COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION ON THE INFORMATION POLICY ON THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY
Date: 2021-12-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: EAGF, EU initiative, co-financing, common agricultural policy, dissemination of EU information, eligibility criteria, information policy, principle of additionality, public awareness campaign

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 7.12.2021  SWD(2021) 980 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  ON THE INFORMATION POLICY ON THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY      {SWD(2021) 385 final}  
 
 
Table of Contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 3 

BACKGROUND OF THE INTERVENTION ............................................................................... 3 
2. 
Legal basis .......................................................................................................................................... 3 
2.1. 
Evolution of information policy .......................................................................................................... 4 
2.2. 
2.3. 
Intervention logic ................................................................................................................................ 5 
2.4.  Baseline and points of comparison ..................................................................................................... 9 

3. 
IMPLEMENTATION/STATE OF PLAY ...................................................................................... 9 
3.1.  Description of the current situation ..................................................................................................... 9 
3.2.  Description of the main elements ...................................................................................................... 10 

4. 
4.1. 
4.2. 

METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 12 
Short description of the methodology ............................................................................................... 12 
Limitation and robustness of findings ............................................................................................... 13 

ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................................... 13 
5. 
Effectiveness ..................................................................................................................................... 13 
5.1. 
5.2. 
Efficiency .......................................................................................................................................... 22 
5.3.  Coherence ......................................................................................................................................... 30 
5.4.  Relevance .......................................................................................................................................... 38 
EU added value ................................................................................................................................. 41 
5.5. 

CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 41 
6. 
Effectiveness ..................................................................................................................................... 41 
6.1. 
6.2. 
Efficiency .......................................................................................................................................... 42 
6.3.  Coherence ......................................................................................................................................... 43 
6.4.  Relevance .......................................................................................................................................... 43 
EU added value ................................................................................................................................. 44 
6.5. 
Lessons learnt ................................................................................................................................... 44 
6.6. 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ........................................................................................ 46 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ................................................................................... 47 

ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS ....................................................................... 50 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
Glossary  

CAP 
CDGs 
DG 
DG AGRI 
DG CLIMA 
DG COMM 
DG ENV 
DG MARE 
DG REGIO 
DG SANTE 
DG TRADE 
EC 

EIP-AGRI 

EAFRD 
EAGF 
ENRD 
EP  
ESIF 
EU 
GI 
KPI 
NGO 
SME 

Common agricultural policy 
Civil Dialogue Groups 
Directorate-General 
Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development 
Directorate-General for Climate Action 
Directorate-General for Communication 
Directorate-General for the Environment 
Directorate-General Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 
Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy 
Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety 
Directorate-General for Trade 
European Commission 
European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and 
Sustainability  
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 
European Agricultural Guarantee Fund 
European Network for Rural Development 
European Parliament 
European Structural and Investment Funds 
European Union 
Geographical Indications 
Key performance indicator 
Non-governmental organisation 
Small and Medium Enterprise 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

The  information  policy  on  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy  (CAP)  aims  to  raise 
awareness and explain the CAP to stakeholders and EU citizens. The policy is subject to 
regular evaluation. This evaluation addresses the measures implemented in 2016 – 2020. 

The  present  evaluation  feeds  into  a  European  Commission  report  to  the  European 
Parliament and Council, as required under Article 45 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013. 
The  external  communication  strategy  for  the  CAP  which  was  drawn  up  for  the  2021  – 
2025 period has also been informed by the results and lessons learnt in this evaluation.  

The  evaluation  looks  at  the  CAP  communication  strategy  2016  –  2020  and  its 
implementation,  covering  direct  measures  implemented  by  the  Commission,  the 
Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI) and information 
actions carried out by third parties, through the co-financed grants scheme. It also refers 
to the overarching Commission corporate communication policy. The period covered is 
2016  to  2020,  although  with  some  limitations  for  2020  as  regards  data  collection.  The 
geographical  scope is  EU-28, except  for 2020,  when the UK  was no longer part of the 
European Union (EU). 

The  evaluation  focuses  on  assessing  the  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence 
and  EU  added  value  of  the  CAP  information  policy.  It  is  underpinned  by  an  external 
support study on the information measures under the CAP1, published on 4 March 2021 
and  takes  into  account  additional  experience  gained  in  2020  with  the  exceptional 
circumstances posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. 

2.  BACKGROUND OF THE INTERVENTION 

2.1.  Legal basis 

Information measures on the CAP are implemented by the European Commission on the 
basis  of  Article  6  and  Article  45  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1306/2013  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and 
monitoring of the CAP2.  

The objectives of such information measures are to help explain, implement and develop 
the CAP and to raise public awareness of its content and objectives to reinstate consumer 
confidence following crises through information campaigns, to inform farmers and other 
parties active in rural areas and to promote the European model of agriculture, as well as 
to help citizens understand it.  

Information measures financed fall into two main categories: 

- 

those submitted by third party organisations for co-financing under the European 
Agricultural Guarantee Fund - EAGF (grants) 

1 Evaluation support study on the information policy on the Common Agricultural Policy - final report. 

2 Articles 6 and 45 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the 
financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy (OJ L 347/564 of 20.12.2013) 
and, as of 2023, article 44 of the regulation repealing 1306/2013. 

3 

 
 
                                                      
- 

those at the initiative of the Commission and financed at a rate of 100% under the 
EAGF (direct actions/public procurement). 

2.2.  Evolution of information policy 

As  the  CAP  has  evolved  in  the  context  of  successive  reforms  over  decades,  the 
communication surrounding it has also evolved. In the 2016-2020 period, factors which 
influenced  the  development  of  CAP  communication  measures  include  the  growing 
interest  and  engagement  of  societal  groups,  the  implementation  of  the  “evaluate  first” 
principle  and  also  the  renewed  focus  on  consultation  with  the  general  public  and 
stakeholders. Findings from the evaluation carried out in 2015 were also integrated in the 
communication  strategy  2016-2020,  including    further  cooperation  between  CAP 
information measures and communication actions on other related EU policies  and also 
an  increased  specific  focus  on  activities  relevant  for  the  general  public.  The  shift  from 
sectoral  to  cross-cutting  policy  goals  promoted  by  the  Juncker  Commission,  and 
intensified  under  the  Von  der  Leyen  Commission,  encouraged  more  synergies  and 
working  together  between  Commission  departments,  including  in  the  communications 
domain.  

Thus, there was a sustained focus on corporate communication with the aim of assuring 
coherence  across  the  Commission  in  promoting  its  political  priorities.  Under  corporate 
communication, resources are pooled from different spending programmes, including the 
CAP,  in  order  to  fund  communication  priorities  based  on  the  general  objectives  of  the 
EU.  Under  the  Juncker  Commission,  there  was  a  special  emphasis  on  investment, 
economic  growth  and  jobs,  and  delivering  tangible  benefits  for  citizens.  In  this  period, 
DG  AGRI  participated  in  the  development  and  implementation  of  the  Commission's 
three corporate communication campaigns - #InvestEU; EU Empowers ("#EUandME"); 
EU  Protects  –  with  projects  and  material  illustrating  how  the  CAP  delivers  for 
Europeans.  

In parallel, DG AGRI information measures were primarily focussed on supporting and 
highlighting  the  modernisation  of  the  CAP  within  the  context  of  the  preparation  of  the 
Multiannual  Financial  Framework  for  2021-2027.  In  essence,  this  meant  mobilising  to 
the  maximum  its  range  of  communication  tools,  including  digital  tools,  to  inform  and 
consult on the CAP reform process, and raise awareness of the relevance of the CAP for 
the  future.  This  included  comprehensive  information  actions  (including  conferences,  a 
social  media  campaign  and  substantial  outreach  actions  in  the  Member  States  in 
cooperation with the Commission Representations) around the public consultation on the 
future  CAP  in  20173,  and  subsequently  on  the  Commission  Communication  on  The 
Future of Food and Farming (29 November 2017)4, and the legislative proposals on the 
CAP (1 June 2018)5. Other major priorities in this period included communication on the 
fairness  in  the food chain  initiative and on enhancing  communication actions  related to 
the "quality policy", in particular Geographical Indications (GIs). 

3 Modernising and simplifying the Common Agricultural Policy | European Commission (europa.eu). 

4 COM (2017) 713 final of 29.11.2017. 

5 https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/new-cap-2023-

27_en. 

4 

 
 
                                                      
Towards  the  end  of  2019,  the  Commission  focused  on  delivering  on  the  headline 
ambitions  of  the  Von  der  Leyen  Commission,  notably  on  the  European  Green  Deal.  In 
2020, the new Commission was rapidly confronted with the coronavirus pandemic, and 
the  need  to  organise  a  concerted  and  coordinated  European  response  to  the  emergency 
and recovery in line with the European Green Deal priorities. DG AGRI, in cooperation 
with other relevant Commission departments, contributed to communicating at both the 
corporate  and  sectoral  level  on  the  measures  taken  to  protect  the  health  and  safety  of 
citizens, to assure the continued effective functioning of the food supply chain and food 
security, and on the future oriented recovery plan proposed by the Commission based on 
the Green Deal objectives.   

Every five years, DG AGRI develops an external communication strategy for the CAP, 
defining  its  specific  communication  objectives,  target  groups,  main  messages  and 
communication tools. The strategy is reflected into annual action plans and contains the 
necessary flexibility to allow for adaptation to evolving political priorities and changing 
circumstances. Every two years, a report on the implementation of the CAP information 
measures is presented to the European Parliament and the Council6. 

This evaluation looks at the implementation of the strategy over the evaluation period, its 
contribution  towards  improving  the  understanding  and  perception  of  the  CAP,  and  its 
fitness in terms of communicating the CAP and its contribution to the political priorities 
of the Commission in the future.  

2.3.  Intervention logic 

indicators,  as  defined  by 

Concerning the intervention logic for the evaluation, this has been developed in line with 
the  framework  of  the  Communication  Network 
the 
Commission’s  DG  Communication.  It  includes  the  following  levels:  needs,  objectives, 
inputs, activities, outputs, results and impacts. The general objectives are those defined in 
the  legal  basis  of  the  Regulation.  The  specific  objectives  define  what  the  policy 
intervention  sets  out  to  achieve.  In  the  context  of  the  information  policy,  the  external 
communication  strategy  governs  the  way  in  which  the  policy  is  implemented  over  the 
five-year periods covered by each strategy and it sets out what the policy must achieve 
within a given period. Therefore, the specific objectives of the information policy during 
the evaluation  period are those outlined in  the External  Communication Strategy 2016-
2020. 

Needs 

The  need  to  implement  information  actions  on  the  CAP  stems  from  an  information 
deficit  on  the  topic  principally  among  the  general  public  and  existing  misperceptions 
surrounding the CAP, notably concerning:  

 European agriculture and the role of farming in society. 

 The contribution that the EU agri-food sector makes to the wider EU economy. 

 The CAP within developing countries. 

6 COM (2017) 777 final of 19.12.2017; COM (2019) 634 final of 17.12.2019. 

5 

 
 
                                                      
DG AGRI sought to address these misperceptions by targeting the general public directly 
and  by  engaging  stakeholders  who  could  potentially  act  as  multipliers  in  disseminating 
the information about the CAP more widely, in line with overall policy objectives.  

Objectives  

The general objectives are presented in the figure below: 

Figure 1. Objectives of the information measures on the CAP 

 Source: evaluation support study 

DG  AGRI’s  external  communication  strategy  for  2016-2020  further  specified  the 
objectives of the policy, defining key aims for its two target groups: 

  for the general public: to raise public awareness about the relevance of EU support to 
agriculture and rural development via the CAP, 

  for  the  stakeholders:  to  engage  with  stakeholders  (mainly  farmers  and  other  parties 
active in rural areas) in order to further communicate the CAP to their constituencies and 
to the wider public.  

Inputs  

These include budgeting, planning and ex-ante evaluation (evaluation before the start of 
the  activity  to  determine  need  and  best  approach).  The  level  of  inputs  also  includes 
funding  mechanisms  to  finance  the  various  activities  of  the  information  policy.  These 
consist of funds awarded from the EAGF through grants and public procurement, as well 
as  any  additional  financial  and  human  resources  from  DG  AGRI  that  are  needed  to 
implement activities within a given year. 

Activities  

Activities  refer  to  what  is  done  to  produce  and  implement  communications.  Specific 
activities  implemented  by  DG  AGRI  each  year  are  set  out  in  its  annual  action  plans 
(planned activities) and annual reports. Activities encompass both measures implemented 
by  third  parties  (under  grants),  and  measures  implemented  at  the  initiative  of  the 
Commission.  Thus,  the  activities  in  the  intervention  logic  include  organising  and 
participating in events, social media and website presence, media networking, horizontal 
activities, and other activities implemented at the initiative of the Commission, as well as 
activities  carried  out  by  third  parties  under  co-financed  information  measures  on  the 
CAP.  In  addition,  reports  are  presented  by  the  Commission  every  two  years  to  the 
European Parliament  and the Council, on the implementation  of the information policy 
(implemented activities). 

Outputs, results and impacts  

The three remaining levels of the intervention logic – outputs, results, and impacts – refer 
to  the  achievements  of  the  policy.  The  output  level  involves  questions  concerning  who 

6 

 
 
and  how  many  are  reached  by  the  activities.  Different  communication  activities  are 
associated  with  different  output  level  indicators.  These  include  the  number  of  grants 
awarded,  the  number  of  social  media  posts  and  the  number  of  users  reached  through 
those  posts,  as  well  as  views/downloads  of  the  audio-visual  production/publications, 
media mentions, visitors or participants at events, etc. ‘Results’ refers to what the target 
audience  takes  away  from  the  communication.  This  includes  their  initial  response  and 
sustainable  effects.  According  to  the  intervention  logic  of  the  evaluation,  this  level 
mirrors the specific objectives of the intervention logic, i.e. it measures the achievement 
of  the  objectives  from  the  external  communication  strategy  (2016-2020).  Therefore  the 
focus is on measuring whether the audiences became better informed about the CAP (its 
key elements, benefits and policy developments). In the case of stakeholders, the extent 
to which this information has been further shared is also assessed. Thus, the two specific 
objectives may also be interrelated: namely, if stakeholders not only become more aware 
of  the  CAP  themselves,  but  also  publicly  disseminate  this  information,  they  indirectly 
contribute to the first specific objective of raising public awareness.  

Finally,  at  the  level  of  impacts,  the  focus  is  on  whether  the  information  measures 
implemented  have  succeeded  in  changing  opinions  towards  the  CAP.  Although  the 
impacts listed in the Communication Network framework focus on improved perceptions 
of  the  EU,  this  evaluation  is  focusing  on  changes  in  perceptions  towards  the  CAP. 
Changes in perceptions towards the CAP may have led to changes in overall perceptions 
towards the EU, but valid measurement of this change is not possible within the scope of 
this evaluation.  

7 

 
 
Figure 2. Intervention logic of the information policy on the CAP 

Source: evaluation support study 

8 

 
 
 
2.4.  Baseline and points of comparison 

The Commission regularly polls European citizens on their view of agriculture in general 
and of the CAP in particular. Eurobarometer surveys were carried out in 2015, 2017 and 
20207.  In  planning  its  communication  actions,  including  for  the  2016-2020  period,  DG 
AGRI  factors-in  the  findings  of  the  regular  Eurobarometer  surveys  and  uses  them  as 
baseline for evaluating to what extent the communication actions conducted contribute to 
improving the opinion of Europeans regarding farming and the CAP. 

Points of comparison 
The  results  of  the  previous  external  evaluation8,  assessing  the  period  2013-2015,  have 
been taken into account as a reference. The present evaluation also considers the results 
of the Eurobarometer surveys carried out regularly to monitor public perceptions of EU 
citizens  on  the  CAP,  agriculture,  forestry  and  rural  areas.  Data  from  Eurobarometer 
surveys were used to assess the impact of communication activities, including trends and 
changes  over  time,  as  well  as  for  triangulating  research  results  (largely  dependent  on 
respondent perceptions). 

Finally,  the  efficiency  analysis  looks  at  some  information  activities  (website,  social 
media and events) of other Commission departments that work on related policy fields, 
namely  DG  SANTE  and  DG  MARE.  Although  the  analysis  was  limited  and  could  not 
provide an in-depth comparison in terms of results, the comparison is illustrative of the 
range of resources invested by different General Directorates. 

3.  IMPLEMENTATION/STATE OF PLAY 

This chapter gives an overview of DG AGRI’s communication measures, including their 
alignment to the policy priorities of the Commission. 

3.1.  Description of the current situation 

As  mentioned  above,  the  legal  basis  requires  the  Commission  to  carry  out  information 
measures to help explain, implement and develop the CAP. The external communication 
strategy for the CAP sets out DG AGRI’s main external communication objectives, target 
audiences,  overarching  strategic  messages,  communication  tools,  monitoring  and 
evaluation tools.  It aims to make more efficient and effective use of  its communication 
tools, including adapting them to a rapidly evolving media environment. As in previous 
periods, the communication strategy is implemented through annual action plans. 

7 Special Eurobarometer 473, Special Eurobarometer 440 and Special Eurobarometer 504. 

8 Evaluation of the information policy on the Common Agricultural Policy - final report 2015. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
3.2.  Description of the main elements 

Principal tools 

Media  and  on-line  communication:  media  is  a  key  multiplier  and  provider  of 
information on the EU and on the CAP. DG AGRI continues to deepen its contacts with, 
and  support  for,  media  and  press  representatives,  notably  through  its  network  on 
agricultural press (Ag-Press), and also with the support of the Spokesman’s Service. Ag-
Press membership totalled 1140 at end 2020 reflecting the steady increase over the period 
from  some  800  members  in  2016.  The  network  facilitates  access  by  journalists  to 
information  about  the  CAP  and  agricultural  conditions  throughout  Europe,  through 
participation in expert policy briefings, seminars, and study trips. In addition, DG AGRI 
continues  to  focus  strongly  on  developing  its  social  media  capacity  and  web  based 
communication. Social media channels counted in June 2020 with 73 100 followers for 
Twitter, 11 900 followers for Instagram, 580 subscriptions for Youtube and 170 695likes. 
As regards the website, it counted on 1,97million users in 2019. 

Events: engaging with stakeholders and reaching out to the general public are central to 
DG AGRI’s communication actions. Conferences continue to be an important means for 
consultation and the exchange of information and ideas on relevant policy issues between 
the  Commission  and  a  wide  variety  of  stakeholders,  at  regional,  national  and 
international level; in the 2016-2020 period, thirteen major conferences were organised9 
including  three  in  on-line  format  during  2020.  In  addition,  DG  AGRI  is  keeping  under 
review suitable opportunities for interaction with the general public and stakeholders at 
events  such  as  farm  fairs;  typically  this  includes  provision  of  attractive  pedagogical 
material/activities for families, and where possible, leveraging the presence of senior EU 
and  national  figures  for  dialogue  and  media  dissemination  on  policy  issues.  DG  AGRI 
participated in twenty five such events during the evaluation period. 

Grants:  the  Commission  co-funds  projects  to  promote  and  inform  citizens  (younger 
audiences, stakeholders, farmers and EU citizens) about the CAP. The socio-professional 
sector, as well as national, regional and local authorities inter alia can participate in the 
call for proposals, published once  a  year.  During the  evaluation  period, 94  grants  were 
awarded  by  the  European  Commission  to  various  organisations  to  communicate  about 
the CAP. These co-financed information actions were carried out typically by media and 
communications  companies  (often  active  across  several  Member  States),  EU  level  and 
national  producer  organisations;  environmental  and  rural  development  NGOs,  and 
academic  bodies,  among  others.  During  the  evaluation  period,  the  calls  for  proposals 
encouraged  information  actions  which  aimed  to  illustrate  the  CAP’s  contribution  to 
growth  and  jobs  and  viable  rural  communities;  its  role  in  climate  adaptation  and 
mitigation measures; sustainable farming, and improving fairness in the agri-food supply 
chain, and the importance of innovation and generational renewal in the sector. Overall, 
the  calls  for  proposals  encouraged  information  actions  focussing  specifically  on  the 
economic,  environmental  and  social  dimensions  of  sustainability  CAP;  they  also 
encouraged novel approaches to engage with young people.  

9 This  figure  does  not  include  a  number  of  specific  workshops  and  roundtables  organised  to  discuss  and 
exchange  with  stakeholders  on  markets  and  environmental  aspects  linked  to  the  modernisation  of  the 
CAP. 

10 

 
 
                                                      
Communication objectives 

In  line  with  the  overall  corporate  approach  of  the  Commission,  DG  AGRI’s  external 
communication  strategy  was  geared  towards  contributing  to  the  achievement  of  the 
political priorities of the Commission in the 2016-2020 period and its inbuilt flexibility 
facilitated  its  evolution  and  implementation  of  measures  in  the  transition  to  the  new 
Commission. As mentioned  earlier, the Juncker  Commission  put  a special emphasis  on 
investment, economic growth and jobs. Concerning the six headline ambitions of the von 
der  Leyen  Commission,  while  the  CAP  is  relevant  for  all  of  these  priorities,  the  main 
links  are  to  the  European  Green  Deal,  A  stronger  Europe  in  the  world  and  A  new 
push  for  European  democracy.  Communication  measures  therefore  were  designed  to 
reflect the contribution of the CAP to a more sustainable and climate-neutral Europe as 
well as the importance of agriculture for the European economy as a whole and for rural 
communities in particular.  

A further key objective was to communicate on the CAP’s essential role in the supply of 
safe  and  high  quality  food  which  is  produced  sustainably,  reflecting  consumer 
expectations.  In  addition  to  focusing  on  these  headline  objectives,  communication 
actions  continued  to  provide  information  on  all  major  DG  AGRI  initiatives  over  the 
period,  so  as  to  develop  positive  perceptions  and  build  trust  with  citizens  and 
stakeholders. 

Messages  

The overarching message was and remains: the CAP is of central importance to reach EU 
social,  economic,  climate  and  environmental  objectives,  including  long  term  food 
security. To ensure that key messages reflect the contribution of agriculture, forestry and 
rural  development  to  the  overall  Green  Deal  sustainability  objectives,  DG  AGRI  has 
created specific communication material, for example, on organic, quality and innovation 
policy.  

Target groups   

Communication  measures  aimed  at  increasing  support  and  endorsement  of  the 
Commission’s  political  agenda,  and  more  specifically  of  the  role  of  the  CAP  in  this 
context.  In  line  with  the  legal  basis,  activities  target  citizens,  farmers  and  other  parties 
active  in  rural  areas.  Therefore  both  stakeholders  (farmers,  their  representatives,  rural 
dwellers, the food chain; public authorities, NGOs) and the general public continue to be 
targeted with the most appropriate tools.  

As  regards  the  general  public,  two  subgroups  are  being  targeted  specifically:  young 
people (16-24 year old) to raise their awareness of the CAP and its contribution to issues 
important to this target group such as climate change and sustainable, high quality food; 
children  and  teachers  given  the  important  role  agriculture  will  play  in  meeting  climate 
action targets and increasing sustainability of food systems.   

While  continuing  to  provide  information  and  engaging  in  discussions  with  the  general 
public,  AGRI  communication  actions  currently  give  priority  to  stakeholders  acting  as 
multipliers and opinion leaders via which the general public can also be reached. 

11 

 
 
4.  METHODOLOGY 

The evaluation is underpinned by an external support study carried out during 2020 and 
complemented with internal analysis. Several surveys were carried out through the study 
and  findings  from  relevant  Eurobarometer  surveys  integrated  in  the  analysis;  thus,  no 
public consultation took place. 

4.1.  Short description of the methodology 

The analysis used available data and applied a mixed-approach to combine different data 
sources. The mixed methods of data collection are listed below: 

  Desk research.  
 

Interviews with DG AGRI staff and with key stakeholders in the context of case 
studies.  A  mapping  exercise  to  identify  national  communication  actions  in  the 
Member States took place in cooperation with national experts. 

  17  case  studies  covering  different  communication  activities,  carried  out  by 

different actors, including the European Commission and third parties.  

i.  Country-level  case  studies  (5),  to  analyse  the  complementarity  between 

national information policies and the CAP;  

ii.  Grant  case  studies  (6),  to  assess  information  measures  implemented  by 

third parties under grant agreements; 

iii.  Commission’s  own  initiative  case  studies  (5),  to  assess  information 

measures implemented at the initiative of the Commission; 

iv.  Corporate  communication  case  study  (1),  to  examine  DG  AGRI’s 

involvement in corporate communication campaigns. 
  4 stakeholder surveys covering general aspects and specific measures: 
i.  Main survey targeted at stakeholders active in the field of CAP; 
ii.  Ag-Press network survey; 
iii.  Website  survey  targeted  at  users  of  the  CAP  section  of  the  European 
Commission’s  website  as  well  as  relevant  pages  under  “Food,  Farming, 
Fisheries”; 

iv.  Grant applicant survey, both successful and unsuccessful.  

  Usability testing aimed to understand the interaction of users as well as to identify 

positive aspects and points for improvement for two measures:  

i.  Website sections “Common Agricultural Policy” and its children pages as 

ii. 

well as “Farming”. 
Teachers’  Resource  Pack,  tested  with  five10  tests  in  different  EU 
countries. 

The  data  analysis  combined  qualitative  and  quantitative  approaches.  Qualitative 
information  was  collected  through  desk  research,  interviews,  case  studies  and  surveys. 
Qualitative  analysis  was  structured  step-wise  to  classify,  sort  and  arrange  data.  On  the 
other  hand,  quantitative  analysis  was  applied  to  data  from  desk  research  and  surveys, 

10 Five tests were considered sufficient for the 41 expert teachers that participated. However, there should 
be mentioned a limitation in geographical coverage as all the 41 teachers came from Western European 
countries. 

12 

 
 
                                                      
using statistical data to assess performance (e.g. social media and website) and reporting 
via descriptive statistics.   

The design of the evaluation developed specific indicators for each level of information 
and applied judgement criteria using 70% as a general benchmark, selected on the basis 
of  the  results  of  the  previous  evaluation  and  the  average  for  the  European  Customer 
Satisfaction Index in all categories, including public services. 

Experience  gained  through  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  which  strongly  influenced  the 
organisation of communication activities in 2020, is also presented and considered. 

4.2.  Limitation and robustness of findings 

The  evidence  collected  through  the  analysis  provides  a  sound  basis  for  a  robust 
assessment,  avoiding  biases,  presenting  well-based  assumptions  and 
transparent 
reporting.  The  analysis  provides  a  valid  set  of  indicators  and  uses  triangulation  of 
different  sources  of  evidence.  The  analysis  also  made  use  of  existing  work  to  avoid 
duplication. Some drawbacks are however inherent in the methods employed. 

First,  qualitative  data  collected  relies  on  perceptions  of  respondents  to  interviews  and 
surveys. The issue was counterbalanced by using larger samples (more representative of 
the population) and seeking confirmation with available quantitative data. 

Second,  the  impact  of  communication  in  terms  of  changing  perceptions  is  difficult  to 
measure.  The  analysis  needed  to  rely  on  the  opinions  of  stakeholders  and  made  use  of 
Eurobarometer  data  that  includes  changes  over  time  in  order  to  complement  and 
triangulate research results. 

Lastly,  data  collection  took  place  during  the  peak  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  which 
increased difficulties to reach stakeholders and to participate in relevant events as those 
were cancelled or adjusted. To adapt to such circumstances, the analysis increased desk 
research  and  the  time  for  data  collection  was  extended  so  that  no  major  data  gaps 
remained. 

5.  ANALYSIS  

This  section  presents  the  assessment  of  the  performance  of  the  measures  implemented 
under  the  CAP  information  policy.  The  assessment  is  based  on  the  five  evaluation 
criteria:  effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value. 

5.1.  Effectiveness 

5.1.1.  General objectives 

The  general  objectives  of  the  CAP  information  policy  are  being  achieved  to  a  large 
extent  as  the  information  policy  is  successful  in  improving  the  understanding  and 
perception of the CAP. 

13 

 
 
Stakeholders11 are well informed about some aspects of the CAP, namely its objectives, 
the  challenges  addressed  by  the  CAP  and  the  support  for  rural  development,  but  are 
slightly  less  familiar  with  other  aspects.  Those  aspects  that  are  more  familiar,  are 
generally more positively viewed. This suggests that information policy contributes to a 
positive  perception.  Stakeholder  organisations  have  a  tendency  to  be  rather  more 
interested in informing stakeholders than the general public.  

Figure 3. Percentage of respondents to the main survey who stated that they were 
informed at least to a moderate extent about various aspects of the CAP 

Support for rural development  (n=387)

The objectives of the CAP (n=389)

The challenges (economic, social, environmental)
addressed by the CAP (n=388)

The role of national governments in the implementation of
the CAP (n=383)

The income support provided (n=386)

The market measures put in place (n=380)

The benefits of the CAP for all citizens (n=382)

71%

70%

70%

66%

61%

56%

56%

Source: evaluation support study, based on the main survey 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 4. Percentage of respondents to the main survey who rated various aspects of 
the CAP very positively or moderately positively 

The objectives of the CAP (n=271)

Support for rural development (n=268)

The benefits of the CAP for all citizens  (n=211)

The extent to which the CAP addresses current challenges
(economic, social, environmental, etc.) (n=269)

The income support provided (n=231)

The market measures put in place (n=211)

The role of national governments in the implementation of
the CAP (n=250)

91%

84%

80%

73%

72%

66%

64%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

 Source: evaluation support study, based on the main survey 

Eurobarometer survey results12 indicate that citizens are increasingly aware of the CAP 
and  have  a  generally  positive  perception  of  it,  considering  that  the  EU’s  support  to 
farmers is too low.  

11 The analysis reflects the percentage of positive answers among the main survey respondents but does not 

provide details about the profile of the respondents. 

12 Based on Special Eurobarometer 473, Special Eurobarometer 440 and Special Eurobarometer 504. 

14 

 
 
 
                                                      
Citizens’ perception of the performance and priorities of the CAP is overall positive, with 
a  slightly  increasing  trend.  In  2015,  59%  of  people  agreed  that  the  CAP  fulfils  its 
different roles. This increased negligibly in 2017 (to 60%) and markedly in 2020 to 67%. 
The percentage of  citizens that agrees with  the importance of the priorities of the CAP 
remained  at  85%  in  2015  and  2017,  with  a  slight  increase  (87%)  in  2020.  Moreover, 
more  EU  citizens  believe  that  the  CAP  benefits  all  citizens.  Around  three-quarters  of 
Europeans  consider  that  the  CAP  benefits  all  citizens,  not  only  farmers  (76%  today, 
+ 15 percentage points since 2017). However, the young (15-24  years old) are the least 
aware of the CAP and least likely to find agriculture and rural areas ‘very important’ for 
the future in the EU. 

External factors (i.e. negative or contradictory information about the CAP) hindered the 
effectiveness  of  the  CAP  information  policy  only  to  a  limited  extent.  While  negative 
information about the CAP exists, it does not play a dominant role and is rather seen as 
part of the policy debate around improving the CAP. 

During the 2016 - 2019 period, there were no major market disturbances; thus, there was 
no  use  of  measures  to  reinstate  consumer  confidence.  In  2020,  the  outbreak  of  the 
coronavirus  had  an  unparalleled  effect  on 
the  EU’s  society  and  economy. 
Communicating on the Commission’s urgent coordinated action at EU level to ensure the 
health and well-being of the people of Europe  was of the highest  priority in  2020.  The 
European  Commission  has  provided  support  to  the  agri-food  sector  throughout  the 
COVID-19  crisis  through  increased  flexibility  and  specific  market  measures.  In  this 
period, informing citizens and policymakers in the Member States on the many measures 
adopted by the Commission with a view to simplifying the management of the CAP, and 
providing  financial  support  to  farmers  and  rural  communities,  was  a  critical  task.  For 
citizens  and  stakeholders  alike,  the  COVID-19  pandemic  underlined  the  importance  of 
robustness  and  resilience  in  the  agro-food  sector  so  as  to  ensure  that  it  functions  in  all 
circumstances. 

5.1.2.  Specific measures 

This  chapter  presents  the  effectiveness  of  individual  information  measures  of  the 
information policy. 

a. 

Media networking 

Media  networking  is  in  place  since  2011,  comprising  press  trips  to  several  Member 
States,  seminars  in  Brussels  and  an  online  platform  (Ag-Press.eu).  The  number  of 
members  of  the  Ag-press  network  has  grown  steadily  between  2016  and  2020,  up  to 
1 079 members.  

In  the  evaluation  period,  journalists  acted  as  multipliers,  further  disseminating  DG 
AGRI’s messages and covering CAP related topics as a result of their participation in the 
network activities – 82% after a seminar and 90% after a press trip, according to the Ag-
Press network survey. Moreover, 85% of respondents use information from Ag-Press to 
develop their stories.  

The  activities  of  the  network  had  a  positive  impact,  contributing  to  improving  the 
understanding  of  journalists  about  the  CAP  and  also  to  their  positive  perception  of  the 
policy. 

15 

 
 
 
Figure 5. Viewing CAP more positively after Ag-Press activities 

Ag-Press.eu (n=124)

22%

44%

17%

2%

15%

Press trips (n=64)

Seminars (n=53)

34%

34%

47%

47%

11%

0%

8%

13%

0%

6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strongly agree

Moderately agree

Moderately disagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know / cannot answer

Source: evaluation support study, based on the Ag-Press network survey 

Nevertheless,  qualitative  content  analysis  reveals  that  while  articles  produced  after  the 
network  press  trips  reflected  well  the  European  dimension  of  farming,  they  did  not 
always make the connection between the stories about farms or farmers, and the CAP or 
European support. 

b. 

Social media 

The  number  of  followers  of  AGRI’s  social  media  channels  grew  during  the  evaluation 
period. On average, the number of DG AGRI’s Facebook posts remained stable, meeting 
the generally agreed optimal values13; whereas the number of Twitter posts continued to 
grow each year. Posts on Instagram were slightly below the one post per day suggestion 
and  the  number  of  videos  on  YouTube  varied  greatly  depending  on  whether  series  of 
videos were produced such as in 2016, the “Farming: at the heart of our life” series. 

Figure 6. Number of posts/tweets/videos published (2016-2019) 

869

888

760

383

900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

332

398

274

286

215

64

8

7

27

Twitter

YouTube

Instagram

Facebook

2016

2017

2018

2019

Source: evaluation support study, based on social media monitoring data provided by DG AGRI. 

In  general,  the  four  channels  tend  to  be  followed  by  different  audiences.  Twitter  and 
Facebook  are  mostly  followed  by  stakeholder  organisations  and  government  bodies; 
however, many stakeholder organisations do not follow DG AGRI’s social media at all, 
revealing potential for further improvement and reach. 

13 According to industry standards. 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Expanded  social  media  activity  is  helping  substantially  to  raise  awareness  of  the  CAP 
and has resulted in increased engagement rates with key target audiences; it has led also 
to more efficient and effective dissemination of messages across all platforms, ensuring 
regular coverage of a wide variety of topics. Awareness  and understanding of the CAP 
and related topics increased among social media followers, according to more than 80% 
of the main survey respondents14. Followers also found such activities useful (86%) and 
most intend to follow AGRI’s social media in the future (90%).  

Information provided through AGRI’s social media contributed to some extent towards a 
more positive view of the CAP as expressed by 68% of the main survey respondents, just 
below the 70% benchmark15. 

c. 

Website 

Visits  to  DG  AGRI’s  website  steadily  increased  from  2017  to  2019.  This  increase 
occurred during the digital transformation process of replacing the old website to the new 
one, which gained rapidly in popularity and surpassed the old website in 2019.  

Figure 7. Number of visits to the old (Europa) and new (Infosite) websites (combined) 

1 968 129

1 996 966

1 901 850

1 789 591

2 050 000

2 000 000

1 950 000

1 900 000

1 850 000

1 800 000

1 750 000

1 700 000

1 650 000

2017

2018

2019

2020

Source: evaluation support study, based on website analytics data provided by DG AGRI 

Users are generally very satisfied with the website content and quality, which contributes 
to a better understanding and a positive perception of the CAP. Nevertheless, the positive 
impact in terms of influencing perceptions did not reach the 70% benchmark16 (66% of 
main  survey  respondents  and  63%  of  website  survey  respondents),  indicating  a  limited 
impact. 

14 Survey respondents 388. 

15 Benchmark established as part of the evaluation study design. 

16 Benchmark established in the evaluation study design. 

17 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Table 1. Percentage of website survey respondents who agree with the statements about 
the contents of the website  

Statements about website content 

Percentage of website survey respondents who 
agree with the statements  

I understand the information that is provided 

I trust the information that is provided 

The information provided is up to date 

88.6% 

92.4% 

80.1% 

The information provided is useful for the purpose of my visit 
Source: Evaluation support study, adapted, based on the website survey (611 responses received). 

83.2% 

While  the  content  of  the  website  is  perceived  positively,  and  trusted  by  over  90%  of 
respondents, users identified several problems with its usability. Some topics are easier to 
find  (organic  farming,  market  measures)  while  others  are  more  difficult  (statistical 
factsheets and Coronavirus response). This indicates room for improving the navigational 
capacity of the website.17 

Website usability improvement 

Usability issues: 

-  Navigation between pages. 

-  Faulty search function. 

-  Limited accessibility in various EU languages. 

Suggestions from usability test: 

-  Add a visible sitemap showing all links to all pages, while considering possible 

changes to information architecture. 

-  Creating more links to statistical factsheets. 

-  Better optimisation for external search engines (e.g. Google). 

d. 

Events 

DG  AGRI  organises  conferences  and  participates  in  fairs;  output  performance  is 
generally high, with most key performance indicators (KPIs18 - set in DG AGRI’s annual 
action  plan  for  each  event  such  as  fairs  and  conferences)  achieved  for  those  events. 
Participants in conferences and visitors to fair stands are overwhelmingly satisfied (above 
90%)  with  the  organisation  of  events.  However  they  are  less  satisfied  (57%)  with  the 
possibilities  to  discuss  policy  matters  with  AGRI  representatives.  Farmers  and  the 
general public, including families,  tend to  prefer  fairs, whereas  broadly the  stakeholder 
organisations prefer conferences. 

17   The  planned  migration  of  DG  AGRI  web  content  to  the  new  EUROPA  web  publishing  platform  is 

expected to contribute to addressing the usability issues cited above. 

18   Key  performance  indicators  for  conferences  are  80%  satisfaction  rate  by  participants  with  the 
conference organisation and content. For fairs, it is 70% satisfaction rate by attendees with the proposed 
activities. 

18 

 
 
 
                                                      
Comparison with the previous evaluation reveals  a decrease in the share of participants 
considering that participation in events has increased their understanding of the CAP and 
related topics from 87% in 2015 to 79% in 2020. Networking is an important motivation 
for attending  events,  with its attendant  possibilities for the exchange of knowledge and 
experience. Overall, participants are highly satisfied with events, which generate positive 
results in terms of increasing their knowledge and awareness about the CAP. The data for 
web and social media dissemination for major events outlined in Table 2 illustrates their 
important multiplier impact in terms of reach. However, while events are effective, they 
achieve only limited impact (61%), as regards improving participants’ perceptions about 
the  CAP,  below  the  70%  benchmark.  In  addition,  the  analysis  indicated  scope  for 
improvement  by,  for  example,  keeping  under  review  the  preparation  of  Commission 
representatives  participating  and  communicating  at  events;  and  also  arrangements  for 
ensuring diversity of views in planning events. 

Table 2. Performance of the selected events hosted or attended by DG AGRI 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

EU  Agricultural 
Outlook 
Conference 

participants 
495 
(1 290 web 
streaming 
attendees  on  the  first 
day; 809 on the second) 

Potential 
on 
Twitter: 340 600 people 

reach 

participants 
635 
(3 057 web 
streaming 
attendees  on  the  first 
the 
on  2 505 
day; 
second) 

26 
and 
tweets 
179 100 impressions  on 
Twitter 

717 participants (n.d.) 

and 
tweets 
13 
171 300 impressions  on 
Twitter 

participants 
755 
(2 996 web 
streaming 
attendees  on  the  first 
day; 1 273 the second) 

295 098 
organic 
impressions  on  Twitter; 
3 974  people  watched 
the  conference  live  on 
Facebook;  11 093  saw 
the  Facebook  post  on 
the Outlook report 

2 400 visitors per day on 
average 

Internationale 
Grüne Woche 

the 

214 416  visitors  passed 
stand; 
by 
10 744 engaged 
with 
animations inside 

n.d. 

+/- 500 visitors per day 

total, 
In 
37 551 impressions 
for 
the  top  seven  posts  on 
Twitter;  34 539  people 
reached  via  the  top  five 
posts on Facebook 

Between 
10 000 visitors per day 

3 000 

and 

tweet 

One 
6 681 impressions 
Twitter 

n.d. 

and 
on 

Salon de 
l'Agriculture 

+/- 400 visitors per day 

+/-  1 000  visitors  per 
day 

average 

An 
4 500 visitors per day 

of 

average 

An 
4 500  visitors per day 

of 

n.d. 

13 161  impressions  for 
the  top  four  posts  on 
Twitter;  10 911  people 
reached  via  the  top  five 
posts on Facebook 

and 
tweets 
11 
60 315 impressions  on 
Twitter 

6 
and 
tweets 
36 873   impressions  on 
Twitter 

Source: support study, based on internal documentation on the events provided by DG AGRI. 

The advantages of the on-line format were reflected in the high level of participation in 
the  2020  edition  of  the  EU  Agricultural  Outlook  conference.  It  included  up  to 
9 464 participants/viewers  (on  average:  7 630  viewers  per  day  over  the  two  days  from 
64 countries); on Facebook Live there were some 5 700 video views over the two days; 
on Twitter Live stream, over 2 800 views over the 2 days, and 286 500 impressions. 

19 

 
 
 
e. 

Grants 

Between  2016  and  2019,  72  grants  were  awarded  by  the  European  Commission  to 
various  organisations  to  communicate  about  the  CAP19.  In  those  four  years,  grant 
beneficiaries  came  from  22  countries,  with  six  countries  receiving  a  high  number  of 
grants  and  nine  countries  one  or  two;  in  a  number  of  Member  States,  no  grants  were 
awarded.  As  data  was  collected  in  2020  and  the  2019  data  was  not  yet  available,  the 
following analysis focuses on grant projects during the 2016 – 2018 period. 

Grants  typically contributed to  the organisation  of events,  dissemination of information 
through social media, development of new websites, and audio-visual material, including 
articles,  videos,  TV  productions  and  radio  spots.  The  following  table  provides  an 
overview  of  key  figures  relating  to  co-funded  activities;  the  global  figures  reflect 
important differences   in terms of the level of reach, depending on the nature and scale 
of the activity and the type of communication channel used. Very frequently, these events 
reached a wider audience beyond the immediate participants, due to the multiplier effect 
of the specialised press and media, as well as increased use of digital and social media as 
dissemination tools. 

Table 3. Key figures for grants 

Type of activity 

Key figures20 and information 

Events 

1 354 events 

More than 6 million participants 

Social media channels  

113  channels  used  (most  frequent  Facebook,  followed  by  Twitter  and  by 
YouTube) 

More than 15 million people reached 

Nearly 7 million followers 

Websites 

29 new websites, 12 new sections 

More than 20 million visitors reported 

Audiovisual material 

Articles, videos, TV productions and radio spots were the most popular.  

stories,  online  material 

Multimedia 
(e.g.  pedagogical  documents), 
advertisement  campaigns  in  cinemas,  online  games,  booklets  and  outdoor 
campaigns were among those less frequently used. 

Source: evaluation support study, adapted 

19   22  grants  were  awarded  in  2020  but  could  not  be  included  in  the  analysis  as  their  communication 

actions were ongoing and not yet finalised. 

20   Figures  based  on  data  estimated  in  the  support  study  and  limited  by  the  information  available.  The 
figures only represent rough estimates, with the aim of providing a general overview. For example, the 
actual  number  of  event  participants  may  be  higher  as  with  the  available  data  represents  only 
1 139 events involving 38 grant recipients. At the same time, considering the fact that the same people 
might  attend  different  events,  the  number  of  unique  participants  is  likely  lower,  even  though  the 
geographical diversity of the events might limit this phenomenon. Similar considerations apply to social 
media and website. 

20 

 
 
                                                      
In  terms  of  audiences  and  project  objectives,  the  grant  projects  mainly  targeted  the 
general  public,  young  people  and  stakeholders.  Overall,  the  main  objectives  of  the 
projects targeting citizens were to raise awareness about the functioning and role of the 
CAP,  and  its  relevance  in  addressing  current  and  future  challenges  in  the  agro-food 
sector. With regard to youth, in particular, a number of projects created new pedagogical 
approaches  to  make  pupils  and  students  aware  of  how  the  CAP  affects  their  lives.  As 
regards  projects  focusing  on  stakeholders,  the  general  goal  was  to  foster  dialogue,  to 
enable  the  dissemination  and  exchange  of  good  practice,  to  encourage  innovative  and 
sustainable farming models and to inform on the modernisation of the CAP including the 
importance of its environmental and climate dimension. 

Figure 8. Main target groups of the grants assessed in the case studies (n=25) 

General public

Young people

Stakeholders

21

18

15

Teachers/researchers/schooling authorities

8

Policy-makers & public authorities

Media

Business sector

1

4

3

0

5

10

15

20

25

Source: support study, based on grant and country case studies 

Besides  the  tangible  outputs,  grants  had  a  positive  influence  on  the  beneficiary 
organisations.  They  helped  increase  the  knowledge  and  capacity  of  the  recipients  to 
communicate  CAP  topics  to  stakeholders  and  the  general  public  (both  above  96%, 
according  to  the  grant  applicant  survey).  The  grant  implementation  process  also 
contributed  to  improving  the  organisations’  communication  strategies  and  ability  to 
cooperate with partners. Finally, they frequently resulted in positive continuity after the 
end  of  the  grant  period,  as  materials  or  projects  developed  in  the  context  of  the  grant 
activity continued to be used. 

Overall, grant recipients considered their projects successful in terms of improving public 
knowledge about the CAP. The data available in the grant reports showed that between 
62% and 100% of persons across different projects  declared an increased awareness  of 
the CAP following project activities between 2016 and 2018. In addition, an average of 
82% of individuals stated that they had improved their knowledge of the CAP and related 
issues as a result of their involvement in grant activities. These results mostly represent 
the opinions of participants in events21. 

The grant scheme and the application procedure 

Globally, participation in the grant scheme met the expectations of the grant recipients: a 
large  majority  of  survey  respondents  (80%)  declared  themselves  satisfied  overall  with 

21 Evaluation support study on the information policy on the Common Agricultural Policy - final report. 

21 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
their  experience.  However,  the  share  has  declined  compared  to  the  previous  evaluation 
period (95%). 
Supporting materials  developed by  DG AGRI  as well as time to  prepare proposals  and 
their evaluation are among the most valued aspects of the grant scheme. Concerning the 
co-funding  aspects,  some  respondents  consider  that  the  co-funding  rate  should  increase 
and  include  a  lower  limit  for  co-funding.  Some  were  of  the  view  also  that  introducing 
interim  or  advance  payments  could  help  relieve  financial  constraints  for  certain  grant 
holders.  Some  participants  reported  difficulties  in  using  the  online  application  system, 
especially organisations applying for the first time. 

5.1.3.  The COVID-19 pandemic 

The restrictions on face to face events due to the COVID-19 pandemic compelled testing 
new  technologies  and  formats  to  effectively  reach  target  audiences  in  response  to  the 
restrictions on physical events. The sudden impact of the COVID-19 pandemic led to the 
cancellation of most face to face events in 2020 (as of 1 March), the adjustment of others 
and notably to a general move to the use of on-line organisational modes throughout the 
year.  The  advantages  of  the  on-line  format  were  reflected  in  the  high  level  of 
participation in the events which took place in the second half of 2020. However, the less 
positive aspects of the online format, in relation to the lack of human interaction, and its 
impact  on  the  exchange  of  good  practice  and  networking  were  also  highlighted  by 
participants. 

5.2.  Efficiency 

a.  Media networking 

The  costs  of  the  Ag-Press  online  platform  remained  stable  throughout  the  evaluation 
period, with a budget of EUR 15 000 per year. Combined with an increase in the number 
of members, this resulted in a slight increase in its efficiency.  

The number of events organised by the Ag-Press network fluctuated during those years, 
which influenced the  yearly costs. Seminars in  Brussels seemed the most cost-effective 
events,  as  they  have  the  lowest  cost  per  attendee  and  the  largest  number  of  articles 
produced. An increase in the efficiency of the Ag-Press network events can be observed 
compared  to  the  previous  evaluation  period.    Between  the  two  evaluation  periods,  the 
cost  of  having  one  journalist  attend  an  event  decreased  from  between  EUR  1 500  and 
2 000, to EUR 1 35822. 

22 Evaluation support study on the information policy on the Common Agricultural Policy - final report. 

22 

 
 
                                                      
 
Figure 9. Cost comparison of Ag-Press events 

2.000 €

1.800 €

1.600 €

1.400 €

1.200 €

1.000 €

800 €

600 €

400 €

200 €

0 €

Average of 
28 articles 
published

Average of 
20 articles 
published

Average of 
18 articles 
published

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Seminars in Brussels

Press trips to the Member States

Press trips-seminars

Average cost per participant

Average share of journalists issuing articles

Source: evaluation support study, based on monitoring data provided by DG AGRI. 

b.  Social media 

The social media budget grew in the first part of the evaluation period, shrinking again in 
2019.  The  fluctuations  were  related  to  the  expansion  of  social  media  activity  between 
2016 and 2018.  

Two paid campaigns were assessed – the Teachers’ Resource Pack and the campaign on 
GIs -  which demonstrated an efficient use of paid advertising as they had a lower cost 
per result compared to the average across all industries (EUR 1.45/click). The Teachers’ 
Resource  Pack  had  a  range  of  EUR 0.09  –  0.22/result  and  the  GIs  campaign  of 
EUR 0.002 – 0.77/result.  

A comparison of DG AGRI’s spending on social media with DG SANTE would at first 
sight indicate room for improvement. DG SANTE spending on social media advertising 
was  somewhat  higher  but  achieved  substantially  higher  outreach;  nonetheless,  this  is 
partially explained by the double policy field (public health and food safety) coverage by 
DG SANTE social media channels.  

23 

 
 
 
Figure 10. Growth of social media budget and number of posts 

350 000 €

300 000 €

250 000 €

200 000 €

150 000 €

100 000 €

50 000 €

€

1 166

760

398

8
2017

1 150

869

274

7
2018

662

383

215

64

2016

 1 800

 1 600

 1 400

 1 200

 1 000

  800

  600

  400

  200

1 533

888

Total posts: 
Instagram; 332

286

27

2019

Budget

Total posts:  Twitter

Total posts:  YouTube

Total posts: Facebook

Total posts: all channels

Source: support study, based on monitoring data provided by DG AGRI and its annual reports. 

c.  Website 

The  digital  transformation  process  largely  influenced  the  costs  of  DG  AGRI’s  website. 
The analysis focused on the years 2017 – 201923, as in 2016 different analytics software 
was  used,  making  comparison  impossible.  While  the  average  cost  per  visit  decreased 
slightly  between  2017  and  2019,  the  cost  per  download  increased  slightly  in  the  same 
period. These changes seem rather related to the digital transformation process. 

The  cost  of  DG  AGRI’s  website  was  also  compared  to  that  of  DG  MARE  and  DG 
SANTE. DG AGRI allocates a similar amount of resources to its website as DG MARE 
and  less  resources  than  DG  SANTE24.  An  additional  comparison  with  DG  SANTE  for 
the period 2017 – 2018, shows that in terms of cost per visit and cost per download, DG 
SANTE performs better than DG AGRI. 

23   Comparison of cost per visit  and per download  for DG  AGRI and DG SANTE focused on 2017 and 

2018. 

24   Total website costs were for DG AGRI EUR 230 000 to 360 000 per year, for DG MARE 100 000 to 

500 000, for DG SANTE 600 000 to 700 000. 

24 

 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 11. Website cost per visit incurred by DG AGRI and DG SANTE (EUR) 

0.19

0.09

0.19

0.08

0,20 €
0,18 €
0,16 €
0,14 €
0,12 €
0,10 €
0,08 €
0,06 €
0,04 €
0,02 €
0,00 €

2017

2018

Cost per visit (DG SANTE)

Cost per visit (DG AGRI)

Source: evaluation support study, based on data provided by the European Commission. 

Figure 12. Website cost per download incurred by DG AGRI and DG SANTE (EUR) 

0.37

0.22

0.39

0.20

0,45 €
0,40 €
0,35 €
0,30 €
0,25 €
0,20 €
0,15 €
0,10 €
0,05 €
0,00 €

2017

2018

Cost per download (DG SANTE)

Cost per download (DG AGRI)

Source: evaluation support study, based on data provided by the European Commission. 

d.  Events 

  increased  during  the  evaluation  period,  starting  with 
The  budget  for  events 
EUR 1 million  (in  201625  when  the  communications  budget  for  DG  AGRI  was  overall 
EUR  4  million)  and  reaching  EUR 2.9  million  (2019).  For  2020,  EUR  1.4  million  was 
budgeted  for  events.  Throughout  the  period,  nearly  EUR 4 million  were  devoted  to 
conferences and EUR 2 million to fairs. The efficiency analysis focused on the costs per 
participant at conferences. 

The  cost  per  participant  at  conferences  organised  by  DG  AGRI  fluctuated,  remaining 
above the costs for the previous evaluation period. The higher costs are related to bigger 
conferences and events  organised outside Brussels  in  the Member States (e.g.  Cork 2.0 
European  Conference  on  Rural  Development  in  2016).  The  EU  Agricultural  Outlook 
conference (an annual event organised in Brussels generally at the Commission premises) 
had  a  lower  cost  per  participant  (less  than  half)  and  also  obtained  better  stakeholder 
feedback as well as a wider dissemination of information. 

25   In the period 2017-2020, the communication budget of DG AGRI was EUR 8 million/year; for 2016, it 

was EUR 4 million. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure  13.  Trends  in  total  participants  and  cost  per  participant  at  conferences 
organised by DG AGRI during previous and current evaluation periods 

Previous evaluation

1.800

1.600

1.400

1.200

1.000

800

600

400

200

0

1.000 €

900 €

800 €

700 €

600 €

500 €

400 €

300 €

200 €

100 €

0 €

2010

2012

2013

2016

2017

2018

2019

Total participants

Cost per participant (EUR)

Source: support study, based on DG AGRI annual reports on external communication action plans. 

Costs for fairs were on average lower than those for conferences and remained relatively 
steady  during  the  evaluation  period,  in  the  range  of  EUR 143 000  to  EUR 180 0000 
(average cost per fair).  

e.  Grants 

increasing 

increased  during 

The  overall  budget  for  grants 
the  evaluation  period  from 
EUR 2.4 million (in 201626 ) to 4.2 million, while the average grant size fluctuated with 
the 
an 
communications budget for DG AGRI was overall EUR 4 million, the budget for grants 
was higher than in the previous evaluation period. The average number of grants per year 
was 19. 

to  EUR 230 556.  Except 

for  2016,  when 

trend  upwards 

26 In the period 2017-2020, the communication budget of DG AGRI was EUR 8 million/year. 

26 

 
 
 
                                                      
 
Figure 14. Trends in the grants budget and average grants awarded 

5.000.000 €

4.000.000 €

3.000.000 €

2.000.000 €

1.000.000 €

0 €

250.000 €

200.000 €

150.000 €

100.000 €

50.000 €

0 €

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Total amount (left)

Average amount awarded (right)

Source: support study, adapted, based on monitoring data provided by DG AGRI. 

the  overall  efficiency.  Beneficiary  organisations 

Grant projects are highly diverse, which makes it difficult to compare them and to judge 
implement  multi-channel 
on 
communication and information campaigns. Each of the actions is unique. It responds to 
the  same  objectives  defined  in  the  call  for  proposals,  and  evaluated  as  part  of  the 
selection process. But each action targets different groups, with different communication 
messages  and  objective,  makes  different  use  of  media  channels,  sometimes  using 
traditional  media  (e.g.  radio,  broadcasting  or  print),  sometimes  making  use  of  social 
media or events. As defined in the call for proposals (selection criteria) and included in 
the  grant  agreement,  each  grant  action  co-funded  by  the  Commission  provides  data  on 
the impact of the activities implemented as part of the final technical report, allowing the 
Commission to assess if the objectives established in the proposal were met.  

A  comparison  of  selected  projects  (school/young  persons,  actions,  event-focused 
information campaigns, web/TV-based campaigns, audio-visual production) was carried 
out  in  order  to  determine  key  factors  to  ensure  cost-effectiveness.  They  include  the 
following: 

1) Established online presence,   

2) Capacity to establish partnerships with other organisations and  

3)  Investment  in  re-usable  products  (e.g.  print  or  digital  audiovisual  materials)  that 
continue to generate benefits after the grant period. 

The grant evaluation and implementation procedure 

Overall, there is very high satisfaction with participation in the grant scheme, with 93% 
of grant recipients27 considering that the procedures run smoothly. Grants are accessible 

27 Respondents to the grant applicants survey: 45. 

27 

 
 
                                                      
to  different  size  organisations  and  levels  of  funding,  although  those  organisations  that 
received a greater number of grants also tended to have larger sums of co-financing.  

Figure  15.  Average  and  median  sizes  of  grants  (by  organisations  receiving  different 
numbers of grants), thousands of EUR 

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

4 grants received

3 grants received

2 grants received

1 grant received

Average size of the grant

Median size of the grant

Source: support study, based on monitoring data provided by DG AGRI. 

Around 36% of the organisations have received co-financing more than once. Only 54% 
of the grant survey respondents considered that opportunities to receive funding are fairly 
well known among potential applicants in their countries. This indicates that there may 
be scope to increase the availability of information to potential applicants, especially in 
those Member States where potential participants do not habitually apply. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
Table  4.  Overview  of  key  figures,  strengths  and  potential  for  improvement  within 
information measures 

Specific 
measures 

Key 
figures/reach-out 

Strengths 

Potential for improvement 

Media 
networking 

to 
EUR 59 
150 thousand/year 
(events 
and 
platform) 

gain 
Efficiency 
compared  to  previous 
reporting period due to 
increasing 
membership 

Further  simplification  of  content 
for 
improve 
visibility.  

journalists 

to 

Further  provision  of  exclusive 
content  and  access  to  high  level 
officials  to  continue  to  improve 
effectiveness of Ag-Press. 

journalists 
of 

1 079 
members 
platform 

2 to 6 events/year 

Social 
media 

62 

EUR 
to 
294 thousand/year 

channels 

4 
(followers): 
Facebook 
(170 695likes), 
Twitter  (73 100), 
YouTtube 
(580subs – views) 
and 
Instagram 
(11 900) 

Increasing  activity  on 
social  media, 
even 
decreasing 
with 
budget 

to 

Further  adaptation 
target 
audiences,  including  improving 
attractiveness  of  content  for  the 
general  public, 
for  example, 
further  use  of  video  in  different 
formats. 

advertising 
Targeted 
provided 
in 
boost 
impressions  at  a  good 
cost  (below  industry 
average) 

development 
experiences 

of 
Further 
interactive 
to 
increase  engagement,  such  as 
of 
more 
podcasts; 
personalised content.  

use 

Keep  under  review  procedures 
for enabling swift reaction to the 
dissemination  of  misinformation 
about the CAP. 

Search  engine  optimisation  to 
and 
improve 
navigation; 
increase 
accessibility  and  visibility  of 
agri-related content. 

usability 
to 

Further  simplify  content  for  the 
general public. 

Continue  to  explore  potential  of 
various  new  technologies  and 
formats  to  better  reach  target 
in 
audiences  online,  bearing 
mind 
to  date 
the  experience 
during the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Website 

230 

to 
EUR 
360 thousand/year 

Digital  transformation 
had a good start 

Events  

1.97 million visits 
(2019), 
5.9 million 
visitors 
the 
evaluation period 

in 

EUR 
2.9 million/year 

1 

to 

2 
to 
conferences/year 

3 

2 to 7 fairs/year 

Website 
reference 
stakeholders 

good 
for 

Participants  have  the 
opportunity 
learn 
to 
discuss  CAP 
and 
topics  with  AGRI 
representatives.  

material, 
Suitable 
attractions  for  general 
public at fairs. Also  

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Specific 
measures 

Key 
figures/reach-out 

Strengths 

Potential for improvement 

and 
networking 
opportunities 
for 
dialogue  on  policy 
between  broad  range 
of stakeholders. 

Grants 

2.4 

EUR 
4.2 million/year 

to 

to 

16 
20 grants/year 
(total 72) 

Over  20  million 
citizens reached 

of 

Improvement 
organisational 
capacities 
holders,  with 
term benefits. 

for  grant 
long 

Further  focus  on  grants  as  a 
multiply 
means 
to 
communication 
through 
multipliers  at  national,  regional 
and local level.  

Reach 
significant 
number  of  Europeans 
and  focus  on  specific 
target  groups  as  well 
as 
considering 
national/regional 
dimensions. 

monitored 

Keep  under  review  reporting 
requirements to allow progress to 
the 
be 
implementation 
projects, 
without  however  increasing  the 
on 
administrative 
beneficiaries. 

burden 

of 

in 

Further  promote  scheme  more 
widely  to  potential  applicants  in 
Member  States  with 
lower 
participation. 

5.3.  Coherence 

a.  Coherence with corporate communication and information concerning other EU 

policies 

DG  AGRI  provided  a  sizeable  financial  contribution  to  the  Commission’s  corporate 
communication  in  the  period;  however,  CAP-related  topics  were  present  only  to  a 
moderate extent in corporate campaigns. Nonetheless, such CAP-related information was 
noted  and  a  source  of  information  for  stakeholders.  DG  AGRI  and  corporate 
communication  activities  are  complementary,  with  a  strong  and  professional 
collaboration  with  the  Commission  staff  responsible  for  the  campaigns.  The  corporate 
communication  approach  was  an  important  element  in  DG  AGRI's  communication 
actions  as  it  helped  reach  wider  audiences,  namely  young  people  and  children  and 
teachers28.   In  2017  -2018,  for  example,  DG  AGRI communicated  widely  on  the 
simplification and modernisation of the CAP and the Multiannual Financial Framework 
sectoral legal proposals so as to highlight its contribution to the Commission’s ten policy 
priorities  and  to  the  Sustainable  Development  Goals.  The  role  of  CAP-related  topics  is 
projected to increase in the future corporate campaigns related to Green Deal in terms of 
topics  such  as  biodiversity,  sustainability  (e.g.  sustainable  food  systems)  and  climate 
change mitigation and adaptation. 

28 CAP related learning material is available through the corporate Learning Corner website, available in 24 

languages and targeting primary and secondary school pupils and their teachers. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Figure 16. Most frequently mentioned words in the communication objectives for the 
CAP 

Source: evaluation support study, based on information from the European Commission. 

The  evaluation  finds  that  CAP  information  policy  is  also  coherent  with  information 
policies on related EU policies such as cohesion/regional, health and environment. Data 
for  information  policy  on  trade  is  limited  but  indicates  also  general  coherence  and  no 
conflicting messages. 

As  a  follow-up  to  the  previous  evaluation,  cooperation  of  DG  AGRI  with  other 
Commission  services  on  communication  matters  increased.  DG  AGRI  continues  to 
actively seek  to  better integrate its  communication activities with those of other related 
policies  and  strategies  such  as  the  Farm  to  fork  and  Biodiversity  strategies  and  to 
strengthen  cooperation  with  relevant  Commission  services.  In  2020  (and  also  in  2021), 
information  actions  were  marked  by  reinforced  cooperation  with  other  Commission 
departments29,  which  reflects  the  synergetic  nature  of  the  Green  Deal  agenda.  A 
noteworthy example includes the joint organisation by DG SANTE and DG AGRI of the 
first  “Farm  to  Fork”  conference,  with  its  focus  on  sustainability  and  achieving  the 
European Green Deal objectives, in an on-line format on 15-16 October 202030. 

b.  Coherence among the different measures that constitute the communication 

strategy as well as with information through other CAP actions   

The specific information measures implemented by DG AGRI were in line with the CAP 
communication strategy, reflecting the strategy’s target audiences and key messages (see 
Table  5  and  Table  6).  Overall,  those  activities  constitute  a  set  of  coherent  and 
complementary  measures.  In  this  context,  synergies  are  well  exploited  to  achieve  good 
integration between different activities; for example, social media has been successfully 
used to promote other activities (events, grant schemes…), while the Ag-Press network is 
mobilised to disseminate actions under the grants.  

29  Including  DG  Communication  (COMM),  DG  Health  and  Food  Safety  (SANTE),  DG  Research  and 
Innovation (RTD), the Joint Research Centre, DG Environment (ENV), DG CLIMA, DG MARE. 

30 Farm to Fork conference (europa.eu). 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
Table 5. Target audiences: strategy and selected activities 

Segments 

Activities 

General public 

School  children 
and teachers 

Grant projects: 8 out of 25 grant projects analysed in the case studies targeted 
schoolchildren and teachers, including through events as well as  educational 
materials prepared. 

Families 

The  Teachers’  Resource  Pack  is  the  most  direct  demonstration  of  how  DG 
AGRI  targeted  teachers  during  the  evaluation  period.  This  publication, 
produced  for  teachers,  was  extensively  promoted  by  targeted  advertising  on 
Facebook, as well as being available for download from the website. 

Fairs: agricultural fairs attract the general public. The participant observation 
exercise carried out for this evaluation also confirmed that DG AGRI’s stand 
at  Salon  International  de  l’Agriculture  International  was  very  popular  with 
families. 

Young people 

Grant  projects:  21  out  of  25  grant  projects  analysed  in  the  case  studies 
targeted young people with their activities 

Stakeholders 

Beneficiaries  of 
the CAP 

Social media: DG AGRI’s social media (especially Facebook and Instagram, 
but  also  to  some  extent  Twitter)  were  tools  that  helped  to  effectively  target 
the  audience  of  Facebook31,  Twitter32,  and 
young  people.  Overall, 
Instagram33 is predominantly young, with more 60% of these channels’ users 
being under 34 (between 30 and 35 per cent are under 24).  

Fairs:  besides  attracting  families,  fairs  also  are  visited  by  young  people, 
including schoolchildren attending the fair with their schools. 

Ag-Press:  most  of  the  journalists  who  participated  in  Ag-Press  events  are 
affiliated  with specialist agricultural media, thus their outputs mainly helped 
to  reach  farmers.  The  journalists  interviewed  also  confirmed  that  farmers 
were their main target audience. 

Social media: beneficiaries of the CAP also follow DG AGRI on social media 
(around 14% of those who responded to the main survey were farmers).  

Website:  beneficiaries  of  the  CAP  also  visit  the  DG  AGRI  website  (around 
7% of those who responded to the website survey were farmers). 

Events: farmers took part in the fairs and conferences that DG AGRI visited, 
but were most represented at conferences through multipliers. 

Multipliers 

Website:  multipliers  visit  the  DG  AGRI  website  (around  12%  of  those  who 
responded to the website survey were representatives of NGOs; a further 24, 
representatives of national, regional or local public institutions). 

Events:  conferences  implemented  by  DG  AGRI  attracted  the  DG’s  key 
stakeholders, both in  Brussels  (namely  through  the  Outlook  conference)  and 
in the Member States. 

Social media:  DG  AGRI  engaged  with  multipliers on  Twitter  by  retweeting 
their tweets. Multipliers (stakeholder organisations) also said that they retweet 
DG AGRI’s tweets. 

Source: evaluation support study 

31   https://www.statista.com/statistics/376128/facebook-global-user-age-distribution/. 

32   https://www.statista.com/statistics/283119/age-distribution-of-global-twitter-users/. 

33   https://www.statista.com/statistics/325587/instagram-global-age-group/. 

32 

 
 
 
                                                      
Table 6. Messages: strategy and selected activities 

Segments 

Activities 

General public 

Messages  should  attract  the  interest 
of  the  general  public,  especially 
young  urban  dwellers, 
in  food 
quality  and  specificity,  as  well  as 
healthy eating. 

Social  media:  DG  AGRI’s  Facebook  focuses  heavily  on 
communicating  this  message.  The  Instagram  account 
established  by  DG  AGRI  also  further  strengthened  this 
dimension of the DG’s communication. 

Grants: in projects that focused on young people and the 
general public, food-related messages were often present. 

Fairs: one of the ways in which this message was covered 
through 
at 
tasting/introducing GI products. 

fairs  attended  by  DG  AGRI 

the 

is 

The  message  should  be  promoted 
that  the  EU  consistently  ensures 
safe  and  high-quality  food  that  is 
sustainably 
for  500 
produced 
million  EU 
consumers,  while 
reflecting consumer expectations on 
animal  welfare,  environmental  and 
other  standards,  which  are  among 
strictest in the world. 

focus 

should 

on 
Messages 
(mis)-
existing 
addressing 
perceptions 
European 
about 
agriculture  and  farming,  rather  than 
policy content. 

Stakeholders 

Promote  messages  that  would  help 
ensure  greater  awareness  of  the 
contribution  that  the  CAP  makes  to 
supporting  the  economic  growth  of 
rural areas, especially of SMEs 

should  promote 

Messages 
the 
contribution  that  is  made  by  the 
Rural Development programmes 

Social  media:  multiple  messages  on  this  topic  can  be 
found across DG AGRI’s social media channels. 

Ag-Press: qualitative content analysis of Ag-Press articles 
revealed  coverage  of  the  contribution  made  by  the  CAP 
(or  EU  support)  towards  ensuring  safe  and  high-quality 
food, in the articles produced by the journalists taking part 
in the press trips. 

Social  media:  evidence  was  found  of  DG  AGRI’s 
Facebook and Instagram accounts refraining from talking 
about  the  policy  context.  The  policy  context  deliberately 
received  more  coverage  on  the  stakeholder-oriented 
Twitter account (e.g. using the hashtag #FutureofCAP).  

Ag-Press: qualitative content analysis of Ag-Press articles 
showed that CAP (or EU) support for rural areas featured 
prominently  in  the  articles  produced  by  the  journalists 
taking part in the press trips. 

Events:  the  topic  was  covered  at  various  events,  for 
example, in the Outlook conferences. 

Social  media:  DG  AGRI  promoted 
the  European 
contribution  to  rural  development  through  its  social 
media.  For  example,  by  sharing  the  European  Rural 
Development  newsletter  or 
stories  about 
investment in rural areas. 

success 

Events: at least one of the conferences organised by DG 
AGRI  specifically  focused  on  rural  development  (Cork 
2.0, held in 2016) 

Messages  should  emphasise 
the 
support  provided  for  sustainable 
production  practices  and  other 
measures  that  will  help  to  mitigate 
and adapt to climate change 

Social  media:  DG  AGRI  promoted 
the  European 
emphasis  on  sustainability  using  its  social  media.  The 
word  sustainable  (or  variations  of  it)  was  mentioned 
39 times in the Facebook posts published by DG AGRI as 
of January 2018. 

Website: the website contains a separate section providing 
information about sustainable farming. 

Source: evaluation support study 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
In  addition,  the  objectives  and  activities  of  the  CAP  communication  strategy  are 
complementary  with  communication  actions  carried  out  by  other  CAP  related  entities 
that focus on specific areas and specialised target audiences:  

-  The  European  Network  for  Rural  development  (ENRD)  supports  transnational 
and  cross-border  learning  and  exchange.  The  ENRD  supports  the  effective 
implementation  of  EU  Member  States'  Rural  Development  Programmes  by 
generating  and  sharing  knowledge,  as  well  as  through  facilitating  information 
exchange  and  cooperation  across  rural  Europe.  The  communication  objectives 
and activities of the network are in line with the general communication strategy 
but have a specific focus.  

-  The  European  Innovation  Partnership 

for  Agricultural  Productivity  and 
Sustainability  (EIP-AGRI)  supports  the  development  of  a  competitive  and 
sustainable  agriculture  and  forestry  sector.  It  promotes  innovation  in  the  sector 
across Europe and contributes to sustainable growth. While communication is not 
the  core  business  of  the  partnership,  it  contributes  to  promoting  innovation  by 
raising awareness, facilitating cooperation and dialogue between farmers and the 
research community as well as the inclusion of all stakeholders in the knowledge 
exchange process across the EU. 

-  Market observatories’ communication aims to disseminate market data, which is 
thematically  focused  information  tailored  towards  specialised  audiences.  The 
information is provided via DG AGRI’s website.  

-  The  Agri-food  Data  Portal  provides  data  on  national  and  European  agriculture 
and the CAP since 2018. The portal is developing on a continuous basis. It started 
with market data and CAP indicators and now it covers also farm economics and 
information  on  financial  aspects  of  the  CAP.    The  information  is  also  provided 
via  DG  AGRI’s  website  and  the  unique  daily  visits  is  steadily  increasing  and 
reached close to 600 in November 2021. 

The activities carried out by these entities and described above are complementary with 
the  general  communication  strategy,  with  a  well-established  cooperation  between  the 
responsible  units.  Furthermore,  there  is  no  issue  of  coherence  with  the  EU  promotion 
policy34 as this policy is unrelated to the communication activities on the CAP. 

c.  Information actions by Member States and other actors at national, regional or 

local level  

The  main  messages  and  target  audiences  of  the  CAP  communication  strategy  are  in 
principle reflected in national communication, indicating a certain coherence. However, 
activities carried out by the  national authorities focus to a large extent  on stakeholders, 
such as  farmers, and the agro-food sector, rural dwellers and entrepreneurs, civil society 
organisations,  researchers,  farm  advisers,  and    environmental  associations,  providing 
mainly  practical  and  technical  information  and  advice  for  beneficiaries  or  addressing 
policy issues, rather than directly addressing the general public.   

34 Set out in Regulation (EU) No 1114/2014, the EU promotion policy aims to enhance the competitiveness 

of the EU agricultural sector and was subject to a recent evaluation. 

34 

 
 
 
                                                      
Nonetheless,  the  evaluation  has  identified  some  positive  examples  of  national 
communication addressed to the general public, as presented in the box below.  

‘Europe is engaging in France’ 

‘Europe  is  engaging  in  France’  is  a  project  run  by  the  National  Agency  for  Territorial 
Cohesion, the public authority responsible for the coordination of European funds, which 
is  in  charge of elaborating the communication strategy  for the European  Structural  and 
Investment  Funds  (ESIF)  for  the  period  2014-2020  in  France.  The  website  ‘Europe  in 
France’  is  the  main  communication  platform  used  for  this  initiative.  It  addresses  the 
general public and public authorities, as well as beneficiaries and potential beneficiaries 
of EU funds.  

Key information about the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) 
is presented in details. The website also provides an interactive map of France that offers 
tailored  information  on  the  ESIF  for  each  region.  This  is  particularly  convenient  for 
stakeholders interested in applying for funds.  

Moreover, an entire section of the website is dedicated to presenting various projects that 
benefit  from  ESIF  funding.  Success  stories  of  farmers  who  have  modernised  and 
developed their farming infrastructure (equipment, new buildings), notably to engage in 
more environmentally friendly farming methods, are reported by the EAFRD.  

Besides  the  website,  ‘Europe  is  engaging  in  France’  is  also  present  on  social  media 
(Facebook,  Twitter,  LinkedIn,  YouTube),  where  it  disseminates  content  about  news 
relating to the ESIF and to the European Union more broadly. 

The main strengths of this communication action are: 

-  An  effort  to  make  technical  information  about  EU  funds  accessible  through 
appealing,  simple  and  usually  short  visual  and  audio-visual  formats  (e.g. 
infographics, videos, interactive map). 

-  A ‘projects’ section that offers an overview of the support provided by ESI funds 
through concrete, personalised and ‘in-the-field examples, making it easy for the 
different target audiences, and especially the general public, to grasp the different 
contributions made by the funds. 

These  communication  actions  are  an  example  of  efforts  made  by  public  authorities  to 
reach inter alia the general public with regard to the CAP and the ESIF. 

Open Farm Day (“Avatud Talude Päev”), in Estonia (2015-2020) 

Open Farm Days in Estonia35 have been organised since 2015 by the Ministry of Rural 
Affairs,  the  Agricultural  Research  Centre,  the  Estonian  Chamber  of  Agriculture  and 
Commerce, the Central Union of Estonian Farmers, local LEADER action groups and the 
‘Kodukant’ Village Movement of Estonia. The project is co-funded by the EAFRD and 
the national authority under the RDP 2014-2020. Each year, farmers who registered for 
the event opened their doors to visitors for one or two days to present their profession, 
equipment and working environment, as well as to promote their local products. 

35 Open Farm Days and similar events targeting the general public are organised in many Member States. 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
 The  overall  objective  of  the  Open  Farm  Days  is  to  introduce  guests  to  the  life  of  the 
countryside and the food production process, as well as to highlight the contributions and 
importance  of  agriculture  for  all  citizens.  According  to  Estonia’s  Ministry  of  Rural 
Affairs, “Open Farm Day has become the biggest shaper of a positive rural image”. 

The events are promoted through the website of the project, social media (Facebook and 
Instagram),  media  platforms,  radio,  information  banners,  posters,  promotional  items,  a 
user-friendly application presenting the participating farms, as well as photos, videos and 
publications (notably on the website of the Ministry of Rural Affairs). They target people 
with a limited knowledge of agriculture and farming and particularly children.  

The Open Farm Days communication activity combines several strong points: 

-  A large number of participating farms, enabling good geographical coverage (and 

therefore a potentially large number of visitors). 

-  Conducted  on  a  regular,  annual  basis  with  effective  publicity  via  conventional 
media and social media, ensuring the increased popularity of the event over time. 
-  Excellent  organisation  (information  days  for  farmers,  an  inaugural  event,  a 
comprehensive app featuring the farms’ programmes and providing an interactive 
map, free bus trips for the citizens to go to the farms, etc.). 

-  Active,  face-to-face  interaction  between  farmers  and  the  general  public,  leading 
to better connection between citizens and all elements of rural life. By creating a 
positive  image  of  agriculture,  the  event  can  even  encourage  children  to  pursue 
agricultural vocations. 

-  The  opportunity  to  carry  out  the  2020  edition,  in  spite  of  the  COVID-19 
pandemic,  by  respecting  clear  health-related  measures  (e.g.  2-metre  social 
distancing  between  participants  and  a  maximum  number  of  visitors  inside  and 
outside). 

The evaluation also identified good cooperation between DG AGRI representatives and 
national actors, which enables the latter to act as multipliers of DG AGRI messages, thus 
contributing to coherence between the EU and national level. 

Finally, the communication activities carried out by grant beneficiaries also complement 
other  national  efforts  and  offer  opportunities  for  cooperation  at  Member  State  level.  In 
this  context,  the  grant  schemes  plays  an  important  role  linking  the  EU  and  national 
levels, as well as linking authorities with other national actors. 

Table  7.  Examples  of  grant  projects  carried  out  by  non-governmental  organisations 
complementing  national  communication  measures  on  the  CAP  by  responding  to 
national informational needs 

Grant project 

Country 

Mention of the adaptation of the project to national informational 
needs on the CAP 

Germany 

‘The CAP in school: informal 
educational offers as a 
complement to formal 
curricula’ by 
EUROSOC#DIGITAL (2016) 

We focused, in particular, on vocational schools as they prove to be in 
special  need  of  European  citizenship  education.  Studies  (e.g.  Besand 
2014)  show  that  citizenship  education  in  vocational  training,  in 
particular,  is in bad  shape  due  to  a  lack  of  training  among  vocational 
school  teachers  in  the  areas  of  politics,  the  EU  and  its  policies.  […] 
Therefore,  the  need  for  training  in  EU  topics  (such  as  CAP)  is  more 
pressing. 

‘iCAP: Challenges for the 
future’ by Radio Italia Puglia 

Italy 

This second target group (i.e. the general public) is certainly interested 
in issues relating to the enhancement of this rural area (southern Italy is 

36 

 
 
Grant project 

Country 

Mention of the adaptation of the project to national informational 
needs on the CAP 

(2017) 

‘My land, your land – Ireland’ 
by Agri Aware (2017) 

Ireland 

‘CAP works for us!’ by 
AgriGate Media (2018) 

Bulgaria 

‘Discovering tomorrow’s Farm 
Leaders’ by Strategma (2018) 

Bulgaria 

‘#ReConnect Farmers and 
Nature’ by Natuurpunt (2018) 

Belgium 

a  strong  agricultural  region)  but  is  not  fully  informed  of  the  policies 
implemented  at  Community  level.  The  choice,  therefore,  of  radio 
broadcasting, has been the best option, considering that radio is one of 
the mass media for excellence. 
An obvious need to communicate the overarching important role which 
CAP  plays  in  guaranteeing  food  security,  quality,  safety,  traceability 
and  affordability;  contributing  to  our  economy;  social,  economic  and 
environmental  sustainability;  and  animal  welfare  and  to  identify  and 
dispel  the  common  misperceptions  associated  with  the  policy  was 
identified by Agri Aware. 

During the project period, all the eight events envisaged to be held in 
high  schools  and  universities  were  organised  and  successfully  carried 
through. […] It was proved that there is a lack of information about the 
CAP’s instruments and the way they support farmers and rural areas 
in  Bulgaria  even  among  young  people  studying  agricultural 
specialties. 
The  production of  information materials  was  a  key  campaign  activity 
for  two  major  reasons:  a.  raising  the  public’s  awareness,  in  particular 
of school and university students, of the opportunities that CAP creates 
for rural areas and the achievements it has supported so far is essential 
since that awareness is low; b. building a true image of the CAP and its 
potential  is  very  important,  because  the  one  currently  prevailing  is 
distorted  by  the  mass  media’s  predominantly  negative  coverage  of 
problems,  protesting 
residents  and 
depopulated areas. 

farmers,  unhappy  village 

There are important regional differences in how farmers and naturalists 
perceive  each  other.  In  the  north  of  the  country  (Flanders),  there  is  a 
more  pronounced  distance  between  farmers  and  naturalists.  In 
Wallonia,  farmers  and  naturalists  have  been  working  together  more 
intensively.  Nevertheless,  we  found that  in all  regions,  work needs  to 
be done to facilitate the conversation between both parties. 

Source: evaluation support study, based on extracts from technical grant reports. 

Altogether,  there  is  room  to  build  on  the  positive  examples  by  national  authorities  and 
non-governmental stakeholders in order to further strengthen awareness of the CAP and 
disseminate positive messages to the general public at national level. 

5.4.  Relevance 

a.  For target audiences 

There  is  good  correspondence  between  the  objectives  and  audiences  in  the  CAP 
communication strategy  and the needs identified as aims set  out in  Article 45 of the of 
Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Article 
45  distinguishes  five  aims  of  the  information  measures  for  the  CAP,  which  can  be 
compared with various statements made when describing the communication objectives 
in the CAP communication strategy as presented in the following table. 

Table 8. Comparison of aims stated in Article 45 with communication objectives stated 
in the external communication strategy for the period 2016-2020 

Aims stated in Article 45 

Communication objectives 

1. “Help explain, implement and 

“The  common  agricultural  policy  ('CAP')  is  a  policy  for  all  the people  of  the  EU 

37 

 
 
Aims stated in Article 45 

Communication objectives 

develop the CAP” 

and the benefits that it provides to those citizens must be clearly demonstrated” 

“A particular aspect of this objective is to reach out to and raise awareness of the 
CAP among urban audiences and other non-beneficiaries” 

2. “Raise public awareness of its 
content and objectives” 

“Raise  public  awareness  on  the  relevance  of  EU  support  to  agriculture  and  rural 
development through the common agricultural policy” 

“When communicating to the general public36, the focus of information on the CAP 
should  put  greater  emphasis  on  addressing  the  (mis-)  perceptions  of  European 
agriculture and the role of farming in society instead of the policy content.”  

“There  needs  to  be  a  greater  understanding  of  the  enormous  contribution  the  EU 
agri-food sector provides to the wider EU economy, through 44 million jobs which 
generate 7 per cent of European GDP.” 

“[the]  EU  is  consistently  ensuring  safe  and  high-quality  food  to  500  million  EU 
consumers which is produced in a sustainable way” 

“Build trust within the EU and among all citizens, farmers and non-farmers” 

“Reinstate 

consumer 
3. 
crises 
confidence 
through information campaigns” 

following 

4.  “Inform  farmers  and  other 
parties active in rural areas” 

“Engage with stakeholders (mainly farmers and other parties active in rural areas)” 

“It  should  be  ensured  that  there  is  greater  awareness  of  the  contribution  that  the 
CAP makes to the support of economic growth of rural areas, especially SMEs” 

“The  focus  on  informing  about  policy  developments  would  be  maintained  when 
communicating to stakeholders” 

“Promote 

5. 
the  European 
model  of  agriculture,  as  well  as 
to help citizens understand it” 

“The key issues of  food security, climate change and environmental protection as 
well as the maintenance of sustainable rural areas must all be consistent features of 
the messaging.” 

“[the]  EU  is  consistently  ensuring  safe  and  high-quality  food  to  500  million  EU 
consumers which is produced in a sustainable way” 

“Reflecting  consumer  expectations  on  animal  welfare,  environmental  and  other 
standards, which are among the strictest in the world” 

“[the]  EU  is  investing  almost  €100  billion  in  the  period  2014-2020  for  the 
development of European rural areas” 

“It  will also be emphasised [that] the support provided for sustainable production 
practices and other measures will help to mitigate and adapt to climate change” 

Source: evaluation support study, based on the external communication strategy for the CAP for the period 
2016–2020 and Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council. 

Stakeholder  consultations  also  confirmed  that  the  CAP  information  policy  generally 
meets  the  needs  of  the  target  audiences.  Most  stakeholders  positively  evaluated  the 
relevance of information presented by specific information measures, which responds to 
the needs of target audiences to a great extent as presented below: 

-  Activities  of  the  Ag-Press  network  are  highly  relevant  to  journalists,  enabling 
relevant contacts among its members and provision of useful data. However, the 

36 This objective addressed findings from the 2015 evaluation report. 

38 

 
 
                                                      
complexity and technical nature of the CAP can result in limited coverage in the 
general media and especially at national, regional and local level. 

-  Social  media  and  website  are  also  informative  and  interesting  for  the  followers 
and users, which use them regularly mainly for work and study purposes. There is 
extremely small  amount of negative feedback (<  0.01%) although website users 
could benefit from more country specific information. 

-  Conferences  organised  by  DG  AGRI  are  well  suited  for  participants  from  the 
socio-professional sector, whereas fair stands target more the needs of the general 
public. 

-  Grants respond to applicants’ needs for additional resources to implement large-
scale  activities  that  go  beyond  their  regular  activities  or  to  focus  content  on 
agriculture  and  the  CAP  (see  figure  below).  Moreover,  projects  implemented 
through  grants  play  an  important  role  to  fill  gaps  in  communication  at  national, 
regional and local level. 

Figure  17.  Extent  on  which  respondents  found  factors  influencing  the  organisations 
decision to apply for a grant 

Our organisation was seeking additional financial
resources to fund our regular activities (N=40)

20%

33%

20%

25%

2%

The grant funding provided us with an opportunity to
improve the communication activities implemented by
our organisation in terms of content, materials, outreach
etc. (N=40)

Our experience in implementing a project funded by
DG AGRI made it more attractive to apply again
(N=39)

60%

20%

3%

15%

2%

56%

26%

3%

10%

5%

Strongly agree Moderately agree Moderately disagree Strongly disagree Don't know/cannot answer

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Source: support study, based on the grant applicant survey. 

b.  For general public (EU citizens) 

Communication  activities  on  the  CAP  that  target  the  general  public  have  increased 
compared to the previous evaluation period. European citizens are aware of the relevance 
of agriculture and rural areas for the future of the EU. Eurobarometer data from 202037 
shows that 95% of citizens perceive these aspects as being important  for the future (an 
increase  from  92%  in  2017  and  similar  to  the  94%  in  2015).  Nearly  three  out  of  four 
Europeans (73%, + 6 percentage points since 2017) are aware of the CAP. A longer term 
trend analysis reveals that awareness of the CAP is at its highest level since 2013, with a 
nine point increase over the period. Eurobarometer data also reveal that the provision of 
safe, healthy and quality food is most often considered by citizens as the main objective 
of  the  agricultural  and  rural  policy.  Both  aspects  are  closely  linked  to  the  CAP  and  its 
information policy, indicating that the CAP’s information policy meets the needs of EU 
citizens.  

37   Special Eurobarometer No 504 Europeans, Agriculture and the CAP published November 2020. 

39 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
The priorities for the CAP in the public mind are clearly shifting. While providing safe 
and  high-quality  food  is  still  considered  the  top  priority,  the  focus  on  climate  action, 
sustainable  and  environmentally-friendly  agriculture  and  forestry  is  clearly  increasing. 
This  is  in  line  with  Green  Deal  objectives  and  warrants  communication  actions  more 
focused  on  the  potential  of  the  CAP  to  contribute  to  the  ecological  transition  and  to 
address  climate  change.  In  this  context,  it  is  worth  noting  that  young  people  are  more 
climate  conscious  and  have  a  more  positive  opinion  of  the  EU  in  general.  Promoting 
awareness  of  the  central  role  of  the  CAP  in  achieving  the  objectives  of  the  European 
Green  Deal  and  on  COVID-related  measures  to  assure  the  continued  effective 
functioning of the food supply chain  was central to DG AGRI’s communication efforts 
throughout 2020.  

There  is  also  greater  support  among  younger  respondents  for  actions  to  be  taken 
collaboratively  with  the  EU,  rather  than  just  by  the  national  government  according  to 
another special 2019 Eurobarometer on Environment38. The CAP survey also found that 
awareness  of  the  EU’s  organic  logo  has  increased  dramatically,  making  it  a  potent 
communication  message  in  the  context  of  the  Commission’s  Action  Plan  for  the 
development  of  organic  production39.  While  most  Europeans  consider  that  the  EU  is 
fulfilling  its  role  on  agriculture,  notably  on  food  security,  there  is  a  clear  sense  that 
support to farmers is too low.40 While there might be a need to contextualise this result, it 
clearly indicates that citizens consider that financial support to farmers is justified, thus 
providing a good basis for communication about the CAP. This result also points to the 
economic importance that citizens attach to agriculture and its role in the economy as a 
whole. 

The  Eurobarometer  results  reflect  very  positively  on  the  relevance  of  the  CAP 
information policy. At the same time, the evaluation study41 surveys (Ag-Press network 
and  stakeholders)  indicate  certain  limitations  in  the  coverage  of  CAP  related  topics  at 
national, regional and local level; there are difficulties in covering the CAP and related 
issues,  both  in  the  specialised  agricultural  media,  but  mainly  in  the  general  media. 
Journalists  interviewed  identified  the  complexity  and  technical  nature  of  the  policy  as 
one  of  the  reasons  why  it  is  difficult  to  communicate  about  the  CAP.  This  reflects  the 
need to increase efforts to develop communication material and more “personal” stories 
that resonate with the general public. 

5.5.  EU added value 

The  CAP  information  policy  generated  significant  EU  added  value,  as  the  information 
measures implemented through the communication strategy address the needs of the CAP 
at EU-level. Thus, they complement the activities of national authorities and other actors. 
The  implementation  of  the  information  policy  has  increased  the  volume  of  information 

38   Special  Eurobarometer  No  501  Attitudes  of  European  citizens  towards  the  Environment  published 

March 2020. 

39 com2021_141_act_organic-action-plan_en.pdf (europa.eu). 

40 Special Eurobarometer No 504 Europeans, Agriculture and the CAP published November 2020. 

41 Evaluation support study on the information policy on the Common Agricultural Policy - final report. 

40 

 
 
                                                      
available  on  the  CAP,  respondents  to  the  main  survey  often  found  that  the  content  of 
CAP information measures was useful and shared it, further increasing the circulation of 
information about the CAP. This increased the knowledge of recipients about the CAP as 
well as contributing to their positive perception.  

Moreover, the CAP information policy has extended the scope of the activities of other 
actors  by  reaching  audiences  not  reachable  or  not  targeted  by  national  authorities  or 
stakeholder  organisations.  The  Europa  website  (AGRI)  has  reached  5.9  million  visitors 
and  the  outreach  through  AGRI’s  social  media  is  even  higher.  In  addition,  activities 
funded through the grant scheme have reached over 20 million citizens. 

The  information  provided  by  DG  AGRI’s  communication  activities  plays  a  reference 
role,  as  it  serves  as  a  primary  and  reliable  source  of  information  used  and  further 
disseminated by multipliers. More than 92% of the website visitors trust the information 
provided. 

Finally, the CAP information policy has influenced processes by communication actors 
at  EU  and  national  level.  A  specific  case  is  the  Ag-Press  network  which  has  a  unique 
character  and  does  not  exist  at  national  level,  providing  information  for  media 
professionals.  In  addition,  grant  holders  and  their  campaigns,  have  complemented 
communication activities at national level. 

6.  CONCLUSIONS 

6.1.  Effectiveness 

Overall,  the  evaluation  concludes  that  the  objectives  of  EU  legislation  on  CAP 
information measures have been achieved to a large extent. Positive results and impacts 
of  the  information  policy  were  identified  when  analysing  the  effects  of  various 
communication  activities.  The  information  policy  on  the  CAP  is  deemed  to  provide  a 
good  mix  of  communication  activities 
the 
understanding  and  perception  of  the  CAP.  This  is  reflected  in  Eurobarometer  surveys 
which indicate that nearly three out of four Europeans are aware of the CAP and consider 
that the CAP benefits all citizens, not just farmers. 

instrumental 

increasing 

that 

in 

is 

As  regards  media  and  on-line  communication,  the  Ag-Press  network  contributed  to 
improved understanding and a more positive perception of the CAP amongst the network 
journalists. Concerning social media, the findings suggest  DG AGRI  accounts  are  used 
effectively  to  communicate  with  their  current  users  and  that  a  positive  expansion  in 
activity took place in the evaluation period in terms of followers, reach and engagement. 
However,  there  is  potential  for  better  reach,  especially  amongst  the  representatives  of 
stakeholder  organisations.  The  website  and  its  content  is  perceived  positively  by  users 
though problems with website usability were raised related to navigation, language and 
search. 

As  regards  fairs  and  conferences,  the  evaluation  concluded  that  participation  in  such 
events was relatively effective in improving understanding of the CAP and related policy 
issues, and increasing awareness of the relevance of EU support for agriculture and rural 
development; networking was also an important motivation for attendance. In the course 

41 

 
 
of  2020,  the  COVID-19  pandemic  resulted  in  new  methods  of  event  organisation  in 
online format, with high levels of participation but limitations in face-to-face interaction, 
and as a consequence less opportunities for networking and exchange of experience. 

The grant scheme was judged effective when considering various project-related aspects 
(management and implementation), as well as the achievements of projects. Overall, the 
scheme  was  quite  effective  in  communicating  messages  on  the  CAP.  Significantly,  it 
contributed to  improving the organisational capacities of the beneficiaries (who are often 
important multipliers) and so in generating long-term positive effects, as well as tailoring 
messages  to  reflect  national  and  local  conditions.  However,  some  first  time  applicants 
find the application process challenging. 

6.2.  Efficiency 

Based on the assessment of individual communication actions, the  evaluation found no 
waste  of  resources  and  concluded  that  each  of  the  activities  generated  benefits  that 
justified  the  resources  allocated.  The  evaluation  found  that  Ag-Press  network  events, 
conferences and fairs, social media and web actions are efficiently organised. 

Generally, the division of budget between DG AGRI activities and those implemented by 
third  party  grant  holders  is  deemed  appropriate.  The  grant  scheme  overall  proved 
efficient and responded to the need for additional resources to enable the implementation 
of large-scale co-financed communication campaigns; without the co-financed element, it 
was concluded that the scope of many grant projects would have been more limited, or 
indeed in some cases they might not have been organised at all. DG AGRI is continuing 
its ongoing efforts to improve the quality and comparability of monitoring data, without 
however increasing the administrative burden on the grants beneficiaries. 

6.3.  Coherence 

The evaluation found that the CAP information policy is overall coherent with regard to 
the  Commission’s  corporate  communication  policy,  measures  at  national  level,  other 
CAP related instruments as well as other relevant EU policies.  

As  regards  the  Commission’s  corporate  communication  policy,  the  CAP  information 
actions were considered complementary during the evaluation period and contributed to 
reaching  wider  audiences  such  as.  young  people,  school  pupils  and  teachers.  The 
evaluation also reviewed the coherence between CAP information policy and information 
policies in a number of related EU fields; it found that the information policy on the CAP 
is coherent with information policies on EU regional, health and environmental policies. 

Different  measures  implemented  under  CAP  policy  are  well  integrated  and  exploit 
synergies  between  them.  As  regards  coherence  with  the  communication  activities  of 
other agri-related entities such as the European Network for Rural Development (ENRD) 
and the European Innovation Partnership for Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability 
(EIP-AGRI), overall the evaluation  found that their actions are broadly in line with the 
information  policy  on  the  CAP,  with  close  cooperation,  for  example,  on  social  media, 
dissemination of events, and sharing good practice projects. 

42 

 
 
In  relation  to  information  actions  by  the  Member  States,  while  the  main  messages  and 
target audiences outlined in DG AGRI’s external communication strategy are reflected in 
national  communication,  indicating  a  certain  coherence,  the  evaluation  found  that  in 
general  there  is  more  focus  on  stakeholders  at  Member  State  level  and  rather  less  on 
information  actions  aimed  at  the  general  public.  However,  it  should  be  added  that  the 
communication actions carried out by grant beneficiaries complement efforts at Member 
State level. 

The future CAP, through the national and European CAP networks, should increase the 
scope  to  pursue  greater  coherence  between  DG  AGRI  messages  (for  example,  on  the 
CAP  in  relation  to  its  contribution  to  EU  health,  food,  climate  and  environmental 
objectives) and those implemented at the national level. 

6.4.  Relevance 

The evaluation found that the information activities carried out directly by DG AGRI (the 
Ag-Press network, the website, social media, conferences and fairs), and indirectly by the 
grant  beneficiaries  are  relevant  and  address  the  needs  of  their  target  audiences 
(stakeholders and the general public). Moreover, the multiannual communication strategy 
includes  flexibility,  which  allows  for  adaptation  to  evolving  political  priorities  and 
changing circumstances. 

The  Ag-Press  network  actions  were  highly  relevant  for  its  members,  providing  new 
information, contacts and material useful for journalists’ work. Social media and on-line 
actions  are  judged  highly  relevant  for  the  different  target  audiences  defined  in  the 
communication  objectives.  As  regards  the  grants,  an  important  point  is  that  messages 
communicated in the course of the grant events were often relevant locally and resonated 
with  the  target  audiences  in  the  Member  States.  In  addition,  the  grant  scheme  also 
frequently contributed to strengthening the communication capacity of the beneficiaries – 
often important multipliers in the Member States - and addressing gaps at national level 
as regards communication on the CAP.  

The  CAP’s  information  policy  also  meets  the  needs  of  EU  citizens,  although  there  is 
scope to continue to keep under review and provide suitable communication material for 
the  general  public,  focussing  less  on  technical  details  and  more  on  the  human  angle  to 
which  people  can  relate.  In  addition,  the  priorities  for  the  CAP  in  the  public  mind  are 
clearly  shifting:  while  providing  safe  and  high-quality  food  is  still  considered  the  top 
priority, the focus on climate action, sustainable and environmentally-friendly agriculture 
is  clearly  increasing  and  there  is  scope  to  highlight  more  this  aspect  in  the 
communication policy. 

6.5.  EU added value 

The  evaluation  found  that  the  information  policy  on  the  CAP  has  achieved  EU  added 
value. It has increased the volume of information available by substantially increasing the 
total reach of CAP-related messages. In terms of impacts, the evaluation pointed to the 
achievement  of  the  objectives  laid  out  in  the  external  communication  strategy  for  the 
CAP – activities, from events to the website or social media posts. Those activities had 

43 

 
 
the impact of increasing the understanding of the policy and increasing awareness of the 
relevance  of  EU  support  for  agriculture  and  rural  development.  As  a  primary,  reliable 
source of information on the CAP, the information policy also ensured that information 
on  the  topics  of  food,  farming,  and  rural  development  is  made  readily  available,  and 
disseminated by different channels including web based and digital communication. 

6.6.  Lessons learnt 

The  objectives  of  the  information  policy  were  achieved.  Eurobarometer  surveys  show 
increased  levels  of  awareness  of  the  CAP  among  European  citizens.  The  results  show 
that  a  large  majority  of  Europeans  think  that  the  CAP  contributes  to  EU  society  in  a 
number  of  ways  including  on  the  economy  and  climate  change42.  In  addition,  the 
evaluation identifies also a number of areas for reflection and improvement.  

The evaluation demonstrates that information policy on the CAP is well aligned with the 
corporate  communication  policy  of  the  EU.  However,  there  is  scope  to  seek  further 
synergies, such as to intensify efforts to devise more user-friendly, human centred stories 
on  how  the  CAP  contributes  to  Commission  policy  priorities,  which  are  suited  to 
dissemination  via  social  media.  Furthermore,  while  the  general  public  will  remain  an 
important  target  group,  the  limited  resources  devoted  to  communication  in  DG  AGRI 
do not allow it to carry out wide-ranging information measures targeting citizens at EU 
level.  There  is  scope  to  project  more  the  EU  agricultural  dimension  in  the  corporate 
campaigns and which are aimed at  youth  and the general public. This would allow DG 
AGRI to  focus  more on  stakeholders  acting as multipliers and opinion leaders, seeking 
their  engagement  to  promote  and  stimulate  debate  on  agricultural  issues  and  the  future 
CAP, which are also  relevant  for citizens generally.  In this regard, DG  AGRI  will also 
continue to encourage grant projects that target the general public and resonate locally, in 
accordance with current practice.  

The  evaluation  identified  potential  for  enhancing  synergy  with  the  actions  of  Member 
State  authorities.  In  this  context,  the  importance  of  communication  and  ensuring 
visibility  of  EU  funding  is  well  reflected  in  the  future  CAP.  Its  implementation  will 
provide  increased  possibilities  for  joint  information  actions  between  the  Commission 
and  the  national  and  regional  public  authorities  building  on  DG  AGRI’s  long 
experience of working with these bodies. The external communication strategy for 2021–
2025, factors in the future EU level CAP network and national networks, as well as the 
reformed CAP’s requirement that Member States ensure publicity for their CAP strategic 
plan by informing beneficiaries and the general public of EU support for agriculture and 
rural development. 

Opportunities  to  highlight  the  role  of  the  CAP  in  achieving  the  Green  Deal  objectives 
should  be  actively  kept  under  review,  in  particular  integration  of  CAP  communication 
activities with communication on other related policies and strategies such as the Farm 
to fork and Biodiversity strategies.  

42  Special Eurobarometer No 504 Europeans, Agriculture and the CAP published November 2020. 

44 

 
 
                                                      
 
The effectiveness of the Ag-Press network is being kept under review, for example   
the  potential  to  increase  its  visibility,  especially  on  important  policy  issues  and 
provision of suitable relevant targeted material and data. This should further improve the 
capacity of the network  to  act  as a key multiplier, projecting major CAP  themes  in  the 
media.    DG  AGRI  can  also  build  on  its  substantial  expansion  in  recent  years  of  social 
media and web based communication. Improving awareness of the CAP among target 
audiences  with  tailored  messages  on  social  media,  and  encouraging  online  interaction 
while addressing issues around the usability of the website, will offer more opportunities 
to target audiences to engage with EU policy on the CAP and Green Deal priorities. The 
positive experience gained during the pandemic with streaming conferences designed to 
be followed online confirms the capacity to reach wider audiences through social media. 
There is potential also to further develop the use of new tools such as podcasts designed 
to  present  topical  issues  in  an  attractive,  user-friendly  way.  Regarding  the  website,  it 
offers further opportunities to design content which responds to the needs of the general 
public.  

As regards the co-financed grants, there is scope to further leverage synergies between 
the grant-awarded actions and DG AGRI's own information measures, with the objective 
of  maximising  the  impact  of  information  and  communication  measures  on  the  CAP. 
There is scope to encourage grant applications from those Member States where potential 
applicants may be less familiar with the scheme and do not habitually participate. 

45 

 
 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

Lead DG, Decide planning/CWP references 

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

Decide planning reference: PLAN/2019/5032 

Organisation and timing 

This  was  a  policy  evaluation  project  included  in  the  DG  AGRI  evaluation  plan.  It 
followed  the  Better  Regulation  guidelines  with  regard  to  evaluations.  The  evaluation 
work  was  carried  out  through  an  external  evaluation  study,  contracted  through  DG 
COMM  framework  contract  on  impact  assessment  and  evaluation  of  communication 
activities  with  reopening  of  competition.  The  work  was  carried  out  in  conformity  with 
the  DG  AGRI  procedure  for  the  organisation  and  management  of  policy  evaluations 
carried  out  by  external  contractors.  The  project  was  supervised  under  the  technical  as 
well  as  the  contractual  management  of  AGRI  unit  C.4  in  charge  of  Monitoring  and 
Evaluation. 

An  Inter-service  Steering  Group  (ISSG)  was  set  up  by 
the  Commission  on 
14 January 2020,  with  the  mandate  to  provide  information,  prepare  the  terms  of 
reference,  monitor  the  work  of  the  external  study  team,  discuss  and  give  advice  on  the 
approval of the final report, comment on the draft evaluation SWD. 

The ISSG was composed of the Secretariat-General of the Commission and DGs AGRI, 
COMM, SANTE, BUDG, CLIMA, ESTAT, MARE, OLAF and TRADE. The Steering 
Group started its meetings on 14 January 2020 and held 7 meetings.  

The evaluation roadmap was published on 11 March 2019 and set out the context, scope 
and aim of the exercise. The roadmap presented the questions to be addressed under the 
five  categories  of  effectiveness,  efficiency,  relevance,  coherence  and  EU  added  value. 
During the feedback period on the roadmap, 3 contributions were received. These did not 
require changes of the approach towards the evaluation. 

The  evaluation  support  study  carried  out  by  the  external  contractor  started  on 
12 December  2019.  The  final  deliverable  of  the  evaluation  study  was  received  on 
14 January 2021. This external evaluation support study provided the basis for this SWD. 

Exceptions to the better regulation guidelines 

A  derogation  was  granted  and  no  open  public  consultation  was  required  for  this 
evaluation. The extensive consultation carried out in the context of the study and the use 
of available Eurobarometer data replaced the open public consultation. 

Consultation of the RSB 

This evaluation was not subject to scrutiny by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board. 

46 

 
 
 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

A  number  of  consultation  activities  were  carried  out  at  different  points  in  time  for  the 
elaboration of the evaluation, including surveys and interview in the context of the study. 
Furthermore,  findings  of  relevant  Eurobarometer  surveys  were  used.  The  stakeholder 
surveys  made  in  the  context  of  the  study  covered  general  and  specific  measures.  To 
ensure  the  surveys  complemented  other  data  collection  methods  and  yielded  the  data 
required to answer key questions, they targeted different groups: 

-  For active stakeholders in the field of the CAP (main survey). 
-  For grant applicators (successful and unsuccessful; grant application survey). 
-  For members of the Ag-press network (Ag-press network survey). 
-  For users of the ‘CAP’ section of the EC website (website survey). 

All  of  the  surveys  were  disseminated  via  email  except  the  Ag-Press  network  survey, 
which was shared over Ag-press (DG AGRI) platform and newsletter. Key targets on the 
basis of the number of respondents of the consultations and the margin of error that stem 
from them were elaborated. 

Table 9. Number of ideal respondents per target and type of consultation 

Minimum target 

Intermediate target 

Ideal target 

Main survey 

Ag-Press network 
survey 

Grant applicant 
survey 

Website survey 

Source: Evaluation support study 

97 

88 

38 

97 

196 

165 

60 

196 

385 

280 

83 

385 

Main survey targeted at stakeholders active in the field of CAP, including beneficiaries, 
farming  associations  and  other  NGOs  as  well  as  public  authorities.  388  complete 
responses were received, as most of the responses missed some of the questions (596). 
Overall,  most  stakeholders  responded  very  positively  about  the  last  conference  they 
attended  that  was  organised  by  DG  AGRI  (Table  10),  and  their  perception  through  the 
survey was positive in most of the statements they were asked on. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 10. Rate of positive responses from stakeholders on their most recent experience 
of participating in a conference hosted by DG AGRI 

Participating in the conference was relevant for my work  

The conference was interesting  

I made new contacts during the conference  

I gained new information on the CAP and related topics during the conference  

92.68% 

92.02% 

84.15% 

87.80% 

I gained important information on the CAP and related topics during the conference  

82.32% 

My understanding of the CAP and related topics has increased  

My awareness of the relevance of EU support for agriculture and rural development has 
increased  

I now view the CAP more positively  

I have used information from the conference for my work  

The conference was well organised   

I have shared opinions or spoken positively about the conference to others  

I intend to participate in similar conferences in the future  

I can obtain similar information at other conferences  

Source: Adapted from the evaluation support study 

79.01% 

73.29% 

58.28% 

95.71% 

94.44% 

85.28% 

96.32% 

61.73% 

The Ag-Press network survey targeted at journalists members of the Ag-Press network. 
131 completed responses were received, reaching the minimum target. Ag-Press has been 
found  positively  relevant  (96%),  interesting  (97.6%)  by  media  workers,  represented 
mostly  by  specialized  agricultural  media  workers  (90,  71%  of  the  respondents). 
Respondents also showed that agricultural and CAP issues are not sufficiently covered in 
general  media43  (58%)  nor  it  is  easy  to  explain  to  the  general  public  (62.5%). 
Nevertheless,  respondents  considered  that  specialized  media  covers  it  sufficiently 
(73.6%) and its readers are capable of following it (69.8%). 

The website survey targeted at users of the CAP section of the European Commission’s 
website as well as relevant  pages under  “Food,  Farming,  Fisheries”. 611 full  responses 
were  received,  above  the  ideal  target.  Information  provided  to  respondents  proved 
successful  in  increasing  the  understanding  of  the  Common  agricultural  policy  (84%  of 
respondents,  485),  in  seeing  the  Common  agricultural  policy  more  positively  (63.1%, 
362) and in finding the European Union more positively (65.8%, 373). 

The  grant  applicant  survey  targeted  at  grant  applicants,  both  successful  and 
unsuccessful. 45 completed responses were received, reaching the minimum target. Same 
as  the  previous  cases,  the  perception  of  the  CAP  was  positive  on  its  effects  on  their 
organisations and society. This can be seen in Table 12. 

43 National, regional and local media of the respondents’ country. 

48 

 
 
                                                      
Table 11. Rate of positive responses from grant applicants 

The  guidance  provided  by  DG  AGRI  staff  during  the  implementation  of  the  project  was 
sufficient and helpful  

Project reporting requirements were clear  

The effort required for project reporting was appropriate  

All the procedures of the grant scheme ran efficiently  

Source: Adapted from the evaluation support study 

96.43% 

92.86% 

85.71% 

92.86% 

The results from  the stakeholder consultations and the other methodological  tools were 
assessed  against  the  results  of  the  Eurobarometer  to  guarantee  its  validity.  In  this 
instance,  the  analysis  of  the  evolution  of  the  perception  of  the  CAP  was done  with  the 
support of the Eurobarometer. Eurobarometer citizens’ surveys show that in 2013, 64% 
of citizens were aware of the CAP; 69% were aware of it in 2015; 67% in 2017; and 73% 
in 2020, which goes in line with the positive results of the surveys. Most of the citizens 
surveyed  agree  that  the  CAP  contributes  to  the  EU’s  top  priorities:  securing  a  stable 
supply  of  food  in  the  EU  (80%);  providing  safe,  healthy  food  of  high  quality  (72%); 
ensuring  a sustainable way to  produce  food (68%); ensuring reasonable  food prices for 
consumers  (65%);  protecting  the  environment  and  tackling  climate  change  (63%); 
ensuring a fair standard of living for farmers (62%); and creating growth and jobs in rural 
areas (58%), also in line with the results of the surveys, especially general one (showing 
its  representativeness).  Results  of  the  perception  have  increased  by  between  five  and 
eight percentage points since 2017, indicating a very positive trend. Also, 76% of citizens 
surveyed  in  2020  agreed  that  the  CAP  benefits  all  European  citizens  and  not  only 
farmers.  This  result  almost  reaches  the  level  seen  in  2013,  when  77%  of  citizens 
surveyed agreed that the CAP benefits all European citizens. This figure had decreased to 
62% in 2015, and to 61% in 2017, before going up again in 2020. 

49 

 
 
 
ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS 

The  methodological  approach  to  the  evaluation  combined  quantitative  and  mostly 
qualitative  analysis,  including  a  literature  review,  desk  research  analysis,  surveys, 
interviews and case studies, primarily as part of the external and independent evaluation 
support study carried out by the external consultant PPMI. The interviews included DG 
AGRI staff and with key stakeholders in the context of case studies  during the scoping 
phase. 

Desk  research  involved  reviewing  key  administrative  documents  relating  to  the 
implementation  of  grant  projects  and  the  Commission’s  own  initiatives.  National 
communication  actions  relating  to  the  CAP  in  the  Member  States  were  identified  and 
analysed. 

Interviews were performed on relevant stakeholders, mostly National (from ES, FR and 
PL),  Commission  officials  (Mostly  AGRI)  and  representative  associations,  socio-
economic interest groups, civil society organisations and trade unions represented in the 
CDGs. The number of interviews performed went, in most cases, over the targets set by 
the contractor, ensuring higher confidence in the results. 

To  ensure  the  stakeholder  surveys  (see  Annex  2:  stakeholder  consultation  for  more 
detailed  information)  were  representative,  a  target  confidence  level  was  set  of  95%  for 
the  main  survey,  the  Ag-Press  network  survey,  and  the  website  survey,  considered  an 
industry standard. For the grant applicant survey, a lower confidence level target of 85% 
was decided upon, due the smaller population of grant applicants. 

As part of the case study on website, usability testing was used to understand how users 
interact  with  the  CAP  related  sections  and  pages  within  the  class  ‘Food,  Farming, 
Fisheries’ on the European Commission’s website. The focus was made on the sections: 
‘Common  agricultural  policy’  and  its  children  pages;  ‘Farming’  and  its  sections  and 
pages. 

Another usability testing took place as part of the case study on the Teachers’ Resource 
Pack. The purpose was to understand how teachers interact with the Teachers’ Resource 
Pack  and  to  identify  successful  aspects,  potential  problems  and  solutions.  As  it  was 
mentioned  in  the  methodology  section,  41  teachers  (all  from  Western  Europe) 
participated and 5 different tests were performed. 

List of case studies selection 

The  selection  of  the  country  case  studies  was  made  so  they  represented  a  variety  of 
contexts  that  made  the  study  representative.  Furthermore,  it  was  also  based  on: 
agricultural data, as a share of GDP in each EU Member State in 2018; on the number of 
grants awarded between 2015 and 2018; share of population who are aware of the CAP 
(based  on  data  from  Eurobarometer);  and  to  proxy  for  the  negative  perceptions  of  the 
CAP, the share of population who believed the financial support given to farmers was too 
high  was  used.  The  list  of  country  case  studies  and  their  characteristics  can  be  seen 
below. 

50 

 
 
 
Table 12. Country case studies 

Country 

Characteristics 

Region 

Czechia 

- 

Below average number of grants implemented 

Eastern Europe 

-  Average share of agriculture as a % of GDP 

- 

Below average awareness of the CAP 

-  Above average negative perception of the CAP 

Germany 

-  Above average number of grants implemented 

Western Europe 

- 

Below average share of agriculture as a % of GDP 

-  Average awareness of the CAP 

-  Above average negative perception of the CAP 

Sweden 

-  No grants implemented 

Northern Europe 

- 

Below average share of agriculture as a % of GDP 

-  Above average awareness of the CAP 

-  Above average negative perception of the CAP 

Portugal 

-  Average number of grants implemented 

Southern Europe 

-  Average share of agriculture as a % of GDP 

-  Above average awareness of the CAP 

-  Average negative perception of the CAP 

Ireland 

-  Above average number of grants implemented 

Western Europe 

- 

- 

- 

Below average share of agriculture as a % of GDP 

Below average awareness of the CAP 

Below average negative perception of the CAP 

Source: Evaluation support study 

The selection of grant case studies was performed to achieve representativeness of the 
different  type  of  projects,  co-funding  level  and  geographical  coverage.  Overall,  the 
selection  of  case  studies  reflects  the  fact  that  many  of  the  projects  implemented  were 
information  campaigns  that  included  a  combination  of  communication  tools  to  achieve 
their  objectives.  Recently  completed  projects  were  selected  to  ensure  that  valuable 
feedback could  be  gained from  stakeholders; the selection focused on projects  between 
2017 and 2018. Variety was ensured in terms of scope, both financial and geographical; 
the  selection  included  projects  included  with  various  budgets,  implemented  within  a 
single country or across multiple countries. To avoid issues with data endogeneity, grant 
case  studies,  Commission  initiatives  case  studies  and  corporate  communication  case 

51 

 
 
studies  were  performed  in  different  countries  that  those  analysed  on  the  country  case 
studies that appear on Table 12.  

Table 13. Summary of grant case studies 

Type 

Events 

Focus 

Projects selected 

Events  for  one  of  the  key  target 
audiences  –  school  children  and 
teachers, and young people 

tomorrow’s 

‘Discovering 
(2018), 
implemented  in  Bulgaria  by  STRATEGMA  Agency 
Ltd  

leaders’ 

farm 

‘CAP  works  for  us!’  (2018),  implemented  in  Bulgaria 
by AgriGate Media Ltd  

Audio-visual 
production 

Projects  focused  on  producing 
audio-visual 
and 
materials 

promoting 

‘The  Young  Farmers  Engine  for  CAP  2020’  (2017), 
implemented  by  RTV  Slovenija  in  three  countries 
(Slovenia, Croatia, Finland)  

Information 
campaigns 

organisation 

that 
An 
implemented 
information 
measures  on  multiple  occasions 
(continuity of actions) 

‘ALOE:  Agriculture  Link  Occitani-Europe’  (2017), 
implemented in France by Groupe La Dépêche du Midi  

‘GAIA CAP’ (2016), implemented in Greece by GAIA  

‘Support for information measures relating to the CAP 
for 2017’, implemented in Greece by GAIA  

‘CAP  forward’  (2019),  implemented  in  Greece  by 
GAIA (covered to the extent allowed by the data on this 
project that is already available)  

Information 
campaigns 

Projects  with  a  wide  variety  of 
activities (internal coherence) 

‘AHEAD  FOR  CAP  -  awareness  raising  campaign  for 
CAP’ (2017), implemented in Bulgaria by Economedia  

Information 
campaigns 

Web/TV-based campaigns only 

‘More  than  farming’  (2018),  implemented  in  Spain  by 
La Vanguardia Ediciones S.L.U.  

‘#ReConnect Farmers and Nature’ (2018), implemented 
in Belgium by Natuurpunt vzw  

‘La  PAC  pour  tous  les  citoyens’  (2017),  implemented 
by  France  Médias  Monde  in  France,  Romania  and  the 
France24 international network. 

Information 
campaigns 

Information  campaigns  with  a 
strong focus on events 

‘CAP  it  ALL  off!’  (2017),  implemented  in  Cyprus  by 
Opinion and Action  

‘Parlez-vous PAC?’ (2018), implemented in France by 
Fédération Française des Maisons de l'Europe  

Source: Evaluation support study 

52 

 
 
 
 
Table 14. Summary of Commission’s own initiative and corporate communication case 
studies 

Type 

Focus 

Projects selected / scope 

Methods 

Social media 

DG  AGRI  social 
media campaigns 

Little Patch / Teachers pack (2018) 

Desk research 

EU Quality scheme (2018) 

Future of CAP (2018) 

Future of CAP (2017) 

The CAP in one word (2017) 

DG  AGRI  website 
europa.eu 
at 
(content, 
design, 
navigation) 

DG  AGRI  website:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-
farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-
policy_en 

Social 
analysis 

media 

Interviews 

Desk research 

Interviews 
(usability testing) 

Website survey 

Conferences 
organised  by  DG 
AGRI 

Fairs  visited  by 
DG AGRI 

EU Agricultural Outlook Conference  

Desk research 

Salon International de l’Agriculture (SIA) fair 

Interviews 

AU EU Ministerial Conference on 21 June 2019 

Participant 
observation 

Website 

Events 

Ag-Press 
network 

Journalists’  study 
trips 

Study  trips  and  seminars  implemented  during  the 
evaluation period 

Desk research 

Interviews 

Qualitative 
content analysis 

Teachers’ 
resource pack 

Teachers’ resource 
pack  prepared  by 
AGRI 
DG 
(usability) 

Corporate 
communication 

Corporate 
communication 
campaigns 

Source: Evaluation support study 

Teachers’ 
pack: 
https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/teachers-pack/index_en 

resource 

Desk research 

Interviews 
(usability testing) 

Invest EU, rural campaign, EU and Me 

Desk research 

Interviews 

53