast broadband (at least 30 Mbps)82. However, in rural areas, less than 60% of households 
have access to fast broadband. In 2017, the Commission launched an action plan for rural 
broadband. This contained a coordinated set of actions with concrete deadlines to ensure 
that the specific difficulties in rolling out broadband in rural areas were addressed, thus 
helping  to  overcome  the  rural-urban  digital  gap.  Few  Member  States  rely  on  EAFRD 
support  to  develop  rural  access  to  broadband,  hence  the  low  target  value  at  EU  level 
(16%  of  rural  population  covered  by  improved  information  and  communication 
technology supported with the CAP). Nevertheless, where countries make use of EAFRD 
support,  there  is  a  direct  link  between  the  funded  operations  and  their  impact.  For 
example, this has been the case in Sweden and Lithuania. In Lithuania, next-generation-
access (NGA) to broadband in rural areas increased from 15.6% to 28.7% between 2015 
and  2019,  while  in  Sweden  it  increased  from  13.9%  to  40.9%.  There  are  several  other 
examples of broadband projects that have been made possible by contributions from the 
EAFRD83. However, these are long-term investments and progress to target is often slow. 

82   European Commission, Digital Scoreboard  

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-singlemarket/digital-scoreboard. 

83   See the Digital Single Market page of Europa  

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-singlemarket/en/projects/75980/3608.  

53 

 
                                                           
Figure 16 – Progress towards social targets by 2018 
Target indicator 

T21: Percentage of rural population covered by local-development strategies 
(Focus area 6B) 

Target 

Progress  to 
target 

53% 

113% 

T20: Jobs created in supported projects (Focus area 6A) 

T23: Jobs created in supported projects (LEADER) (Focus area 6B) 

76 430 

44 110 

T22:  Percentage  of 
services/infrastructure (Focus area 6B) 

rural  population  benefiting 

from 

improved 

16% 

14% 

30% 

83% 

T24:  Percentage  of  rural  population  benefiting  from  new  or  improved 
services/infrastructure (ICT) (Focus area 6C) 

5.8% 

17% 

Note: Data are notified by Member States when projects are completed. For long-term investments such as 
for ICT, progress to target is slow. 
Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, Annual Implementation Report 2020. 

The  online  survey  and  EU  interviews  showed  that  living  in  rural  areas  is  neither 
attractive  nor  easy  for  young  people.  Many  Member  States  reported  a  tendency  for 
young  people,  and  educated  people  in  particular,  to  leave  rural  areas  for  urban  areas 
(Greece, Spain, Ireland and Slovakia) and leave the Member State to seek employment in 
other countries (Ireland, Greece and the UK). The reasons given for this included a lack 
of  infrastructure  and  the  remoteness/distance  of  rural  areas  from  cities,  leading  to 
population  declines  in  these  areas  (Czechia,  Spain,  Austria,  Slovakia,  Greece,  Slovenia 
and  Ireland).  Some  respondents  reported  a  lack  of  social  and  educational  infrastructure 
such as schools, health services, road maintenance, efficient transport and jobs (Greece, 
Slovenia,  Finland,  Ireland,  Slovakia  and  Romania).  Other  respondents  mentioned  the 
high cost of land or a particularly high cost of living or housing in rural areas compared 
to  urban  areas  (Denmark,  Spain  and  the  UK).  National  and  EU  workshops  confirmed 
some  of  these  points.  For  example,  respondents  from  Estonia  said  that  basic 
infrastructure  (accessible  roads,  electricity,  broadband  connections,  etc.)  and  services 
(kindergartens, schools, medical  care, ways to  spend free time, etc.) were lacking or  of 
poor quality in the Estonian countryside.  

By contrast, young people are interested in living in rural areas due to having children 
(Finland), the economic crisis (Greece and Italy), the affordability of housing (Greece) or 
changes  in  career  paths  (UK).  And  many  young  people  said  they  would  return  to  rural 
areas  if  they  could  find  employment  there  (Finland).  However,  young  people  may  be 
prevented from returning to the countryside by high taxation and/or a lack of land to farm 
(Greece). In Denmark, a change in the law on property ownership has made it easier for 
young people to return to rural areas as farmers. And in the UK, rural growth with a high 
concentration of agri-food producers in some regions has facilitated the in-migration of 
‘newcomers’  to  the  area.  Rural  tourism  was  mentioned  as  an  alternative  employment 
possibility for remote rural areas (Greece and Croatia). 

There is also quantitative and qualitative evidence that CAP measures not directly linked 
to generational renewal can foster and strengthen non-farm generational renewal in rural 
areas. This can be achieved by improving rural quality of life, e.g. by supporting rural 
service  provision,  infrastructure,  and  rural  economic  diversification.  In  addition,  the 
different stakeholders interviewed  (farmers, national authorities, etc.) said that the CAP 
plays  an  important  role  by  indirectly  supporting  social  capital,  rural  infrastructure  and 
services, mainly in the most marginal and remote rural areas. This is principally due to 
the  relative  scarcity  of  other  economic  activities  and  thus  the  financial  significance  of 
CAP aid from both Pillars in stimulating the rural economy and society. However, a full 
investigation  of  these  mechanisms  was  beyond  the  scope  of  this  evaluation.  The  best 

54 

 
evidence  of  sustained  and  positive  impact  is  in  Member  States  that  use  a  variety  of 
measures and instruments in a complementary way, alongside broader support for rural 
services, infrastructure and quality of life. 

CAP  measures/instruments  that  focus  on  generational  renewal  helped  to  foster 
innovation  and  inter-generational  knowledge  transfer.  They  therefore  helped  to  further 
develop  rural  areas.  These  measures  and  instruments  helped  the  development  of  non-
agricultural  jobs,  economic  growth,  mentoring  of  local  businesses,  and  innovation. 
However,  the  impact  of  CAP  spending  on  knowledge  exchange  and  innovation  at  EU 
level  is  expected  to  be  very  modest.  This  is  because  of  the  small  budget  it  receives, 
especially when compared to other sources of EU and national funding for these services. 

LEADER is a CAP mechanism that has promoted innovation by: (i) offering support to 
non-conventional new entrants to farming; and (ii) funding rural training and information 
actions. This has improved knowledge exchange among young people and those starting 
new rural  businesses.  In two Member States (Spain and  Ireland), stakeholders said  that 
LEADER had a positive effect on generational renewal through its integrated delivery of 
investment  aid.  Several  case-study  country 
training/advice  and  non-agricultural 
workshops suggested that a greater focus within the CAP on support for new entrants and 
non-farming entrepreneurial skills could improve levels of rural innovation. This could in 
turn promote greater resilience among rural workers. 

On the maintenance/creation of jobs in rural areas, such as in tourism, construction, 
food  sectors  etc.,  the  multi-criteria  analysis  suggests  that  the  impact  of  CAP  young-
farmers’ measures is weak but mostly positive. The CAP’s impact in this area varies due 
to  differences  among  regions,  in  particular  differences  in  economic  development.  The 
indirect  effect  of  CAP  generational-renewal  measures  on  local  economies  and  rural 
employment is most evident in the most remote and marginal rural areas. However, these 
impacts  are  likely  to  be  much  less  significant  than:  (i)  the  impacts  of  other  measures 
under  Pillar  II,  which  directly  target  rural  areas;  or  (ii)  the  indirect  impacts  of  direct 
payments  and  aid  for  areas  facing  natural  constraints,  both  of  which  provide  more 
significant  general  support  to  maintain  farming  in  these  areas.  Not  surprisingly,  the 
multiplier effect of CAP measures is the highest in the food sector (see Figure 12). 

Quantitative analytical methods were also used to examine the impact of the support to 
young farmers for generational renewal on the wider rural economy. A CGE modelling 
exercise for the Polish economy was carried out to examine the regional impact of CAP 
support  for  young  farmers  at  NUTS  2  level.  This  modelling  exercise  also  suggests  a 
positive relationship between both the Pillar I and Pillar II support for young farmers on 
the  one  hand  and  regional  growth  and  employment  on  the  other.  This  positive 
relationship  holds  for  the  country  as  a  whole  and  for  most  NUTS  2  regions,  with  the 
exception of those regions in which a relatively small proportion of the rural population 
works  in  agriculture.  The  modelling  work  indicates  that,  in  relation  to  the  baseline 
situation, CAP expenditure helps to create more jobs, not only in the agricultural sector 
but  also  in  other  sectors  such  as  food,  construction,  retail,  tourism,  education,  public 
administration etc.  

The evaluation found little evidence on whether the non-farm jobs promoted with CAP 
funding  were  sustainable,  although  stakeholders  and  policy  makers  generally  agree  on 
this point. 

To  conclude,  for  non-farm  employment,  there  is  great  variation  between  Member 
States.  Some  Member  States  reported  an  increase  in  young  people  employed  in  rural 
areas  as  a  result  of  CAP  spending,  while  others  reported  a  decline  despite  CAP  funds. 
Trends  in  rural  employment  are  strongly  influenced  by  EU-wide  market  and  economic 

55 

 
phenomena,  which  CAP  resources  can  only  change  to  a  very  small  extent.  Broadly 
speaking,  rural  employment  strongly  depends  on  national  legislation  and  the  economic 
climate in general. Rural employment can be promoted by EU funds including the CAP, 
when funding is focused on facilities for young people in rural areas and direct support 
for  new  business  start-ups  and  farm  diversification.  The  impact  of  those  interventions 
may  be  locally  significant.  LEADER  is  an  important  instrument  in  promoting  rural 
employment among young people. 

The  CAP  funds  non-agricultural  generational  renewal  –  principally  via  the  Pillar  II 
Measure  7  on  ‘Basic  services  and  village  renewal’  and  Measure  19  on  LEADER.  In 
2014-2020,  these  measures  support  –  and  are  coherent  with  –  other  non-CAP  EU 
funding and measures, particularly: (i) the ERDF; (ii) the ESF; and (iii) in coastal areas, 
the EMFF. This is most evident in Member States where different policies are delivered 
together by sub-regional delivery bodies or similar arrangements (e.g. local-development 
companies in Ireland or local integrated approaches in some regions of Italy). Elsewhere, 
interviewees  considered  that  non-CAP  EU  funds  do  not  focus  a  great  deal  on  matters 
relevant to rural generational renewal. 

On the coherence of CAP generational renewal measures with EU research funding, there 
are  currently  two  research  projects  running  on  generational  renewal  in  rural  areas  (for 
details see Chapter 5.3.2): 

  RURALIZATION84  (a  research  and  innovation  action  with  a  budget  of 
EUR 6 million): This project analyses the rural  conditions and policies affecting 
rural areas to propose new directions for rural policy. 

  PoliRURAL85 (a research and innovation action with a budget of EUR 6 million): 
This project is similar to RURALIZATION with slightly different activities. 

Case  studies  provide  evidence  for  the  relevance  of  a  variety  of  Pillar  II  measures  in 
maintaining or creating jobs through support for improvements in infrastructure, services, 
and  quality  of  life.  Many  of  these  case  studies  involve  job  creation  as  part  of  broader 
economic  development,  and  the  cumulative  implication  is  that  these  impacts  can  be 
locally significant. However, the impacts are hard to estimate robustly due to the many 
other  influences  that  intervene  and  that  are  often  much  stronger.  These  intervening 
influences  include:  (i)  policies  on  employment  and  the  wider  economy  (e.g.  national 
growth plans, public spending cuts); and (ii) market trends and conditions. 

The  EU  added  value  of  these  measures  that  could  not  be  achieved  by  Member  States 
acting alone at national/regional level is demonstrated in the analysis. However, there are 
some limits due to  areas  of  national  competence. The evaluation  found  evidence of the 
added  value  of  LEADER  as  a  mechanism  for  generational  renewal  beyond  the  farm 
sector.  Key  to  this  role  appears  to  be  the  local  knowledge  of  local  action  groups  in 
identifying the barriers to  – and opportunities for  –  generational  renewal  and  enhanced 
rural  viability.  The  relative  flexibility  of  LEADER  also  makes  it  possible  to  tailor  the 
support to the specific circumstances and potential of each beneficiary and project.  

84   CORDIS factsheet: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/223213/factsheet/en 

Project website: https://www.ruralization.eu/. 

85   CORDIS factsheet: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/223230/factsheet/en. 

Project website: https://polirural.eu/. 

56 

 
 
                                                           
6.  CONCLUSIONS 

The  evaluation  examined  the  relevance,  coherence,  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  EU 
added  value  of  the  different  CAP  measures  and  instruments  affecting  generational 
renewal  in  rural  areas.  The  evaluation  focused  on  the  farming  sector  and  generational 
renewal in rural areas (outside farming). The role of the CAP is less significant outside 
the realm of farming, and this role was addressed in a dedicated chapter.  

In this evaluation, generational renewal was examined: (i) in the various forms of support 
for  young farmers available under Pillars  I and II of the CAP; but also (ii) in the other 
support measures that make rural areas more attractive for people to work and live. The 
evaluation  covers  the  period  following  the  implementation  of  the  2013  CAP  reform, 
notably from 2015 onwards.  

This  assessment  was  difficult  because  the  CAP  is  not  the  most  significant  factor 
influencing  generational  renewal,  local  development  and  job  creation  in  the  EU.  Many 
entry barriers to the agricultural sector, such as access to land, are determined by national 
law.  In  addition,  generational  renewal  (both  in  farming  and  in  other  sectors)  is 
significantly affected by external factors such as socioeconomic conditions in rural areas.  

The evaluation faced several challenges and constraints due to the limited availability of 
detailed  and  homogenous  data,  the  narrow  observation  period,  and  the  limited 
geographical  coverage  of  certain  analyses.  In  addition,  the  analysis  could  not  always 
distinguish  well  between  the  effects  of  the  young-farmers’  direct-payment  supplement, 
the  installation  grant,  and  other  investment  support.  However,  combining  multiple 
qualitative and quantitative analyses, the evaluation draws relevant conclusions. 

Measures covered 

The  evaluation  covers  a  series  of  CAP  instruments  and  measures  that  have  direct  and 
indirect impacts on generational renewal.  

For Pillar I, particular attention was given to the young-farmer supplement, and the role 
of  direct  payments  in  general.  For  Pillar  II,  the  evaluation  focused  on  the  impact  of 
business start-up aid for young farmers and investment support. The supporting measures 
related  to  knowledge,  advice  and  cooperation  were  also  analysed,  as  were  measures 
targeting the improvement of quality of life in rural areas, such as support to investments 
in  basic  services  and  infrastructure.  The  evaluation  also  covered  CAP  measures 
promoting  generational  renewal  in  rural  areas  whenever  this  goal  was  explicit  in 
targeting  or  selection-eligibility  criteria  (such  as  in  start-up  aid  for  non-farm  rural 
businesses, the LEADER programme, and others).  

Generational renewal in the farming sector 

Effectiveness  

Overall labour input in EU agriculture, at 9.1 million full-time equivalents in 2019, 
has been falling, although it now seems to be levelling off (from -3.8% per year in 2005-
2011  to  -1.4%  per  year  in  2011-2019).  Farm  demographics  are  a  major  challenge  for 
farm  succession.  Attracting  young  people  to  agriculture  is  also  key  for  securing  the 
skilled hired labour needed to operate modern technologies. 

The impact of CAP generational-renewal measures on the number of young farmers is 
mostly positive although sometimes modest, with significant variation across regions and 
systems. The most significant effect is  in sparsely populated, less developed areas with 
many  small  farms.  In  regions  with  large  farms,  high  CAP  expenditure,  and  an  ageing 
farm  population,  the  effect  of  CAP  generational-renewal  measures  on  the  number  of 
young  farmers  is  very  small.  Support  for  young  farmers  enables  generational  renewal 

57 

 
when the amount of aid offered and the conditions of the offer are significant. The impact 
on employment is likely to be higher where the support targets labour-intensive forms of 
agriculture rather than simply supporting farm succession in capital-intensive sectors.  

The level of support going into rural areas from the CAP generational-renewal measures 
appears to  be particularly  important  in  those rural  areas in  need of  local development, 
where  it  can  promote  rural  vitality.  However,  the  impact  of  CAP  generational-renewal 
measures  is  weak  when  it  is  dwarfed  by  negative  influences  including  socio-cultural 
factors  and  wider  economic  disincentives  to  farm  or  live  in  rural  areas.  Therefore,  the 
value  of  any  support  (included  other  EU  policies)  should  not  be  assessed  in  isolation 
from wider socioeconomic conditions in rural areas. 

Lower uptake of CAP generational-renewal measures is found in cases where sufficient 
advice is lacking, due to the complexity of completing applications. This is especially a 
problem with rural-development support. It also partly explains why these measures are 
not best suited to newcomers to agriculture. 

CAP  generational-renewal  measures  make  a  difference  to  the  performance  of  farm 
businesses, their resilience, and the secure transfer of farms from an older to a younger 
generation.  In  the  EU,  the  direct-payment  supplement  to  young  farmers  helped  to 
increase the income of farmers receiving the supplement by EUR 540 million in 2018. In 
France, young farmers who received the support for young farmers (including investment 
support  at  a  higher  rate)  increased  their  economic  size  and  farm  capital  faster  after  the 
generational change than those that did not receive the young-farmer support. Rather than 
encouraging  farm  succession,  these  measures  are  more  likely  to  increase  the 
socioeconomic  sustainability  of  farm  businesses  after  young  farmers  have  set  up 
operations. 

On  the  overall  impact  of  the  CAP  on  the  number  of  young  farmers,  wider  economic 
conditions  greatly  affect  the  relative  attraction  of  farming  for  young  people  in  many 
Member States. The share of young farmers increased during the global recession (2007-
2010). During this time, young people returned to their parents’ farms to try to make a 
living  from  the  land,  at  least  until  the  economy  recovered  and  job  prospects  elsewhere 
improved again. There are also some areas where restructuring in agriculture resulted in 
a loss of labour in the agricultural sector regardless of wider economic conditions.  

The  greatest  positive  impact  of  the  CAP  on  jobs  was  in  marginal  areas  with  scope  for 
economic  development.  By  contrast,  for  farms  located  where  the  wider  economy  is 
depressed or undeveloped (as well as for farms in completely different and economically 
buoyant regions where agriculture is capital-intensive) the aid might not generate much 
employment.  

However, at a regional or sub-regional level there is evidence that income support may 
slow  inter-generational  farm  transfer.  This  is  because  some  older  farmers  use  the 
payments as income support beyond what would be a usual retirement age to compensate 
for  low  pensions.  Nevertheless,  Pillar  I  support  is  only  one  of  many  factors  explaining 
the  inactive  land  market.  The  share  of  land  on  sale  every  year  is  low.  National  laws 
play a key role in this, because Member States decide on inheritance laws, restrictions on 
access to land, transaction costs (often very high) and taxes.  

Although the training level of young farm managers increased over time, in 2016 only 
43%  of  young  farm  managers  had  more  than  practical  experience.  The  analysis  shows 
that  the  link  between  generational-renewal  measures  and  increased  inter-generational 
knowledge exchange is clear and positive in a specific situation. That situation is when 
training  and  advice  are  provided  to  young  farmers  and  new  rural  entrepreneurs  as  a 

58 

 
condition  of  accessing  capital  grants,  start-up  aid  and/or  Pillar  I  young-farmer 
supplement. 

CAP measures mainly contribute to the maintenance or protection of farming jobs rather 
than their creation, especially in marginal areas. This is particularly the case for support 
for  young  farmers.  But  it  is  also  the  case with  direct  payments  in  general  and with  the 
support given to areas facing natural constraints. However, the evidence also shows that 
the CAP supported better jobs for farm workers.  

Efficiency 

Generational-renewal measures are generally efficient. Their costs can be considered 
reasonably in line with the size and complexity of the projects, especially if the projects 
are  implemented  as  a  package  of  measures.  The  direct  payment  for  young  farmers  is 
comparatively cheap to deliver. Pillar II aid is perceived by some beneficiaries as being 
relatively  simple  and  easy  to  access,  but  this  aid  can  also  be  associated  with  slow 
processes  and  relatively  high  implementation  costs.  Most  of  the  policy  instruments 
examined proved to be less efficient for young entrepreneurs coming from outside the 
family  farm  and  from  outside  the  agricultural  sector:  preparing  an  application  and 
securing aid takes longer and requires more effort for this group than for farm successors. 

The  best  evidence  of  the  sustained  and  positive  impact  of  CAP  support  is  in  Member 
States in which a variety of measures and instruments is used in a complementary way. 
This means mixing: (i) funding and investment aids for business start-ups; (ii) advice and 
training;  and  (iii)  tax  incentives  and  collaborative  institutional  incentives  to  ease  inter-
generational  transfer.  It  is  also  very  important  that  the  support  be  targeted  to  local 
conditions. 

Coherence 

The  extent  to  which  measures/instruments  linked  to  generational  renewal  are  coherent 
with each other varies across the EU. The delivery models vary, but in general, measures 
are considered to be mutually supportive with a high degree of synergy. This coherence 
is best demonstrated in integrated packages, such as in France, Italy and Hungary. 

Direct payments can limit land availability (by keeping older farmers at work) and drive 
up land prices (by reducing the supply and by  capitalising of part of the payments  into 
land  prices).  This  can  make  it  more  difficult  for  rural-development  measures  to  be 
implemented to the greatest effect, particularly for new entrants to agriculture that do not 
inherit  land.  However,  many  other  factors  also  affect  the  land  market,  such  as  land-
market regulations, interest rates or urbanisation.  

Through the new CSF, it is a requirement for rural-development planning to coordinate 
closely with Member-State programming of other EU funds under the CSF. Conflict and 
overlap between the main funds of the CSF and EAFRD are now being reduced thanks to 
coordination at Member-State level and the existence of a common strategic document at 
EU level (partnership agreement).  

There  is  also  strong  coherence  with  the  EIB,  through  the  joint  European  Commission-
EIB initiative on young farmers. This initiative aims to bring together all forms of rural-
development support and the financial firepower and expertise of the EIB group. 

Relevance and added value 

Access to land and capital is one of the main barriers to entry to the farming sector. To 
remedy this,  generational-renewal  and CAP  support  provides funding  to  assist  with: (i) 
the general costs following set-up; and (ii) early-years investment support. However, this 
support  will  often  be  insufficient  on  its  own  to  address  these  barriers  because  CAP 

59 

 
funding  cannot  address  the  wider  issues  that  prevent  the  good  functioning  of  land  and 
credit markets. In addition, in some regions, direct payments slow inter-generational farm 
transfer,  because  older  farmers  use  these  payments  to  compensate  for  low  pensions. 
Nevertheless,  Pillar  I  support  is  only  one  of  many  factors  explaining  the  inactive  land 
market. Facilitating improved access to land and capital may require changes to improve 
the  coherence  of  legal,  social  and  fiscal  policies  in  the  Member  States  with  CAP 
generational-renewal goals.  

The  generational-renewal  measures  are  relevant  to  address  employment  levels  because 
they can have a significant impact at local level. However, induced employment changes 
will be relatively modest at macro level. Similarly, the relatively small share of the CAP 
budget  dedicated  to  improving  services  and  infrastructure,  in  complement  to  other  EU 
policies such as the regional and cohesion funds, might be relevant for quality of life in 
some rural areas. 

CAP  generational-renewal  measures  bring  considerable  EU  added  value  in  situations 
where national,  regional and local governments  make institutional and fiscal provisions 
to  support  generational  renewal  on  farms  and  in  rural  areas.  This  can  be  achieved 
particularly by focusing on creating mechanisms and resources to: (i) increase the ease of 
buying  and  selling  land;  and  (ii)  ease  the  process  of  inter-generational  transfer  for 
older and younger generations. 

Generational renewal in rural areas (outside the farming sector) 

The  employment  rate  in  rural  areas  continues  to  increase  despite  the  decline  in  the 
number  of  people  working  in  agriculture.  In  addition,  the  gap  in  the  employment  rate 
between  rural  areas  and  urban  areas  disappeared  in  2017.  Even  though  agriculture 
gradually accounts for a lower share of overall employment, around 10.5 million farms 
still provide work for roughly 20.5 million people (full and part-time jobs) in the EU-28. 
Together  with  food  processing,  food  retail  and  food  services,  agriculture  makes  up  a 
sector  supporting  about  44  million  jobs  in  the  EU.  The  impact  of  generational-renewal 
measures is particularly significant in food processing.  

Rural-development  aid,  in  complement  to  other  EU  policies  such  as  the  regional  and 
cohesion  funds,  that  promotes  rural  economic  diversification,  added-value,  better 
services, and better infrastructure (including broadband) is potentially vital to improving 
the broader economic climate, particularly in remote areas. Within the rural development 
programmes, the share of measures devoted to economic diversification, job creation and 
rural  services  (including  broadband,  transport,  and  social  and  community  activities)  is 
relatively small (around 15%). However, this expenditure brings value at local level and 
indirectly  promotes  generational  renewal,  for  example,  in  Member  States  that  fund  the 
development of broadband access with EAFRD funding (Sweden, Lithuania). 

Quantitative  and  qualitative  evidence  shows  that  CAP  measures  not  directly  linked  to 
generational  renewal  can  foster  and  strengthen  non-farm  generational  renewal  by 
improving rural quality of life (e.g. by supporting rural service provision, infrastructure 
and rural economic diversification through programmes like LEADER). In addition, the 
different stakeholders interviewed (farmers, national authorities, etc.) said that the CAP 
plays an important role in indirectly supporting social capital and rural infrastructure and 
services, mainly in the most marginal and remote rural areas. This is principally due to 
the  relative  scarcity  of  other  economic  activities,  and  thus  the  greater  financial 
significance of CAP aid from both Pillars in stimulating rural economies. However, a full 
investigation  of  these  mechanisms  was  beyond  the  scope  of  this  evaluation.  The  best 
evidence  of  sustained  and  positive  impact  is  in  Member  States  that  use  a  variety  of 
measures and instruments in a complementary way, alongside broader support for rural 

60 

 
services,  infrastructure  and  quality  of  life.  Finally,  analysis  by  the  World  Bank  has 
proven  that  agriculture  and  the  CAP  contribute  significantly  to  the  eradication  of 
poverty in rural areas. Slightly more than one quarter of the EU population living in rural 
areas was exposed to the risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2016. 

Lessons learned 

A strategic approach for generational renewal for Pillar I and Pillar II is lacking in most 
Member States. 

Developing  integrated  approaches  would  make  it  possible  to  increase  the  delivery  of 
CAP generational-renewal measures. This could be achieved by using multiple CAP and 
non-CAP  instruments,  institutions  and  broader  legislative  and  fiscal  provisions  in  a 
coherent way. 

There  is  considerable  scope  for  Member  States  to  learn  from  good  practices  in  other 
Member  States.  The  scope  is  great  to  learn  about:  (i)  more  creative  application  of 
measures  to  enable  institutional  and  social  innovations;  and  (ii)  the  types  of  non-CAP 
policy development that can assist generational renewal.  

Older  farmers  remaining  at  work  and  on  farms  into  later  age  is  an  issue  for  which 
national policies, such as pension schemes, are partly responsible. 

Access to knowledge and advice is still insufficient. 

CAP generational-renewal measures are not well adapted to support the entry of young 
farm managers with no family background in farming to the farming sector. 

61 

 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

2.  LEAD DG, DeCIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

Lead DG: Directorate-General Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI). 

Decide planning: PLAN/2017/2311. 

1.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

This  evaluation  was  included  in  the  DG  AGRI  evaluation  plan.  It  followed  the  ‘better 
regulation’  guidelines  for  evaluations.  The  evaluation  work  was  carried  out  through  an 
external  study,  which  was  contracted  through  a  service  request  under  a  framework 
contract. The evaluation was conducted in conformity with the DG AGRI procedure for 
organising  and  managing  policy  evaluations  carried  out  by  external  contractors.  The 
work was supervised under the technical and contractual management of AGRI unit C.4 
in charge of monitoring and evaluation. 

An inter-service steering group (ISG) was set up by the Commission on 31 January 2018, 
with  the  mandate  to:  (i)  provide  information;  (ii)  prepare  the  terms  of  reference;  (ii) 
monitor the work of the external study team; (iii) discuss and give advice on the approval 
of  the  final  report;  and  (iv)  comment  on  the  draft  evaluation  staff  working  document 
(SWD). 

The  ISG was composed  of the Secretariat-General  of the Commission  and DGs AGRI, 
ESTAT,  GROW,  JRC  and  RTD.  The  ISG  started  its  meetings  on  5 February 2018  and 
held eight meetings.  

The evaluation roadmap was published on 9 February 2018. It set out the context, scope 
and aim of the exercise. The roadmap presented the questions to be addressed under the 
five criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value. The 
roadmap also set out some causal-analysis questions. During the feedback period on the 
roadmap, two contributions were received. These did not require changing the approach 
towards the evaluation. 

The  evaluation  support  study  carried  out  by  the  external  contractor  started  on 
25 September 2018  and  finished  on  25 August 2019.  This  external  support  study, 
together with the outcome of the public consultation, provided the basis for this SWD. 

3.  EXCEPTIONS TO THE ‘BETTER REGULATION’ GUIDELINES 

No specific public consultation was carried out. The public consultation of reference for 
this evaluation is the public consultation on the future of the CAP86. 

4.  CONSULTATION OF THE REGULATORY SCRUTINY BOARD 

The Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) scrutinised this evaluation SWD in a meeting held 
on  25 March 2020.  The  opinion  of  the  board  was  negative.  The  report  was  therefore 
substantially  revised  to  address  the  board’s  comments.  In  addition,  the  data  on  CAP 
implementation  was  updated  and  the  analysis  was  supplemented  with  additional 
references.  The  rich  detail  of  the  case  studies  is  also  now  better  depicted.  The  causal 
analysis was integrated in the assessment of the five evaluation criteria. 

86   ‘Modernising and simplifying the CAP’ public consultation held from 2 February 2017 to 2 May 2017: 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/modernising-and-simplifying-common-agricultural-policy. 

62 

 
 
                                                           
Figure 17 – Revisions made following the RSB’s comments 

Shortcomings identified by the RSB 

Revisions made 

(1) The report does not  explain clearly the 
place  that  the  measures  for  young  farmers 
occupy in the overall CAP.  

The  report  now  explains  more  clearly  the 
place  occupied  by  the  measures  for  young 
farmers in the overall CAP. 

More detail was  added  on the intervention 
logic,  pointing  at  the  role  of  external 
factors on generational renewal. 

(outside 

The difficulty of analysing the contribution 
of the CAP to generational renewal in rural 
better 
areas 
(on 
acknowledged,  and 
generational 
farming  and 
outside  farming)  was  clearly  distinguished 
from this. 

the  analysis 

farming) 

renewal 

in 

is 

The shortcomings in the analysis are better 
explained,  in  particular  the  difficulty  of 
disentangling  the  effects  of  the  different 
Pillars and instruments. 

The  positive  role  of  the  CAP  (and  direct 
payments in particular) in increasing young 
farmers’  access  to  credit  (and  thus  also 
their  access  to  land)  is  clarified.  At  the 
same  time,  the  adverse  effects  of  direct 
to 
payments  used  by  older 
compensate for low pensions (thus keeping 
these older farmers at  work on their farms 
until much later in life) is better explained. 
In  addition,  more  detail  was  added  on  the 
CAP and land prices. 

farmers 

In  the  redrafted  chapter,  limitations  to  the 
the  generational-
EU  value  added  of 
renewal  measures  are  better  explained. 
This  redrafted  chapter  makes  clear  that 
many  policies  that  could  tackle  entry 
to  young  farmers  remain  of 
barriers 
national and local competence. 

The  role  given  to  external  factors  in  the 
analysis  is  strengthened.  The  conclusions 
on  the  role  of  the  CAP  are  more  nuanced 
and put into greater context, especially on: 
(i) access to land; (ii) access to credit; and 
(iii) 
outside 
agriculture. 

generational 

renewal 

(2) The report does not adequately describe 
synergies  and  trade-offs  between  income-
support and modernisation measures. 

(3) The report does not sufficiently analyse 
the  EU  added  value  of  the  measures 
evaluated. 

(4)  The  conclusions  are  not  sufficiently 
nuanced  on  the  observed  effectiveness  of 
the different measures. 

Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development. 

63 

 
5.  EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY  

The evaluation support study required relevant data and information to be gathered from 
EU,  national,  and  local  levels.  The  overall  approach  therefore  combines  three  main 
sources and types of evidence. 

1. EU-level data and information gathering, review and analysis 

Early,  qualitative  information  to  generate  an  enhanced  programme  theory  and 
intervention logic from literature  review. This  included key  EU stakeholder interviews, 
and  an  online  survey  targeted  at  national  administrations’  ENRD  contacts.  The  other 
consultations are presented in Annex 2. 

Quantitative analysis of  EU indicators  (mainly  context) and available CAP  expenditure 
data at NUTS 3 level. 

A  multivariate  MCA  to  enable  the  identification  of  composite  indicators  for  types  of 
NUTS  3  regions.  This  included  principal-components  analysis  followed  by  regression 
analysis to estimate the impact of these indicators on the number of young farmers. 

2. Case studies in selected Member States 

The case studies were chosen: (i) to cover the range of territorial types identified in the 
cluster analysis; (ii) to ensure a good balance of older and newer Member States; and (iii) 
to  ensure  broad  geographical  and  socio-political  spread.  Case  studies  use  two  or  three 
levels of analysis as set out in the next two bullet points. 

  National  or  national-and-regional-level  analysis  –  This  involved:  (i)  initial 
context analysis; (ii) collection of information on national policies and non-policy 
generational-renewal  influences;  (iii)  institutional  mapping  and  business-process 
reviews  covering  the  delivery  efficiency  of  all  young  farmers  and  selected 
generational-renewal  measures;  (iv)  key  stakeholder  interviews;  (v)  literature 
review/document  analysis;  and  (vi)  a  final  workshop  to  validate  the  impact  of 
generational-renewal measures.  

  Local-level analysis – This was used on: (i) secondary evidence and interviews 
of an illustrative range of beneficiaries in each local area; (ii) interviews of local 
delivery  agents;  (iii)  validation  of  national-level  case-study  findings;  and  (iv) 
description and analysis of good-practice examples. 

3. Quantitative analysis of farm-level and regional-level CAP impacts 

  Matched  farm-based  estimation  of  the  impact  of  young-farmers’  measures 
on farm-business  performance and structural  change. This  made use of data 
from  the  FADN  panel  in  a  longitudinal  counterfactual  analysis  in  two  Member 
States  with  sufficiently large-scale and long-established use of these measures  – 
Italy and France.  

  Discussion  and  extrapolation  of  the  estimated  impacts  of  generational-
renewal  measures  on  rural  employment.  This  involved  referring  to  detailed 
CGE modelling undertaken in Poland. The typology of areas developed from this 
modelling was then used to consider its implications at EU level. 

Comparative  analysis  of  case  studies  tested  the  relevance  of  initial  intervention  logics 
and the claimed, suggested or predicted outcomes from EU-level analyses. 

64 

 
 
 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

The  consultation  strategy  made  it  possible  to  collect  additional  information  and  views 
collected from the relevant stakeholders.  

A wide range of consultation methods and activities were planned and carried out by the 
external  evaluator  and  the  Commission.  The  figure  below  presents  a  matrix  of  how 
relevant identified stakeholders were consulted via different consultation activities.    

Figure 17 – Consultation activities 

Note: No specific public consultation for this evaluation was conducted.  
Source: DG AGRI’s own compilation. 

Consultation activities carried out by the external evaluator 

The following targeted consultation activities were carried out by the external evaluator: 
case studies/workshops, surveys, focus groups, and interviews. The following categories 
of stakeholders were reached:  

citizens 
farmers and farmers’ organisations, including young-farmers’ organisations  

- 
- 
-  NGOs and other relevant civil-society organisations 
- 
- 
-  public authorities in EU Member States  
-  paying agencies  
-  bodies that deliver farm-advisory services.  

experts (e.g. from business organisations) 
academia  

Consultation activities carried out by the Commission   

DG  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  consulted  the  stakeholders  as  described  in  the 
three bullet points below.  

65 

 
 
 
-  Firstly,  a  series  of  workshops  was  organised  at  the  margins  of  Expo  Milano 
(2015).  At  one  of  these  workshops,  more  than  100  young  farmers  from  young-
farmers’  organisations  were  invited  and  divided  around  10  tables  to  discuss  the 
CAP. Measures for young farmers were assessed by this group as positive. 

-  Secondly,  the  contractors,  the  evaluation  officer,  and  several  members  of  the 
European  Commission  ISG  took  part  in  two  ENRD  workshops  on  generational 
renewal.  One  workshop  was  held  in  Brussels  (Belgium)  on  10 December 2018 
and  was  attended  mainly  by  national  and  regional  administrations.  Another  was 
held  in  Athlone  (Ireland)  on  22 February 2019,  and  was  co-chaired  by  both  the 
ENRD and the member of the civil-dialogue groups representing young farmers87. 
-  Thirdly, the report is also based on the reports published by the European Court 
of  Auditors  (ECA),  EESC,  European  Parliament,  and  World  Bank,  where  civil-
dialogue groups were also consulted. 

The  Commission  asked  the  Expert  Group  on  Monitoring  and  Evaluating  the  CAP  to 
provide  information  on  possible  relevant  activities  at  Member-State  level,  especially  if 
Member States had set up arrangements for collecting baseline data and for monitoring 
and evaluating CAP measures.   

In  addition,  on  13 March 2019,  the  Commission  organised  an  internal  workshop  with 
rural-development  units  from  DG  AGRI  in  order  to  get  some  input  about  the  subjects 
tackled  in  the  evaluation.  This  workshop  confirmed  the  outcomes  of  the  case  studies, 
pointing at: (i) the benefits of common strategies when already in place for Pillar I and II 
measures;  and  (ii)  the  problems  of  the  main  entry  barriers  raised  in  the  public 
consultation.  

In addition, the monitoring and evaluation unit at DG AGRI was also responsible for a 
European pilot project ‘Exchange programmes for young farmers’ (2015). The outcome 
of the project included a survey on the needs of young farmers that could complement the 
consultation strategy.  

Public consultation 

No  specific  public  consultation  for  this  evaluation  was  conducted  because  the  public 
consultation on the future of the CAP88 already provided a lot of input on the topics of 
generational renewal and young farmers in Europe. 

The  public  consultation  on  modernising  and  simplifying  the  CAP  was  launched  on 
2 February 2017  and  closed  on  2 May 2017.  Its  aim  was  to  gather  the  views  of  public 
authorities, stakeholders and the European public on the future of the CAP. According to 
the  summary  of  results  from  this  public  consultation,  more  than  63 000  answers  were 
received. 

Open questions 

The  2017  public  consultation  on  the  CAP  included  some  open  questions  relevant  to 
generational renewal. On the main CAP objectives, the following issues were highlighted 
in the consultation: 

  viable food production: markets, payments, subsidies, and the role and powers of 

actors in the food chain;   

87   CEJA was the member of the civil-dialogue groups representing young farmers. 
88   Summary of the results of the public consultation ‘Modernising and Simplifying the CAP’ (revised 

06/09): https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/consultations/cap-modernising/summary-
public-consul.pdf. 

66 

 
                                                           
  climate change: environment, pollution, climate change, and the lack of attention 

 

given to sustainability;  
forestry:  sustainable  farming  practices,  agro-forestry  systems,  family  forestry, 
research & forestry;  

  generational renewal: employment, new entrance, young farmers, start-ups, 

local products, and quality of life in rural areas.  

One  particular  aspect  was  highlighted  in  the  position  papers  that  was  relevant  to 
generational renewal: ensuring a fair standard of living.  

Closed questions 

Some  of  the  closed  questions  were  highly  relevant  in  this  framework.  They  are  set  out 
below. 
-What are the main barriers to becoming a farmer? (Q8)89 

Main observations: There was very little difference between the answers to this question 
provided  by  farmers,  other  citizens,  and  organisations.  The  option  most  frequently 
selected  was  ‘low  profitability’  (chosen  by  23%),  followed  by  ‘high  prices  of  land’ 
(17%), ‘administrative requirements’ (13%) and a ‘lack of available land’ (14%). 

Figure 18 – Main barriers to becoming a farmer (%) 

Source: Summary of the results of the public consultation. 

89   Respondents were asked to select up to 5 choices from among 11 options: 1. Low profitability; 2. Lack 
of  available  land;  3.  High  prices  of  land;  4.  Land  regulation;  5.  Difficulties  in  accessing  credit;  6. 
Complexity of insurance schemes; 7. Inheritance laws; 8. Taxation; 9. Administrative requirements; 10. 
Lack of access to updated knowledge/technologies; and 11. Image of the sector.  

67 

 
 
                                                           
-Where should the CAP improve its contribution for rural areas? (Q28)90  

Farmers and other citizens had different opinions on this issue.  

For  farmers  who  participated  in  the  consultation,  the  first  choice  selected  was: 
‘Creating  and  maintaining  jobs  in  rural  areas,  including  in  primary  agricultural 
production’  (chosen  by  13%  of  farmers).  This  was  followed  by  ‘Fostering  the 
economic  viability  of  agriculture  throughout  the  EU,  avoiding  concentration  of 
production  and  people in  certain  areas’  (12%)  and  ‘Taking  care  of  local  know-how 
and  products  in  line  with  the  EU’s  diversity  and  providing  the  basis  for  quality  EU 
products’ (11%).  

For  other  citizens  who  participated  in  the  consultation,  the  first  option  selected  was: 
‘Taking  care  of  local  know-how  and  products  in  line  with  the  EU’s  diversity  and 
providing the basis for quality EU products’ (chosen by 16% of other citizens). This was 
followed by ‘Enhancing the interplay between local production and local markets’ (15%) 
and ‘Addressing local needs by supporting the provision of local infrastructure/services 
(e.g. health care, child care, transport)’ (11%).  

-How  can  the  CAP  better  help  young  farmers  or  other  young  rural  entrepreneurs? 
(Q29) 

Main observations: The option most frequently selected by farmers and by other citizens 
differed:  For farmers who participated in the consultation, the first choice selected 
was  ‘Supporting  business  start-up’  (chosen  by  18%  of  farmers),  followed  by 
‘Incentivising the transfer of farms’ (chosen by 17%) and ‘Providing more support 
for  investments’  (also  chosen  by  17%).  For  other  citizens  who  participated  in  the 
consultation, the first option selected was ‘Supporting knowledge transfer, advice and 
vocational  training’  (chosen  by  20%  of  other  citizens)  followed  by  ‘Supporting 
business  start-ups’  (chosen  by  19%)  and  ‘Supporting  new  forms  of  cooperation’ 
(chosen by 16%). ‘Improving access to financial instruments’ came last for all types of 
respondents (chosen by 7% of farmers and other citizens, and by 9% of organisations). 
For  consultation  respondents  from  organisations,  the  answers  varied  according  to  the 
type and sector of the organisation. For consultation respondents from trade, business or 
professional  associations,  the  first  choice  selected  was  ‘Supporting  new  forms  of 
cooperation’ (19%). 

90   Respondents  were  asked  to  select  up  to  5  choices  from  among  12  options:  1.  Fostering  innovation 
through  knowledge  transfer,  advice  and  vocational  training;  2.  Taking  care  of  local  know-how  and 
products in line with the EU’s diversity and providing the basis for quality EU products; 3. Addressing 
local  needs  by  supporting  the  provision  of  local  infrastructure/services  (e.g.  healthcare,  child  care, 
transport); 4. Fostering the economic viability of agriculture throughout the EU, avoiding concentration 
of production and people in certain areas; 5. Enhancing the interplay between local production and local 
markets;  6.  Enhancing  quality  of  life  and  social  inclusion  of  rural  inhabitants;  7.  Strengthening 
governance and local development through bottom-up initiatives such as LEADER; 8. Fostering rural 
tourism  and  recreation,  including  through  the  provision  of  landscape  benefits,  cultural  values  and 
traditional local food; 9. Creating and maintaining jobs in rural areas, including in primary agricultural 
production;  10.  Providing  connectivity  and  digital  solutions;  11.  Contributing  to  societal  and  cultural 
capital  for  rural  areas  to  stay  vital  living  spaces  and  to  establishing  mutually  beneficial  rural-urban 
linkages; 12. Helping SMEs to create jobs in rural areas. 

68 

 
                                                           
Figure  19  –  How  can  the  CAP  better  help  young  farmers  or  other  young  rural 
entrepreneurs? (%) 

Source: Summary of the results of the public consultation. 
-What would be the best way to encourage innovation? (Q30)91 

Main observations: ‘Support the engagement of farmers in innovative projects’ was 
the most frequently selected option among farmers (chosen by 28% of them), other 
citizens (25%) and organisations (28%). ‘Support knowledge exchange through better 
access  to  advisory  services,  networking  among  farmers  and  demonstration  farms’ 
was the second most frequently selected option for farmers (20%), other citizens (21%) 
and  organisations  (20%).  For  farmers  (16%)  and  organisations  (17%),  the  third  most 
frequently selected choice was ‘Provide better access to finance/investment’. For other 
citizens,  the  third  most  frequently  selected  choice  was  ‘Improve  the  technical 
competence and impartiality of advisory services’ (19%).  

91   Respondents were asked to select up to 3 choices from among 6 options: 1. Support the engagement of 
farmers  in  innovative  projects;  2.  Address  the  knowledge  gap  among  farmers;  3.  Support  knowledge 
exchange  through  better  access  to  advisory  services,  networking  among  farmers  and  demonstration 
farms;  4.  Improve  the  technical  competence  and  impartiality  of  advisory  services;  5.  Develop  IT 
infrastructure for knowledge exchange; 6. Provide better access to finance/investment. 

69 

 
 
 
                                                           
ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS 

The box below describes: (i) the analytical models; and (ii) the methods for quantitative 
and qualitative evaluation. Information from different sources was triangulated, ensuring 
that the answers to the evaluation questions were based on solid, cross-checked evidence. 
The right-hand column of the box gives details on the information sources. 

EU-level 
informed 
opinion 

EU-level 
data analysis 

Information  from  relevant  policy and scientific literature,  e.g. (i) Court 
of Auditors special report(s); (ii) European Parliament report(s) (e.g. on 
the  professional  status  of  rural  women  in  the  EU);  and  (iii)  relevant 
completed  or  on-going  studies  on  CAP  reform  and  CAP  impacts  (e.g. 
World Bank report Thinking CAP). 

Commission  figures  on  planned  and  executed  CAP  expenditure  by 
regulation and measure, for all available years in the 2014-2020 period, 
at the lowest possible scale (NUTS 2 or NUTS 3), as well as output and 
result indicators for this expenditure from the Common Monitoring and 
Evaluation Framework (CMEF). 

Additional, 
focused, 
quantitative 
analyses 

Statistical-context  information  collected  by  the  Commission  including: 
(i) the Farm Structure Survey; and (ii) FADN data at comparable scale 
to  the  expenditure  data  (NUTS  2  or  3).  This  included  relevant  context 
indicators included in the CAP 2014-2020 CMEF and rural-development 
indicator set. 

Case-based 
detailed 
analysis 
of 
causal effects 

Data  and  information  on  CAP  design,  delivery  and  impact  (including 
examples of good practice) at national/regional and local levels via case 
studies.  These  case  studies  were  chosen  to  represent  the  key  axes  of 
variation among the EU-28.  

Case-study 
findings 

Other targeted consultation responses including: (i) 7 national and 3 EU 
stakeholder  and  policy-maker  workshops;  (ii)  expert  and  stakeholder 
interviews at case-study and EU level; and (iii) interviews at case-study 
level with managing authorities/delivery agencies and beneficiaries. 

The methodology used a mixed-method, triangulated approach with five main elements 
as set out in the bullet points below. 

–  EU-level 

informed  opinion: 

literature  review,  selected  key  stakeholder 
interviews, and an online survey of Member-State administrations via the ENRD 
contact points. 

–  EU-level  data  analysis:  exploring  the  relations  between  context,  inputs  and 
impacts,  including:  (i)  maps  of  key  variables;  (ii)  correlation  analyses;  and  (iii) 
econometric MCA. This analysis generated two rural typologies at NUTS 3 level. 
These analysis of these typologies influenced case-study selection and helped to 
identify and estimate certain impacts. 

–  Case-based  detailed  analysis  of:  (i)  causal  effects;  (ii)  delivery  approaches  and 
their  impacts;  (iii)  efficiency;  and  (iv)  added  value.  This  analysis  covered  case 
studies  of  seven  contrasting  Member  States  (France,  Belgium-Flanders,  Italy, 
Estonia, Hungary, Poland and Ireland). 

–  Additional,  focused  quantitative  analyses.  This  included:  (i)  counterfactual 
analysis of FADN panel data in France and Italy to assess the impact of support 

70 

 
 
for young farmers on farm performance; and (ii) CGE modelling to examine the 
impact  of  generational-renewal  expenditure  on  rural  employment,  based  on 
Poland but considering its wider EU relevance. 

–  Triangulation  via  comparative  analysis  of:  (i)  case-study  findings;  (ii)  EU-level 
evidence;  and  (iii)  EU-level  modelling  results.  This  analysis  was  validated  in  7 
workshops at national level, and 3 workshops at EU level, involving stakeholders 
and policy officials (2 of the EU-level workshops were hosted by the ENRD).    

Case  studies  analysed  material  at  national,  regional  and  local  NUTS-3  levels.  This 
included:  (i)  secondary  sources  (previous  evaluations,  research);  (ii)  interviews  with 
policy officers, experts, stakeholders and beneficiaries; (iii) primary data on delivery and 
beneficiary  impacts;  and  (iv)  examples  of  good  practice  in  policy  design/delivery, 
innovation and coordination.  

Sources and methods were assembled in a logical, hierarchical and temporal framework 
(see figure below). Careful sequencing of steps enabled feedback in some stages so that 
tools applied later on were informed by the findings of earlier phases. As indicated in the 
figure,  a  ‘toolkit’  of  methods  and  analytical  tools  were  applied  together  in  ways  that 
optimised  the  range  and  types  of  evidence  informing  the  evaluation  (effectiveness, 
efficiency, etc.). 

Justification for case studies and case-study selection 

The  particular  value  of  territorial  case  studies  is  their  ability  to  consider  systemic 
relationships between CAP and non-CAP influences on generational renewal in specific 
contexts.  This gives them greater explanatory power than more generalised analysis.  In 
the evaluation support study, case studies were used to: (i) provide in-depth knowledge 
about  the  implementation  choices  of  different  Member  States;  (ii)  make  a  detailed 
assessment of efficiency and administrative burdens; and (iii) gain robust understanding 
of the intervention logic and causal relations linking policy instruments (individually and 
in combination) to results and impacts. 

Case studies included observation and analysis at national, regional (for countries where 
rural-development programmes are regional), and local (sub-regional) levels. In countries 
with  a  single,  national,  rural-development  programme,  there  were  two  levels:  national 
and local. In countries with regional rural-development programmes, the regional level is 
relevant  because  decisions  on  measures  for  young  farmers  and  measures  relevant  to 
generational renewal are taken by regional administrations. 

Member States were selected for case studies on the basis of:  

1.  a  balanced  distribution  between  new/old  EU  Member  States  and  regional  or 

national RDPs; 

2.  a  broad  range  of  relevant  measures  for  young  farmers  and  generational  renewal 
within  CAP  implementation,  with  a  specific  need  to  include  one  territory 
applying a Pillar II sub-programme for young farmers (Hungary); 

3.  the ability to: (i) cover all relevant clusters of NUTS 3 areas; and (iii) ‘weight’ the 
coverage  to  give  more  sub-regional  cases  representing  the  most  common  types 
than those representing more rare types; 

4.  the known presence or absence of: (i) specific national  policies for  generational 
renewal;  and  (ii)  contrasting  legal  and  fiscal  approaches  to  land  and  property 
ownership, tenure and inheritance; 

5.  overall  study  resources  and  need  for  sufficient  time  to  conduct  case  studies 

thoroughly. 

71 

 
Figure 20 – Selection and characterisation of case studies 
Member 
State 

Regional/single 
RDP 

Clusters 
covered 

National 
policies 

Range of 
generational-
renewal 
measures 

Inheritance/transfer 
rules 

France 

1, 3, 5  

Regional 

Broad 

Italy 

3, 10, 5, 1  Regional 

Broad  

Many, 
institutional 

National, 
institutional 

Equal shares 

Hybrid 

Belgium   8, 2 

Regional 

Narrow 

Unknown 

Single inheritor if 
agreed 

(Flanders) 

Ireland 

1 

Single 

Poland 

Estonia 

4, 7 

6, 4 

Single 

Single 

Hungary 

2, 3 

Single: sole MS with 
a dedicated young-
farmers’ sub-
programme  

Source: Evaluation support study. 

Narrow 

Broad 

Narrow 

Broad  

A variety of 
new pilots 

Hybrid – case-law 
claims 

Unknown 

Hybrid  

Unknown 

Many – 
national and 
more local 

Single inheritor OR 
hybrid 

(reduced) Equal 
shares 

This resulted in the selection of seven Member States: France, Italy, Belgium-Flanders, 
Ireland, Poland, Estonia, and Hungary. 

Principles of validation and triangulation 

Triangulation recognises that the broad mix of data and analytical techniques applied will 
generate  varied  and  potentially  conflicting  insights  into  policy  performance.  This  mix 
therefore  requires  calibration  and  cross  checking  to  understand  better:  (i)  why  results 
differ; and (ii) how these results can be brought into a consistent diagnosis and narrative 
on  the  operation  and  impacts  of  policy.  Triangulation  involved  identifying  and 
minimising  overall  bias  in  findings  by  taking  evidence  from  a  wide  range  of  sources, 
which  were  expected  to  have  contrasting  biases.  This  meant  that  the  impact  of  bias  on 
results could be better identified, thus informing a balanced interpretation of findings. A 
high level of triangulation was built into the full study design, ensuring that all evaluation 
answers combined a range of data and information in the judgement. 

EU literature review 

The literature review aimed to summarise and synthesise key conclusions of studies and 
analyses on issues and topics directly relevant for the evaluation. 

Key  sources  of  insight  came  from:  (i)  pre-existing  evaluation  studies  commissioned  by 
the  Commission  and  the  European  Parliament  in  recent  years;  and  (ii)  the  many 
evaluation  studies  made  at  Member-State  and  regional  level  responding  to  the 
requirements of CAP legislation. There is also a growing scientific literature examining 
various  aspects  of  these  themes  and  measures  in  different  regional  contexts.  Searches 
used  a  variety  of  international  library/science  databases  and  search  engines.  They  also 
used targeted web-searches of key websites such as europa.eu, and coe.int (the Council 
of  Europe).  Materials  reviewed  covered  both  scientific 
in 
international  peer-reviewed  publications  in  the  past  10  years  and  policy  documents. 
These  policy  documents 
included  reports  from  EU  bodies  (the  Commission’s 
Directorates-General,  the  European  Parliament,  the  European  Court  of  Auditors,  the 

literature  published 

72 

 
 
Committees,  the  ENRD  and  EIP-AGRI)  and  other  notable  European  stakeholders. 
International  documents  used  for  this  evaluation  came  from  bodies  such  as  the 
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the World Bank. 

EU-level survey of Member-State administrations 

A short online survey was designed to seek information and views from across the whole 
EU. The survey covered key factors influencing generational renewal in rural areas, both 
in  agriculture  and  beyond.  It  was  circulated  to  the  named  ENRD  contacts  in  each 
Member-State administration that were identified as leads for the national rural networks. 

Focused quantitative analyses  

These  analyses  included:  (i)  a  counterfactual  analysis  of  the  FADN  data  to  assess  the 
impact of Pillar II installation grants on farm performance focusing on France and Italy 
and covering 2013-2015; and (ii) CGE modelling to examine the impact of generational-
renewal expenditure on rural employment in Poland. 

EU-level data analysis 

The analysis has various parts as set out in the bullet points below. 

• 

It included a commentary on the availability of EU-level data; a commentary on 
the  use  of  this  data;  and  a  general  overview  of  the  situation  across  the Member 
States. 

•  There  was  clustering  of  NUTS  3  areas  and  a  correlation  analysis  looking  for 
patterns potentially linking CAP expenditure to proxy indicators of relative need 
for generational-renewal interventions. 

•  MCA  and  regression  analysis  were  carried  out  to  identify  potential  EU-wide 
causal  relationships  between  territorial  characteristics  and  generational-renewal 
targeting. 

Context  data  were  sourced  from  Eurostat  and  European  Commission  datasets.  Most 
general  rural  data  were  available  at  NUTS  3  level.  Some  agri-sector  and  specific 
socioeconomic  data  were  only  available  at  NUTS  2  level.  NUTS  3  was  the  preferred 
level  of analysis because it makes it possible to distinguish  between areas  according to 
their degree of rurality – into ‘urban’, ‘intermediate’ and ‘rural’ territories. 

Expenditure data from three different source files were used: 

i. 

ii. 

iii. 

Pillar I and Pillar II claimed and determined financial data for 2015 and 2016 
at NUTS 3 level;  

Pillar  II  public-expenditure  data  based  on  output  indicators  for  2015,  2016 
and 2017 at rural-development-programme level;   

Pillar  II  planned  expenditure  data  over  the  2014-2020  programming  period, 
by  year,  by  whole  measure,  and  separately  by  focus  area,  (i.e.  not  by  sub-
measure) at rural-development-programme level.  

The use of correlation analysis applied to EU-wide expenditure and context datasets aims 
to  contribute  to  the  evidence  base  for  answering  the  evaluation  questions.  Visual 
representation  of  the  distribution  of  European  regions  (in  maps  and  charts)  and  the 
computed correlation  values depict potential relationships  between input indicators (i.e. 
Pillar  I  and  Pillar  II  expenditure  data)  and  context/impact  indicators  (i.e.  data 
representing drivers of – or trends in – generational renewal). 

The  evaluation  also  used  a  range  of  impact  indicators  related  to  generational  renewal. 
The main impact indicator was the number (or change in the number) of farms managed 

73 

 
by farmers under 35. This analysis aimed to provide quantified measures linking policy 
interventions  to  possible  indicators  of  impact.  This  analysis  explored  the  context  and 
input  differences  between  NUTS  3  regions  and  the  impact  of  certain  context  and  input 
indicators on the number of young farmers in these regions. In policy terms, changes in 
the number of  young farmers over time within a territory can be considered as a proxy 
indicator for generational renewal in agriculture in that territory. However, the relevance 
of this proxy indicator varies with context. 

The multivariate criteria analysis was conducted in three steps as set out below. 

Step 1. Principal-component analysis 

The evaluation support study used three composite indicators that correlate with context, 
impact and input. 

  An 

infrastructure 

indicator:  Broadband,  governance  quality,  multimodal 

accessibility, net migration, decline in unemployment. 

  A payments indicator: Population,  tertiary  education, support for  young  farmers 

under Pillar 1, support under Pillar II Area 2B. 

  An  employment  indicator:  Gross  value  added/c  from  tertiary,  reducing  gross 

value added/c from secondary sector. 

Figure 21 – Principal-component analysis 

Note: CI stands for composite indicators. Source: Evaluation support study. 

Step 2. Cluster analysis 

The evaluation conducted a cluster analysis where the EU area was divided into several 
categories: 

i.  Non-agricultural developed regions with low CAP expenditure; 

ii.  Agricultural developing regions with rapid agricultural abandonment; 

iii. 

Sparsely populated developing areas with many small farms; 

iv.  Agricultural regions with large farms, high CAP expenditure, and an ageing farm 

population; 

v.  Developed rural areas where other sectors dwarf the impact of agriculture. 

Step 3. Cluster-specific regressions 

The evaluation also conducted cluster-specific regressions to identify the impact of 
indicators, measures, and the number of large farms on the number of young farmers in 
each cluster. 

74 

 
 
 
Figure 22 – Evaluation questions and main evidence sources used to answer them 

Criterion 

Evaluation question 

Indicator 
analysis 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

1.  To  what  extent  have  all  CAP  measures/instruments  had  an  effect  on  fostering 
generational renewal in rural areas? 
2. To  what  extent  have  the  relevant  CAP  measures/instruments  focusing  on  generational 
renewal contributed to fostering innovation and inter-generational knowledge transfer? 
3.  To  what  extent  have  the  CAP  measures/instruments  related  to  young  farmers  been 
effective in promoting generational renewal? 
4.  To  what  extent  have  the  CAP  measures/instruments  relevant  for  generational  renewal 
contributed  (directly  and  indirectly)  to  improving  the  development  of  rural  areas  in:  (i) 
infrastructure and services; (ii) local governance/capacities; and (iii) social capital? 
5.  To  what  extent  have  the  CAP  measures/instruments  relevant  for  generational  renewal 
impacted directly and indirectly on the maintenance/creation of jobs in rural areas? 
6.  To what extent have  the relevant  CAP  measures/instruments been efficient in directly 
fostering generational renewal? 
7.  To  what  extent  have  all  CAP  measures/instruments  been  efficient  in  fostering 
generational renewal indirectly, by improving the quality of life in rural areas? 
8. What is the administrative burden of the relevant CAP measures/instruments linked to 
generational renewal: (i) at the level of the beneficiaries; (ii) at the level of Member-State 
administrations; and (iii) at EU level? 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Online 
survey and 
key EU 
interviews 
Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Literature 
review 

Quantitative analyses 

Y 

Y 

FADN, MCA, CGE, i.e. 
all 

All 

Y 

MCA 

All 

All 

Y 

Y 

Case-
study 
evidence
* 
Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

* includes national/regional and local interviews, secondary data review and analysis, national stakeholder workshop; Y=yes. Source: Evaluation support study. 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Criterion 

Evaluation question 

Indicator 
analysis 

Online 
survey and 
key EU 
interviews 

Literature 
review 

Quantitative analyses 

Coherence 

Relevance 

EU added 
value 

Causal 
analysis 

9.  To  what  extent  are  the  relevant  CAP  measures/instruments  linked  to  generational 
renewal in rural areas coherent with each other? 
10.  To  what  extent  are  the  relevant  CAP  measures/instruments  linked  to  generational 
renewal coherent with other EU policies and actions? 

11. To what extent are the CAP measures on generational renewal influenced positively or 
negatively by external factors? 
12. To what extent have the CAP measures/instruments focusing on generational renewal 
been relevant in enabling generational renewal in agriculture? Do they correspond to the 
needs identified, in particular enabling access to: a) land? b) capital? c) knowledge? 
13. To what extent have the CAP measures/instruments focusing on generational renewal 
helped foster rural development by maintaining/creating jobs? 
17.  What  is  the  EU  added  value  of  the  respective  CAP  measures/instruments  studied  in 
their contribution to generational renewal? 
14. What are the external factors that affect the CAP policies on generational renewal? 
15.  How  have  the  relevant  CAP  measures  contributed  to  enhancing  sustainable 
employment in rural areas, especially activities in up- and downstream  sectors related to 
agriculture? 
16.  What  was  the  impact  of  the  relevant  CAP  measures/instruments  on  the  issue  of 
changing  land  ownership  and  land  management:  (i)  on  direct  beneficiaries;  and  (ii)  on 
other stakeholders? 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 
Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 
Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

CGE 

All 

FADN, CGE 

Case-
study 
evidence
* 
Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 

Y 
Y 

Y 

* includes national/regional and local interviews; secondary data review and analysis; and a national stakeholder workshop; Y=yes. Source: Evaluation support study. The analysis of 
the causal analysis is integrated in the five main criteria (efficiency, effectiveness, coherence, relevance, EU added value).

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4: CURRENT INTERVENTION LOGIC FOR INSTRUMENTS AND 

MEASURES AFFECTING GENERATIONAL RENEWAL 

Figure  23  –  Current  CAP:  logic  for  instruments  and  measures  affecting 
generational renewal (GR) 
Regulation 

Focus areas 

Measures 
with potential 
GR impacts 

Measures/Sub-
measures 

Direct GR 
impacts 
(agricultural/wi
der rural) 

Indirect GR 
impacts 

Pillar 

CAP 
direct payments 

I 

Non-
Applicable 

Title  III,  Chapter 
5.  Payment  for 
young farmers  

specific 

The 
additional 
to 
funding 
young 
farmers, 
which  gives  an 
income  boost  to 
this 
group 
relative to others 
first 
in 
their 
of 
years 
operation.  

1307/2013(Dir
ect  Payments 
– DP) 

Coupled 
support 
(direct 
payments 
basic 
to 
payments) 
increase/maint
ain income 

- 

ANCs 
92 
Young-farmer 
supplement  to 
direct 
payments  

Small-
farmers’ 
scheme (SFS) 

1305/2013 
(Rural 
development-
RD) 

Direct 
targeted 
measures 
for 
young  farmers 
in 
rural 
development. 
includes 
This 
specific 
the 
measure 
in 
Article  19(6) 
but 
also 
higher rates of 
aid 
for 
measures 
concerned 
with 
investments 
under  Article 
17(3) 
compared 

certain 

to 

Mainly 
Priority 
2, 
Focus  Area 
2B: 
generational 
renewal 

Business 
6.1. 
start-up  aid  for 
young farmers 

4.1.  Investments 
agricultural 
in 
holdings 

4.2.  Investments 
in 
processing/marke
ting  or  product 
development 

Sub-programmes 
targeted  at  young 
farmers 
(only 
Hungary  has  a 
specific 
programme 

like 

6.1  offers  direct 
aid 
for 
generational 
renewal 
farming 
increased 
viability 
young farmers. 

in 
& 

for 

Investment 
measures  may 
enhanced 
offer 
rates 
to  young 
farmers  which 
improve 
performance. 

Sub-
programmes 
may 

offer 

the 

from 

Apart 
young-farmers’ 
payment, all other 
direct-payment 
measures listed in 
column 2 increase 
relative 
the 
financial 
return 
from  agriculture 
compared to other 
options. This may 
help 
retain 
to 
younger 
generations 
keep 
farmers 
business). 

(or 
older 
in 

small-
The 
farmers’  scheme 
supports 
the 
viability  of  very 
holdings, 
small 
which  may  help 
young people stay 
in rural areas. 
These  measures 
may 
to 
help 
create  a  climate 
in which there are 
more 
business 
job 
and 
opportunities  for 
young  people  in 
rural  areas  more 
This 
generally. 
may 
indirectly 
encourage 
broader  non-farm 
generational 
renewal. 

92   Areas facing natural constraint can be supported by Pillars I and II, although few MS choose the option 

to support under Pillar I. 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Measures/Sub-
measures 

Focus areas 

this) 

Regulation 

1305/2013 
(Rural 
development-
RD)  

Measures 
with potential 
GR impacts 

the  aid  rates 
available 
to 
older  farmers 
using 
these 
investment 
aids. 
Farm 
business 
development 
(Article 19) 

and 

19(a) Business 
aid 
start-up 
for 
non-
agricultural 
activities 
rural areas 

in 

19(c)  Annual 
payments 
or 
one-off 
payments 
farmers 
eligible for the 
small-farmers’ 
scheme 

for 

Article 20(c) – 
Broadband 
infrastructure 

6.2.  start-up  aid 
non-farm 
for 
rural businesses 

small-farm 

6.3. 
business 
development 

6.4.  creation  and 
of 
development 
non-farm 
businesses 

6.5. 
farmers’ 
scheme 

small-
transfer 

M7.3: Broadband  

1305/2013 
(Rural 
development-
RD) 

Cooperation 
for  economic 
enhancement 
and 
innovation 
(Article 35) 

up 

16. Cooperation 
9. 
setting 
producer 
organisations 
(Art.27) 

Direct GR 
impacts 
(agricultural/wi
der rural) 
targeted  support 
to 
young 
farmers.  

May  offer  direct 
for 
support 
generational 
renewal.  May 
promote 
rural 
vitality  &  non-
farm 
generational 
either 
renewal 
direct 
by 
investment 
in 
these  businesses 
or  by  providing 
essential 
business 
infrastructure 
(broadband). 

small-
The 
farmers’  support 
may 
scheme 
directly 
assist 
generational 
renewal 
agriculture 
where 
promotes 
to 
transfers 
younger farmers. 

in 

it 

Indirect GR 
impacts 

Some  aid  under 
these  measures 
may 
be  more 
generally  focused 
on 
business 
diversification,  in 
which  case  there 
may  be  no  direct 
impact 
on 
generational 
renewal.  Instead, 
there  may 
be 
indirect 
impacts, 
for  example  via 
creation 
job 
offers 
which 
opportunities 
to 
younger and older 
people alike. 

for: 

learning; 

Help 
collaborative 
action; 
and 
innovation/succes
sful adjustment to 
new  market  or 
environmental 
conditions.  This 
indirectly 
the 
increases 
attraction 
or 
resilience  of  farm 
futures. 

Priority 
2 
(Focus  Area: 
2A: 
Restructu-
ring  and  2B: 
Generational 
renewal.) 

Priority 
3 
(Focus  Area 
3A:  Better 
integrating 
producers  in 
food chain) 

Priority 
5 
(Focus  Area 
5C:  Renew-
ables)  

Priority 
6 
(Focus  Area 
6A:  Diversi-
fication). 

Focus  Area 
6c 
Information 
and 
Communicat
ion 
Technologies 
Measure  16 
contributes 
to 
Priorities. 

all 

9 

Measure 
contributes 
to  Priority  3 
Focus  Area 
3A: 
Integrating 
producers  in 
food chains 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Measures/Sub-
measures 

Focus areas 

Direct GR 
impacts 
(agricultural/wi
der rural) 

Indirect GR 
impacts 

Regulation 

1305/2013 
(Rural 
development-
RD) 

Measures 
with potential 
GR impacts 

Other 
investments: 
(3). 
Art.  17 
Investment  in 
physical 
assets; 
Art. 
21. 
Investment  in 
forest 
area 
development; 
Art. 
25. 
Investments in 
improving 
resilience; 
Art. 
26. 
Investments in 
forestry 
technologies. 

– 

4.3. 
in 
assets 

4.1 
Investments 
physical 
(agricultural 
holdings, 
processing 
and 
marketing/produc
development, 
t 
modern 
infrastructure)  
8.1, 
Forest 
investments 
(afforestation, 
agro-forestry  and 
forest-product 
valorisation) 

8.2, 

8.6. 

1305/2013 
(Rural 
development-
RD) 

and 

Knowledge 
transfer 
information 
actions 
(Article 14) 

1.1.  training  and 
skills; 
1.2. 
demonstra-
tions  and  infor-
mation actions 
1.3. 
and visits 

exchanges 

1305/2013 
(Rural 
development-
RD) 

1306/2013 
(Horizontal 
Regulation) 
1305/2013 
(Rural 
development-
RD) 

Advisory 
services,  farm 
management 
farm-
and 
relief  services 
(Art. 15 )  

Advisory 

2.1. 
services 
2.3.  Setting  up  of 
advisory services 

for 

Support 
agri-
environment-
climate, 
AECM, 
areas 
natural 
constraint 
(Articles 
and 32) 

and 
facing 

28 

Agri-

10.1 
environment-
climate 
commitments 

13.1-13.3  Areas 
facing 
natural 
constraint 

rural-

Some 
development 
programmes 
incorporate these 
measures 
targeted  in  ways 
which 
directly 
promote 
generational 
renewal  in  rural 
areas. This helps 
young  people  or 
newcomers 
to 
rural areas to set 
up  in  business, 
new 
develop 
enterprises, 
access 
opportunities, 
etc. 
specific 
Where 
to young farmers 
new 
or 
businesses, 
it 
directly 
can 
promote 
successful  inter-
generational 
transfer. 

job 

Contributes 
to  priorities 
2, 3, 4 & 5. 

Priorities 
4 
and  5  (Focus 
Area 
5C: 
renew-able 
energy 
and 
5E: Carbon)  
and  6  (Focus 
6A: 
Area 
Diver-
sification) 

Contributes 
to  Priorities 
(Focus 
1 
Areas 
1A: 
Fostering 
innovation 
and 
1C: 
Training),  2, 
3, 4, 5 & 6. 

2 

Measure 
contributes 
to  Priority  1 
Focus  Area 
1A: 
Fostering 
innovation 

Mainly 
priority 
4 
(Focus  Areas 
4.1 
Biodiversity, 
4.2 
water 
management, 
and  4.3  soil 
erosion  and 
management
) 

1305/2013 
(Rural 
development-
RD) 

Basic  services 
village 
and 
renewal 
in 
rural areas  
(Article 14) 
LEADER/CL
LD  (Art  42: 
Leader). 

7.  Basic  services 
– 
types 
all 
(except 
broadband, 
already 
above). 

covered 

19.  LEADER  – 

Contribute  to 
Priority  6  – 
(Focus  Areas 
6.1  diversifi-
job 
cation, 
creation  and 
small 
and 
medium-

rural-

Some 
development 
programmes 
incorporate these 
measures 
targeted  in  ways 
which 
directly 
promote 

79 

Most  of 
these 
measures in rural-
development 
programmes  will 
indirectly 
promote 
rural 
vitality 
by 
rural 
making 
areas  more  active 
and 
generating 
growth  and  jobs, 
improving 
thus 
quality of life. 

all 
for 
Help 
farmers  (via:  (i) 
technical 
and 
management 
(ii) 
knowledge; 
collaboration; and 
innovation) 
(iii) 
may 
indirectly 
help  generational 
renewal. 
Help 
farmers, 
including  young 
to 
farmers, 
their 
increase 
capabilities 
for 
success. 

for 

all 

Measures  may 
play  a  particular 
role 
supplementing 
farm  incomes  in 
marginal 
areas, 
indirectly 
supporting 
farm 
and 
viability, 
helping  to  retain 
young  people  in 
the area. 
Most  of 
measures 
indirectly 
rural 
promote 
by 
vitality 
making 
rural 
areas more active, 
generating 

these 
will 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Regulation 

Measures 
with potential 
GR impacts 

Measures/Sub-
measures 

Focus areas 

Direct GR 
impacts 
(agricultural/wi
der rural) 

Indirect GR 
impacts 

aid 

generational 
This 
renewal. 
young 
helps 
or 
people 
newcomers 
to 
rural areas to set 
up  businesses  or 
find jobs. 
May 
generational 
by 
renewal 
retirees 
helping 
to  transfer  land 
to  new  farmers. 
However, 
transfers 
neighbours 
creating 
larger 
farms  may  work 
for  or  against 
GR. 

to 

growth  and  jobs, 
thus 
improving 
quality of life. 

For  both 
these 
types  of  action, 
help 
for 
collaboration, 
product 
differentiation 
and 
business 
performance  may 
indirectly 
increase 
the 
attraction  of  farm 
futures. 

better 

all types. 

1698/2005 

113. 
retirement 

Early 

Early-
retirement 
measures 
(Title 
Chapter 
Art. 23) 

IV, 
1, 

Quality policy 

1308/2013 
(Common 
market 
organisation) 

1305/2013 
(Rural 
development-
RD) 

Quality 
measure 
Article 16 (4) 

2 

– 
Section 
and 
designation 
promotion 
of 
quality  products 
(protected 
designation 
of 
origin,  protected 
geographical 
indication etc.) 
3.1 
participation 
quality schemes 
3.2. 
and promotion 

information 

new 
in 

Source: Evaluation support study. 

sized 
enterprises 
and  6.2  local 
development
).  

Not  relevant 
–  no  focus 
areas 
in 
2007-2013 
rural-
development 
programmes 

Not  relevant, 
no 
focus 
areas  in  this 
Regulation 

Priority 
3 
(Focus  Areas 
3A:  Better 
integration 
into 
chains) 

food 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 5: VIEWS FROM OTHER INSTITUTIONS 

Summaries  of  recent  input  from  other  institutions  on  generational  renewal  and  young 
farmers, as set out in the bullet points below. 

  ECA:  Special  report  no  10,  EU  support  to  young  farmers  should  be  better 

targeted to foster effective generational renewal (2017)93. 

  European Parliament study: Research for AGRI Committee – Young farmers – 
Policy  implementation  after  the  2013  CAP  reform,  DG  for  internal  policies, 
policy department B – Structural and cohesion policies, (2017)94. 

  EESC  information  report:  Evaluation  of  the  impact  of  the  CAP  on 
generational  renewal,  NAT/766  –  EESC-2019-02014-00-00-RI-TRA  (EN), 
Section for Agriculture, Rural development and the Environment, (2019)95. 
  European Parliament Report: Professional status of rural women in the EU96.  
  World Bank report, Thinking CAP97. 

European  Court  of  Auditors  (ECA):  Special  report  no  10,  EU  support  to  young 
farmers should be better targeted to foster effective generational renewal (2017) 

The special report examined the role of the EU in supporting young farmers and fostering 
generational  renewal.  The  audit  was  carried  out  at  the  Commission  and  in  the  four 
Member  States  with  the  most  spending  on  young  farmers:  France,  Spain,  Poland  and 
Italy. The audit aimed to answer the following question: ‘Is EU support to young farmers 
well designed to contribute effectively to improved generational renewal?’  

In the ECA special report, it is acknowledged that the number of farmers in the EU has 
fallen  rapidly  in  the  last  decade,  dropping  from  14.5  million  farmers  in  2005  to 
10.7 million  farmers  in  2013.  The  number  of  young  farmers  (under  44  years  old)  fell 
from  3.3  million  in  2005  to  2.3  million  in  2013.  As  the  number  of  farmers  decreased 
across  all  age  groups,  the  percentage  of  young  farmers  in  the  farming  population 
remained relatively stable, at just above 20%. However, there are significant differences 
between Member States. 

The ECA special report details how the EU allocated EUR 9.6 billion in specific aid to 
young farmers in 2007-2020 to improve the competitiveness of agricultural holdings and 
generational  renewal  in  agriculture.  Including  co-financing  from  Member  States  under 

93   European  Court  of  Auditors:  Special  report  no  10  EU  support  to  young  farmers  should  be  better 
(2017): 

targeted 
https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=41529.   

generational 

effective 

renewal 

foster 

to 

94   European  Parliament  (EP)  study:  Research  for  AGRI  Committee  –  Young  farmers  –  Policy 
implementation after the 2013 CAP reform, DG for Internal Policies, policy department B – Structural 
and 
(2017): 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/602006/IPOL_STU(2017)602006_EN.pdf.   
95   EESC, information report  Evaluation of the impact of the  CAP on generational renewal, NAT/766  – 
EESC-2019-02014-00-00-RI-TRA  (EN),  Section  for  Agriculture,  Rural  development  and  the 
Environment, 
https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-
reports/information-reports/evaluation-impact-cap-generational-renewal.  

cohesion 

policies, 

(2019): 

96   http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2019/608868/IPOL_STU(2019)608868_EN.pdf 
97   http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/369851513586667729/Thinking-CAP-World-Bank-Report-on-the-

EU.pdf  

81 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
the  Pillar  II  setting-up  measure,  total  public  support  amounted  to  EUR 18.3  billion. 
Almost 200 000 young farmers received EU aid for setting up in the 2007-2013 period.  

The  overall  conclusion  of  the  report  is  that  EU  support  for  young  farmers  should  be 
better  targeted  to  foster  effective  generational  renewal.  The  ECA  recommended  that 
Commission and the Member States:  

(a)  improve  the  intervention  logic  by  strengthening  the  needs  assessment  and  setting 
objectives that reflect the overall objective of fostering generational renewal;  

(b) improve the targeting of measures through better project-selection systems and use of 
business plans;   

(c)  improve  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  framework  by  drawing  on  best  practices 
developed by Member States in their monitoring systems and evaluation reports. 

European Parliament study Research for AGRI Committee – Young farmers – Policy 
implementation  after  the  2013  CAP  reform,  DG  for  internal  policies,  policy 
department B – Structural and cohesion policies, (2017)98 

This  European  Parliament  study  acknowledges  that  generational  renewal  in  agriculture 
has acquired an important place in public and political discourse. Phil Hogan, former EU 
Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, discussed on 25 January 2017 his 
efforts  to  ‘mainstream’ the issue of  generational  renewal  in  the upcoming debate about 
the future CAP (i.e. include generational renewal in all aspects of the debate). He argued 
this  was  necessary  because  ‘bringing  generational  renewal  fully  into  the  policy 
mainstream  cannot  happen  without  the  support  system  of  a  strong  and  targeted  rural-
development policy’. 

The study shows that between 2007 and 2013 more than 126 000 young farmers received 
financial  aid  towards  the  initial  setting  up  of  their  farms,  for  an  overall  sum  of 
EUR 3.65 billion.  In  the  current  programming  period,  Member  States  have  notified  the 
Commission that they will spend a total of EUR 2.6 billion on direct top-up payments to 
young  farmers,  and  support  almost  180 000  young  farmers  with  installation  aid.  Even 
though EU assistance has been available to young farmers  for more than three decades, 
the ‘young-farmer problem’ seems to remain. This is due to both the complexity of the 
problem and the limited effectiveness of policy mechanisms in dealing with it. 

The  main  purpose  of  the  European  Parliament  study  was  to  provide  Members  of  the 
European Parliament (particularly members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural 
Development) with reliable data and up-to-date evidence on the state of implementation 
of the current CAP support given to young farmers. 

The  study  is  structured  in  four  chapters:  Chapter  1  provides  an  overview  of  findings 
related  to  young  farmers  in  agriculture  and  the  policy  tools  that  are  currently  being 
implemented.  Chapter  2  presents  the  different  implementation  styles  of  young-farmers’ 
tools  by  Member  States.  The  next  section,  Chapter  3:  (i)  presents  information  on  the 
impacts  of  the  implemented  policy  tools;  (ii)  gives  an  overview  of  the  barriers  and 
opportunities  for  new  entrants  to  agriculture;  and  (iii)  discusses  how  the  implemented 
measures help newcomers to overcome these barriers. Chapter 4 concludes the findings 

98   European Parliament (EP) study: Research for AGRI Committee – Young farmers – Policy 

implementation after the 2013 CAP reform, DG for internal policies, policy department B – Structural 
and cohesion policies, (2017): 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/602006/IPOL_STU(2017)602006_EN.pdf. 

82 

 
 
                                                           
of  the  study,  and  on  this  basis  gives  political  recommendations  to  increase  the 
effectiveness of the young-farmers’ political mechanism. 

Based on the secondary analysis and case-study research, some policy recommendations 
have been formulated. They are set out in the bullet points below. 

 

It  is  recommended  that  the  support  for  young  farmers  should  continue,  and  the 
maximum level of funding be increased beyond 2% of the overall CAP budget. 
  Access to land is the major barrier for young farmers and new entrants. Dealing 
with  this  problem  requires  re-evaluation  of  the  direct-payment  scheme  and 
incentives for older farmers to pass their farms on to younger generations99.  
  There are many innovative initiatives that have been successful in supporting new 
entrants  to  the  agricultural  sector.  It  is  recommended  that  these  initiatives  be 
supported. 
It is recommended to focus on reducing additional barriers to young farmers, such 
as  difficulties  accessing  capital,  a  lack  of  business  skills,  and  insufficient 
succession plans. 

 

  Support  for  young  farmers  and  new  entrants  should  be  differentiated.  It  is 

recommended to re-consider the age limit for financial support. 

  New forms of support should be taken into account, accentuating: (i) innovative 
ways of sharing knowledge; and (ii) targeted support for specific farm businesses 
that focuses on particular scales and forms of agriculture. 

EESC  information  report  Evaluation  of  the  impact  of  the  CAP  on  generational 
for 
renewal,  NAT/766  –  EESC-2019-02014-00-00-RI-TRA 
Agriculture, Rural development and the Environment, (2019)100 

(EN),  Section 

This information report takes a broader perspective, looking beyond the young-farmers’ 
payment under Pillar I of the CAP and the measures for young farmers under Pillar II of 
the  CAP.  It  also  analyses  how  rural  areas  can  be  made  more  attractive.  In  addition,  it 
takes  into  account  coherence  with  other  EU  policies  and  actions,  given  that  Member 
States  have  unique  competencies  in  areas  affecting  generational  renewal  in  agriculture, 
such as regulations, taxation, inheritance law or territorial planning. There is also a need 
to  assess  the  impact  of  national  policies,  schemes  and  other  relevant  obstacles  to 
generational renewal in agriculture. 

The  EESC  contribution  is  based  on  consultations  with  civil-society  organisations  and 
national authorities to understand how they experienced and observed the impact of the 
CAP on generational renewal.  

The  findings  from  the  EESC’s  analysis  of  the  feedback  received  from  the  fact-finding 
missions,  questionnaire  and  other  materials  have  led  to  the  following  conclusions  and 
recommendations, set out in the bullet points below. 

-  The EESC highlights  the importance of the CAP  and a properly  functioning 
single  market  to  sustain  viable  farming  and  attract  young  farmers  into  the 
sector.   

99   This would mean that, in some cases, direct payments do not work consistently  with Pillar II support 

for setting-up. 

100  EESC, Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on generational renewal, NAT/766 – EESC-2019-02014-
00-00-RI-TRA  (EN),  Section  for  Agriculture,  Rural  development  and  the  Environment,  (2019): 
https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-reports/information-reports/evaluation-
impact-cap-generational-renewal. 

83 

 
 
                                                           
- 

It is essential that there is an adequate CAP budget in the 2021-2027 period to 
meet  the  funding  requirements  for  meaningful  support  for  generational 
renewal.  To this  end,  a  minimum  of 2% of the CAP  budget  (Pillar  I and  II) 
should be allocated to  support  young farmers. To offer  young farmers in all 
Member  States  equal  prospects  for  development,  greater  efforts  should  be 
made to raise the level of direct payments for young farmers in those Member 
States where direct payments are significantly lower than the EU average.  
-  To  support  generational  renewal  in  agriculture,  the  various  CAP  measures 
need to be better integrated and implemented in a more coordinated way. This 
will  support  young  farmers  in  the  different  stages  of  developing  their 
holdings.  

-  The  EESC  is  in  favour  of  raising  the  ceiling  for  start-up  aid  for  young 
farmers.  However,  before  this  start-up  aid  is  granted,  there  is  a  need  for  in-
depth advice for farmers on drawing up a realistic business plan and planning 
activities. The duration of the young-farmers’ top-up payment in CAP Pillar I 
should be increased from 5 years to 7 years. The EESC strongly supports the 
minimum 25% top-up payment to young farmers in CAP Pillar I.  

-  The  current  CAP  measures  supporting  young  farmers  and  new  entrants 
through  the  national  reserve  and  the  young-farmers’  scheme  are  essential  in 
any future reform of the CAP.  

-  To  maintain  an  adequate  national  reserve  on  an  annual  basis  for  young 
farmers,  Member  States  should  have  the  option  of  applying  a  clawback  to 
sales and leases of holdings,  taking into account  the specificities of national 
legislation.  

-  The EESC supports the higher level of structural investment aid in CAP Pillar 
II  available  in  most  Member  States  for  young  trained  farmers.  It  also 
recommends that this be paid for 7 years instead of 5 years as it is currently.  
-  The  EESC  recommends  the  option  of  a  pre-retirement  scheme  in  Member 
States as part of CAP Pillar II. It recommends to the Member States that they 
create a specific legal framework for farm transfers.  

-  The EESC recommends a minimum 25% top-up on environmental payments 

in Pillar II to young farmers to increase participation.   

-  As a CAP Pillar II measure, providing low-cost loans and finance for young 
farmers  should  be  a  priority.  The  development  of  a  new  type  of  CAP 
financing arrangement with minimum bureaucracy should be considered. This 
could  provide  a  bigger  funding  framework  for  a  young  person  taking  up  or 
receiving a holding101.  

-  Partnerships have an essential role to play in generational renewal and should 
be  incentivised  through  CAP  Pillar  II  support  and  domestic  taxation 
measures.  Member  States  should  incentivise  generational  renewal  by 
minimising  the  costs  and  taxation  associated  with  the  inter-generational 
transfer of farms.  

-  CAP  Pillar  II  should  ensure  access  to  methods  for  the  transfer  of  practical 
knowledge. The EESC considers that it would be beneficial to invest more in 
‘soft’ measures (education, social conditions) to achieve this. Although some 
Member States have set up education and training facilities for young farmers 
(for  example, Kildalton  College in  Ireland), there is  evidence of the need to 

101  This  argument  is  well  developed  in  the  European  Commission’s  recent  activities  on  financial 
instruments under the EAFRD and with the support of the technical assistance programme fi-compass: 
https://www.fi-compass.eu/esif/eafrd. 

84 

 
                                                           
increase  funding  in  education  and  training.  Coordinated  implementation  of 
communication and guidance programmes is important.  

-  Young  women  should  be  encouraged  to:  (i)  take  on  the  responsibility  of 
management  in  agriculture;  (ii)  settle  in  rural  areas;  and  (iii)  play  a  full  and 
active  role  in  the  agricultural  sector  through  the  promotion  of  female 
ownership,  networks  of  female  young  farmers,  etc.  Programmes  to  develop 
entrepreneurial  skills  could  greatly  help 
the  start-up  and  successful 
functioning of autonomous agricultural enterprises.  

-  The EESC supports the concept of strengthening the definition of an ‘active’ 

farmer.  

-  The EESC believes that the CAP strategic plans should include education in 
schools  to  promote  the  positive  contribution  of  agriculture  to  the  broader 
economy.  Special  focus  should  be  paid  to  young  farmers  operating  in  areas 
with natural constraints. Their essential role should be better reflected in CAP 
Pillar II. 

World Bank report Thinking CAP102 

Some messages from the World Bank report relevant for this staff working document are 
set out below. 

-  CAP subsidies drive up the price of land. This makes it more difficult: (i) for 
potential new farmers, including the young and the poor, to enter agriculture; 
and (ii) for existing farms to expand through renting or purchasing land. 

-  However,  the  CAP  does  provide  an  important  social  safety  net  for  existing 

landowners, including the elderly. 

-  The CAP reaches far and wide: it can be a powerful instrument of structural 

transformation.  

-  The sheer reach of the program means that even marginal improvements will 
have  far-reaching  effects  on  shared  prosperity  and  poverty  reduction  in  the 
EU. 

-  Supported by the CAP, the successful ‘transformers’ have turned agriculture 
into a key sector for good jobs in rural areas. And the incomplete transformers 
can  use  a  well-targeted  and  coordinated  CAP  to  reduce  poverty  and  start 
creating better jobs for farmers. 

-  As  labour  moved  out  of  agriculture,  the  CAP  supported  the  creation  of 
reasonably  remunerative  jobs  for  the  workers  who  remained  behind,  while 
poverty  in  agricultural  areas  was  reduced.  It  is  in  this  sense  that  agriculture 
and the CAP mattered for inclusive growth in the EU. 

102  World  Bank  (2017),  Thinking  CAP  -  Supporting  agricultural  jobs  and  incomes  in  the  EU.  Regular 
economic  report  4,  Washington  DC,  International  Bank  for  Reconstruction  and  Development.  The 
World  Bank. 
http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/369851513586667729/Thinking-CAP-World-Bank-
Report-on-the-EU.pdf 

85 

 
 
                                                           
ANNEX 6: SOME MEMBER-STATE MEASURES ON GENERATIONAL 

RENEWAL 

The  contractor  in  charge  of  the  support  study  conducted  a  survey  of  Member-State 
administrations. Between 1 and almost 40 responses were received per Member State. In 
total, responses were received from 24 Member States. The survey provided information 
about issues such as respondents’ views on the most common entry routes into farming 
and what were young people’s strongest motivations for living in rural areas.  

Figure 24 Online survey: respondents’ views on the most common entry routes into 
farming (scored out of 5, average scores) 

Buying out siblings who inherit

Buying land on the open market

Leasing from the government

Leasing land from private landlord

Inheritance from parent

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

Source: Evaluation support study. 

Figure 25 - EU online survey: views about young people’s strongest motivations for 
living in rural areas (average score, maximum 5)  

Young people want to reside in rural areas for a
high quality natural Environment
Many young people in rural areas feel they have 
no option- can’t afford to move away 
Young people want to reside in rural areas
because of low house and land prices

Very few young people want to reside in rural
areas

Young people want to reside in rural areas
because they reject city living
Young people want to reside in rural areas
because of strong social/cultural values
Young people want to reside in rural areas
because of the availability of jobs

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

Source: Evaluation support study. 

The lack of services in rural areas was universally considered the most significant barrier 
to  generational  renewal,  with  entrepreneurial  opportunities  rated  as  the  second  most 
significant barrier. 

In  addition,  the  online  survey  mentioned  specific  policies  that  helped  generational 
renewal in some Member States (see below). 

86 

 
 
 
 
Figure 26 - Specific policies helping generational renewal in each Member State 

Czechia (CZ)  Regional: 

Buying land for building houses by villages and selling these houses below cost. 

Support for kindergardens and schools. 

Greece (EL) 

Policy at municipality level/Producer groups (translated). 

Spain (ES) 

A  subsidy  for  rural  unemployed  people  (translated).  Europe  is  developing  the  ‘smart 
villages’  project.  For  many  residents  of  rural  areas,  this  is  an  opportunity  for  them  and 
their children to live in the place they want. 

Austria (AT) 

Programmes like LEADER raise awareness about opportunities and enhanced initiatives 
to live in rural regions. 

Slovenia (SI)  Municipal management and improvements in infrastructure probably also play a role. 

Sweden (SE)  Newly established rural policy (approved in Parliament 2018). 

UK 

New  legislation  requires  central  and  local  government  to  give  due  regard  to  rural 
circumstances  when  devising,  reviewing  and  implementing  policies  and  the  delivery  of 
programmes/services.  Outside  this,  rural  areas  have  been  supported  by  various  local 
programmes (e.g. on tackling rural poverty & social isolation in Northern Ireland; village 
regeneration;  economic  programmes 
lottery-funded 
programmes that specifically target children, young people, and supporting communities). 

rural  youth;  and 

targeting 

Source: Evaluation support study, based on the online survey. 

Survey  answers  provide  useful  information  on  the  context  for  generational  renewal  in 
each  Member  State,  and  how  this  context  relates  to  other  indicators.  The  information 
suggests  that  in  farming,  underlying  profitability  has  an  important  influence  on 
generational renewal but that other factors may also play a role. More broadly, quality of 
life  and  business  infrastructure  (such  as  good  broadband  and  services)  emerge  as 
significant  influences  on  non-agricultural  rural  generational  renewal.  In  this  context,  a 
number of national and regional policies are relevant in supporting or hindering effective 
generational renewal in rural areas. 

The evaluation focused on six Member States to show a variety of situations at European 
level. 

Estonia and Belgium (Flanders) 

Effectiveness 
and efficiency  

Aid  system  helpful  but  not  very  joined  up  or  connected  to  needs.  There  is  no  real 
‘package’ unless the farmer puts it together themselves. 

Online application in both countries reportedly very efficient.  

Impacts   

Beneficiaries feel Pillar II aids make a positive difference, especially for successors. 

LEADER  may  help  rural  quality  of  life  but  is  not  specifically  focused  on  generational 
renewal.  

Rural areas in Flanders are buoyant and non-agricultural: CAP funding is insignificant for 
rural development. 

Pillar I young-farmer supplement is insignificant. 

Other  national  factors create  barriers to new entrants (planning,  high leasing costs, land 
use rules). 

Concerns focus more on the viability/attractiveness of farming.  

87 

 
 
 
France and Italy103 

Effectiveness and 
efficiency  

Pillar  II  measures  are 
globally  coherent  and 
work in a package with 
national/regional 
tailored measures  

Aid system is effective104: it meets the financial needs of young farmers. 

France: a complex new system and requirements entail high administrative costs 
and uncertainties on final audit. 

Italy:  factors  of  inefficiency  in  all  rural-development-programme  measures.  In 
particular, there are: (i) complex selection criteria for investment measures (4.1 
on  ‘Support  to  improve  the  overall  performance  and  sustainability  of  an 
agricultural  holding’);  (ii)  problems  with  financial  guarantees;  (iii)  inadequate 
staffing; and (iv) long delays in some administrations. Acceptable cost of young-
farmers’ package (c.7-8% of total), lower than private consultancy.  

LEADER  complements  young-farmer  aid;  helping  new  entrants  and  non-farm-
business start-ups. 

Pillar I young-farmer supplement shows coherence with Pillar II. 

In  France,  Pillar  I  aid  does  not  encourage  older  farmers  to  release  land.  The 
problem  is  access  to  land  and  therefore  land  transfer.  Aid  for  land  purchase 
benefits sellers and not young farmers. 

Poland and Hungary 

Efficiency  

Aid  meets  the  financial  needs  of  young  farmers  at  installation,  but  not  all  young 
farmers receive this aid. 

Pillar II measures 
are coherent but 
other factors 
hinder 
generational 
renewal 

Long delays in payments due to insufficient administrative capacity. 

Hungary cited the risk of errors as a big disincentive to applicants. 

In  Poland,  beneficiaries  combine  start-up  aid  and  rural-development-programme 
investment  aid.  Pillar  I  young-farmer  aid  is  mostly  spent  on  inputs,  even  land 
purchase. 

In  Hungary,  investments  and  start-up  aids  should  be  combined  with  training  and 
advice, but those measures have not yet been launched.  

LEADER and national schemes complement young-farmer aid; helping new entrants, 
non-farm-business  start-ups,  quality  of  life  and  wider  non-agricultural  generational 
renewal. 

Some  national  laws  hinder  young-farmer  generational  renewal  in  Poland.  The 
inheritance law in Hungary is very complex and potentially negative for generational 
renewal. 

The  wider  economic  downturn  has  negatively  affected  access  to  credit  and  rural 
labour in Hungary. 

Ireland 

Effectiveness 

Pillar  II  measures  work  in  a  package  with  national/regional  tailored  measures.  However, 
they  require  matching  capital  and  promote  ‘traditional’  business  models,  rather  than 
innovation.  

a)  LEADER  does  not  work  alongside  young-farmer  aid.  There  is  a  continuing 
need  for  more  non-farm  rural  economic  development  in  many  areas.  Poor 

103  In  Italy,  applications  to  sub-measure  4.4  for  non-productive  investments  of  young  farmers  and 
collectives  frequently  receive  priority  for  funding.  Only  one  region,  IT-Basilicata,  mentions  that  it 
funds  non-productive  investments  of  young  farmers  and  collectives  at  a  higher  rate.  Source:  ENRD, 
RDP  analysis:  Support  to  environment  &  climate  change.  M04:  Investment  in  physical  assets: 
https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/sites/enrd/files/rdp_analysis_m04.pdf. 

104  The report on ‘good practice in policy design and delivery’ in France suggests that a varied package of 

support measures helps generational renewal.  

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
broadband is a major obstacle. 

b)  EiP-Agri  initiatives  promote  innovation  and  knowledge  exchange,  but  not 
specifically  generational  renewal.  500  new  farm  partnerships  were  set  up 
under  Measure  16.  The  national  scheme  to  promote  changes  in  land 
ownership is helping to encourage transfers105. 

Pillar  I  young-farmers’  supplement  made  effective  via  national-reserve  allocations  with 
higher payment rates. 

Changes  to  Pillar  I  aid  do  not  encourage  old  farmers  to  release  land.  There  are  strong 
cultural barriers to releasing land, no alternatives to selling, and therefore very low rates of 
transfer. This explains why the former early-retirement scheme failed. The lack of young 
people wanting to farm is an issue in many sectors. Farming is seen as giving a low quality 
of life with low incomes. 

Case  studies  confirmed  that,  to  ensure  the  attractiveness  of  the  agricultural  sector  and  of 
rural life, public support (including EU support) should not only provide support directly to 
young  people  but  also  invest  in  developing  basic  services  in  rural  areas.  This  is  also 
essential  for generational renewal in the agricultural sector Making agricultural and rural 
activity  viable  in  the  long  term  would  also  require  innovative  solutions  that  can  be 
supported by EU and national interventions.  

National  schemes  and  national  legislation  relevant  for  generational  renewal  in 
agriculture or in rural areas more broadly 

There is a variety of national schemes and national legislation relevant for generational 
renewal. Some examples are summarised below. 

Belgium 
– 
Flanders 

The shortage of young farmers willing and able to take over agricultural businesses in Flanders 
is addressed via a combination of measures, ranging from agricultural land-transfer laws, 
to stakeholder  initiatives. Some banks promote outreach  initiatives, in  which  the  institution 
and older farmers attempt to organise potential succession plans. 

Agricultural land is commonly held via agricultural leases (‘pacht’), which are leased for 
nine-year intervals. Leased land can be held for up to 99 years. After every interval, the lessee 
can opt out of the lease.  

Ireland 

Tax schemes/incentives 

There are three core tax-relief schemes: 

 

 

100%  stamp-duty  relief  for  young  farmers  (max.  age  35)  for  change  of 
ownership; 
100%  tax  relief  on  the  increase  in  value  of  a  herd  over  the  first  4  years  of 
production (capped at EUR 70 000);   

  Tax credit on farm-succession partnerships up to EUR 5 000 per year for 5 years. 
However, the older farmer must transfer at least 80% of the farm within 10 years.   

Succession farm-partnership scheme 

The  2016  national  budget  introduced  a  new  initiative  to  assist  succession,  referred  to  as  the 
Succession Farm Partnership Scheme. This scheme provides a structure through which farmers 
and  successors  can  enter  into  a  partnership  with  an  appropriate  profit-sharing  agreement,  on 
the understanding that the farm would eventually be transferred to the successor at the end of a 

105  A three-year ‘Land mobility service’ pilot programme established by Macra na Feirme – the Irish rural 
youth organisation – operated successfully in 2014-2016. The programme created 282 ‘arrangements’ 
across 25 000 acres of agricultural land (2017). The aim of the pilot was to develop and test what kinds 
of  support  services  were  required  to  increase  access  to  land  through  collaborative  farming 
arrangements.  The  three  key  functions  of  the  service  were:  (i)  to  create  awareness  and  provide 
information to land owners and those seeking land; (ii) to deliver collaborative arrangements acceptable 
to both parties in the agreement; and (iii) to provide support for the operation of the agreement. 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
specified period, not exceeding 10 years. 

National reserve 

The national reserve,  which  was launched in 2015, makes it possible to allocate entitlements 
on  a  permanent  basis.  Allocation  is  undertaken  in  conjunction  with  an  agricultural  advisory 
committee. The EU regulations underpinning the operation of the national reserve provide for 
priority  access  to  the  mandatory  categories  of  ‘young  farmer’  and  ‘new  entrant  to 
farming’. The  Reserve  is  a  maximum  of  3%  of  the  Irish  direct  payment  envelope 
(EUR 24 million) per year.  

Rural-regeneration fund  

As part of Project Ireland 2040, the Irish government has committed to providing an additional 
EUR 1 billion for a new rural-regeneration and development fund over the period 2019-2027. 
The fund  will provide investment to support rural renewal for suitable projects in towns and 
villages with a population of less than 10 000 and their outlying areas. It is administered by the 
Department  of  Rural  and  Community  Development.  Initial  funding  of  EUR  315  million  is 
being allocated to the fund on a phased basis over the period 2019-2022. 

Growth-loan scheme 

The upcoming growth-loan scheme makes up to EUR 300 million of loans available for a term 
of 8-10 years. The scheme is being developed by the Department of Business, Enterprise and 
Innovation  and  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  Food  and  the  Marine  (DAFM)  in  partnership 
with the Department of Finance, the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland and the EIF.  

Estonia 

There  are  very  few  national  schemes  targeted  at  generational  renewal.  One  of  the  national 
schemes mentioned by interviewed farmers was farm-relief services. These are not targeted at 
young  farmers,  but  some  farmers  considered  it  to  be  an  important  factor  when  making  the 
decision to start farming, especially for animal husbandry.  

There are also some regional/national programmes helping to keep young people in rural areas 
or attract them to return/move to rural areas. Some examples are in the bullet points below. 

- 

In  2015,  Estonia  launched  the  support  scheme  Youth  to  Setomaa  to  help  improve 
living conditions (general construction  works, electricity,  water, sewage and heating 
systems etc.) for people aged 21-40.  

-  Another  programme  financed  from  the  State  budget  is  the  low-density  area 
programme  administered  by  Enterprise  Estonia.  This  programme  helps  families  in 
sparsely  populated  areas  to  build  roads  to  their  households,  make  new  wells,  and 
install sewage systems. This programme  has an indirect influence on keeping young 
people in rural areas. 

-  Many rural municipalities use different measures to help to slow down migration 

from rural areas.  

Hungary 

Land policy for family-sized farms.  

The  law  on  land  use  in  Hungary  helps  encourage  medium-sized  agricultural  farms  and  the 
stable  operation  and  further  development  of  small  farms.  Pre-emption  rights  ensure  that 
family farms are the beneficiaries on the land market, and their numbers and ownership 
of land are growing. Land use is being concentrated in family farms, and the income outflow 
from agriculture is decreasing. 

There  are  synergies  between  the  CAP  measures  to  promote  the  generational  renewal  of  the 
sector  and  the  parallel  launch  of  national  aid.  As  part  of  the  ‘Land  to  Farmers’  programme, 
nearly 30 000 farmers bought 200 000 hectares of State land in 2016.  

National rural-development strategy 

The national rural-development strategy was developed between 2010 and 2011, and adopted 
by  the  government  in  March  2012.  It  aims  at  the  integrated  development  of  rural  areas, 
including:  (i)  the  preservation  of  landscape  and  natural  values;  (ii)  the  sustainable  use  of 
resources; (iii) the development of rural settlements; (iv) the improvement of the quality of life 
of  people  living  in  the  countryside  (by  providing  employment,  accessible  services  and 
education  facilities,  with  an  emphasis  on  improving  the  quality  of  agriculture  and  the  food 
economy); and (v) the significant enhancement of Hungary’s market positions in agricultural 

90 

 
 
 
 
products.  

Farmstead-development programme 

The  farmstead-development  programme,  aims  at  developing  farmstead  infrastructure.  It  also 
supports the procurement of a farmstead’s the first breeding stock or breeding animals, and the 
processing of farm products.  

Hungarian Association of Young Farmers service and information system for farmers 

The Hungarian Association of Young Farmers (AGRYA) service and information system for 
farmers  seeks  to  stimulate  the  entrepreneurial  activity  of  young  people  and  develop 
communication activities about agriculture aimed at the general public.  

Italy 

Mechanisms to stimulate changes in land ownership and access to land by young farmers 

In  2014,  Italy  approved  a  decree  (named  terre  vive  or  ‘living  lands’)  to  make  public  land 
available for young farmers in two separate ways: (i) selling state-owned land through public 
and  transparent  calls;  and  (ii)  renting  state-owned  land  with  priority  to  young  farmers  for  at 
least 15 years. 

Young  farmers  also  became  beneficiaries  of  a  State  contribution  covering  the  difference 
between the market interest rate on loans to buy land and the subsided rate. 

Another form of support is implemented at national level through the ‘land bank’. The land 
bank  stores  publicly-owned  lands  (owned  by  the  State,  regions  and  public  institutions)  and 
private lands (deriving from land given back to the land agency by insolvent farmers).  

Rural-development start-up aid  

A third form of support is quite similar to the start-up aid outlined in the Rural Development 
Regulation.  This  third  form  of  support  was  conceived  to  complement  incentives  for 
generational change  within the family farm as offered by policy instruments under the rural-
development programme. It is a sort of top-up aid, but adheres to the following specific rules: 
(i)  the  support  is  provided  through  a  long-term  loan  (up  to  15  years)  at  0%  interest;  (ii)  in 
southern  regions,  farmers  can  mix  a  capital  grant  covering  up  to  35%  of  the  eligible 
expenditure and a loan at 0% to cover up to 60% of the eligible expenditure; (iii) the selection 
is based on a business plan; and (iv) the maximum investment is EUR 1.5 million.  

Fiscal incentives 

Finally, a series of  fiscal incentives  were introduced under the initiative  for: (i) any  farmers 
(not  only  young  famers)  to  rent  land  (the  incentive  gives  a  subsidy  of  19%  of  the  cost  of 
renting land); or (ii) farmers willing to hire young workers on a permanent contract basis or for 
a contract of at least 3 years (State contributions of 33% of gross salary).  

Poland 

National scheme – the Solecki Fund 

The  Solecki  Fund  was  established  by  national  law,  enacted  in  2009.  It  is  dedicated  to  rural 
areas. The Solecki Fund law gives communes the possibility to separate some money from the 
local commune budget and spend it on projects selected only by local inhabitants of auxiliary 
commune units (solectwo). That part of the commune budget is called the Solecki Fund. The 
idea was to empower village residents. 

National Union of Rural Youth 

The National Union of Rural Youth has a long history (it was established in 1928). It supports 
young farmers through various projects, such as an Olympics for young agricultural producers 
and scientific cooperation with agricultural universities. 

National law on retirement 

The  national  law  on  retirement  interacts  with  the  early-retirement  scheme  under  the  rural 
development  programme.  Thanks  to  the  2007-2013  rural-development  programme’s  early-
retirement scheme, farmers could go on pension at age 50. And now, under the general Polish 
Pension  Law,  farmers  have the same pension age  as other  workers. For  women it is  now 60 
and for men 65.  

Social programme ‘Family 500+’ 

Interviewees  mentioned  that  the  ‘Family  500+’  social  programme  is  granted  to  low-income 

91 

 
 
 
 
families, and is very popular among farmers (especially young farmers) as they have usually 
more children and lower incomes than people living in cities.  

Specific rural-development sub-programme for young farmers - Hungary 

Hungary  used  the  possibility  offered  in  rural  development  funding  to  implement  a 
specific  sub-programme  for  young  farmers.  The  programme’s  purpose  was:  (i)  to 
support  business  start-ups;  (ii)  to  promote  farm  development;  (iii)  to  increase  the 
knowledge base; (iv) to develop practical skills; and (v) to give targeted consulting and 
monitoring help to people launching a new farm. 

Sub-programmes  under  the  programme  included  start-up  support  and  other  types  of 
support based on this start-up support, all of which are available for recipients of start-up 
grants. In some cases, young farmers who had been active for not longer than 5 years can 
also benefit from these sub-programmes. 

Budget was secured for: (i) agricultural-economics training and preparatory training; (ii) 
tours  and  exchange 
demonstration  farm  programmes;  (iii)  professional  study 
programmes; (iv) individual consultancy; (v) group consultancy; (vi) further training of 
consultants;  (vii)  development  of  the  livestock  sector;  (viii)  development  of  the 
horticultural sector; and (ix) development of the agricultural water-management sector. 

Greater  aid  intensity  (+10%)  was  granted  to  help:  (i)  develop  the  livestock  sector  and 
horticultural sector; (ii) make investments in small grain storage and dryers; (iii) develop 
agricultural  water  management;  (iv)  make  investments  in  innovative  projects;  and  (v) 
develop agricultural production. 

The programme gave extra scores during evaluation to proposed projects that: (i) had a 
connection  to  quality  systems;  (ii)  promoted  transition  to  organic  farming;  (iii) 
maintained organic farming; (iv) supported animal welfare during the restructuring of the 
dairy sector; and (v) implemented innovative projects. 

Beyond  economic  start-up  capital  support,  the  multilateral  approach  of  the  programme 
still requires access to development opportunities to help Hungarian farmers to improve 
competitiveness. It is also essential for young farmers to diversify, create more jobs, and 
promote alternative income-earning activities within and outside agriculture. 

One  of  the  most  relevant  categories  in  the  target  groups  of  Measure  1  in  Hungary 
(‘Knowledge  transfer  and  information  actions’)  is  the  young-farmers’  category  because 
Measure  1  is  linked  to  thematic  sub-programmes  on  short  supply  chains  and  young 
farmers106. 

106  European Network for Rural Development, RDP analysis: Support to environment & climate change. 

M01 & M02 Knowledge transfer & Advisory services: 
https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/sites/enrd/files/rdp_analysis_m01-02.pdf. 

92