REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the common monitoring and evaluation framework including an assessment of the performance of the common agricultural policy 2014-2020
Date: 2021-12-16
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: agricultural performance, agricultural situation, climate change policy, common agricultural policy, farming sector, food production, management of resources, natural resources, rural development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 16.12.2021  COM(2021) 815 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of the common monitoring and evaluation framework including an assessment of the performance of the common agricultural policy                                                 2014-2020  {SWD(2021) 387 final}  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This  report  summarises  the  performance  of  the  common  agriculture  policy  (CAP)  during 
2014-2020. Since it coincides with the approval  of the CAP for 2023-20271, this report will 
underpin  the  assessment  of  CAP  strategic  plans.  It  will  also  feed  into  the  debate  on  future 
policy  developments,  including  on  the  challenges  and  ambitions  stemming  from  the  Green 
Deal. It complements the 2018 report on the common monitoring and evaluation framework 
(CMEF) (COM/2018/790 final). 

The report, supported by a staff working document with facts and figures, is based on a set of 
indicators, evaluations and experience drawn from the CMEF. 

2. 

1.1.  Indicators  

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMON MONITORING AND 
EVALUATION FRAMEWORK  

Indicators  are  used  to  monitor  CAP  implementation  at  EU  and  Member  State  level.  They 
underpin the assessment of the accountability and efficiency of EU expenditure, and support 
evaluations. The CMEF includes more than 200 indicators and around 900 sub-indicators. 

Since 2018, the  European  Commission  publishes thematic  and  context  indicator dashboards 
on its agri-food data portal CAP Indicators, with dynamic visuals and access to the underlying 
data. 

This  includes  data  on  output  and  results  in  the  annual  reporting  on  CAP  implementation 
(collected  by  Member  States)  and  data  monitoring  the  context  in  which  the  CAP  operates 
using statistics (mainly from Eurostat). Data periodicity differs depending on the source. 

1.2.  Evaluations  

for  decision-making  and  strengthen 

Evaluations  are  the  main  tool  to  assess  the  policy’s  tangible  results  and  impacts2.  They 
provide  evidence 
learning  and 
accountability.  From  2014  to  2020,  the  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural 
Development  conducted  more  than  20  thematic  evaluations  on  various  aspects  of  the  CAP. 
The  evaluations  drew  on  the  preparatory  work  (support  studies)  carried  out  by  independent 
external contractors and insight from multiple stakeholder consultations. 

transparency, 

Member  States’  interim  evaluations  of  their  2014-2020  rural  development  programmes  also 
provided  comprehensive  information  for  this  report.  Their  ex post  evaluations,  due  in  2026, 
will provide input to the continuous assessment of CAP performance. 

1.3.  Experience drawn from the CMEF  

From 2014, the CMEF was extended beyond rural development to cover – for the first time – 
the whole policy. This highlighted several strengths: 

 

indicators generally give comprehensive coverage of different policy areas; 

1  See  Strategic  Plans  Regulation  (Regulation  (EU)  2021/2115)  and  Horizontal  Regulation  (Regulation  (EU) 

2021/2116). 

2  See Better Regulation: why and how. 

1 

 
 
                                                      
  new  indicators  were  developed  (e.g.  on  geographical  indications)  resulting  from  a 

continuous needs assessment; 

  data quality improved, as a result of increased automation and interoperability, timely 
dissemination and new dashboards, including query and download functionalities. 

However, there were also some shortcomings in the framework, not all linked to the CAP: 

 

the  impact  indicators  on  biodiversity  (e.g.  farmland  bird  index)  and  water  (e.g. 
abstraction)  were  incomplete  and  of  low  quality  due  to  the  lack  of  a  legal  basis  for 
data collection or reliance on voluntary surveys; 

  difficulty to use the existing indicators to quantify the impact of the CAP on climate 

change mitigation and adaptation; 

 

 

 

low frequency: for some indicators, data is available only every four to six years, with 
lags between collection and publication; 

low level of geographical detail for certain indicators; 

insufficiently structured  and detailed information on Member States’ implementation 
choices, cross-compliance (uptake by hectare non available), environmental practices 
and LEADER.  

The  evaluations  were  based  on  a  sound  and  rigorous  methodological  approach,  including 
quantitative  and  qualitative  analyses.  Member  States  needed  to  learn  how  to  generate 
evidence  to  make  the  policy  more  result-oriented.  Nevertheless,  there  were  only  quantified 
targets  for  rural  development  expenditure.  Most  evaluations  were  not  able  to  quantify  the 
CAP’s contribution to impact  indicators due  to data limitations, the  time lag before impacts 
materialise, external factors and the difficulty in establishing causality. 

3. 

ASSESSMENT OF THE CAP OVER THE PERIOD 2014-2020   

1.4.  Viable food production   

Farm income 

Between 2013 and 2019, the average EU factor income3 per worker increased by 15% in real 
terms. This increase was mainly due to major gains in labour productivity, mostly as a result 
of an outflow of labour from the agricultural sector. 

The  CAP  as  a  whole  has  helped  support  and  stabilise  farm  income.  Market  measures  have 
helped  limit  domestic  price  volatility  of  most  agricultural  products  and  facilitated  price 
recovery in sectors affected by a market crisis. Since 2014, EU price volatility has been lower 
than  prices  for  all  products  on  the  international  market  (except  butter  and  skimmed  milk 
powder  in  recent  years).  Direct  income  support  –  representing  around  25%  of  EU  factor 
income  (2014-2018  average)  and  reaching  over  6 million  beneficiaries  (2019)  –  enabled 
farmers to cope better with the fall in income caused by falls in agricultural prices.  

3 Agricultural factor income (Eurostat) measures the income derived from agricultural activities that can be used 

for the remuneration of own and rented production factors: labour, land and capital. 

2 

 
 
                                                      
Risk management tools can help farmers mitigate these drops in income, but the CAP played 
a small role in incentivising farmers to use these tools.  

Distribution of CAP support 

20% of CAP beneficiaries receive 80% of direct payments, which has raised questions about 
the fairness of the distribution of direct payments. However, this ratio essentially mirrors the 
distribution  (and  in  some  Member  States  the  concentration)  of  land  ownership;  most  large 
beneficiaries  are  family  farms  of  between  20  and  100  hectares  and  receive  more  than 
EUR 7 500. About half of all beneficiaries are very small farms, with less than 5 hectares. 

The  2014-2020  CAP  resulted  in  a  significant  redistribution  of  direct  payments  to  smaller 
farmers  and  to  areas  facing  natural  constraints.  Between  2017  and  2019,  the  payments  per 
hectare to farmers in the smallest category (producing under EUR 8 000 of standard output) 
increased by 18% compared to between 2011 and 2013. 

Direct payments and rural development support represent close to 50% of farmers’ income in 
mountain areas and CAP funding helps to make farms viable in the most remote rural areas. 
Nevertheless, the high level of total income support in mountain areas does not compensate 
fully for the income gap with non-mountain areas. 

An  analysis  of  income  and  distribution  of  direct  payments  by  income  shows  room  for 
improvement in targeting the support to those who need it most. In certain cases, the policy 
has had too limited an effect on reducing disparities between regions in a Member State, on 
the  gradual  reduction  of  payments,  and  on  capping  the  level  of  payments  per  farm.  Direct 
payments received by smaller farms remain below or just around the national average income 
in  a  number  of  Member  States.  In  addition,  there  is  no  proof  that  the  current  provisions 
targeting support to active farmers have been effective. 

Sometimes  poor  working  conditions  for  seasonal  workers  in  agriculture  have  led  to  calls  to 
make  CAP  payments  conditional  on  compliance  with  legislation  on  working  conditions. 
Although the gap between agricultural income and the average wage in  the whole economy 
has  narrowed,  it  remains  considerable.  This  undermines  the  attractiveness  of  farming  as  an 
occupation and it reduces generational renewal. 

Competitiveness and productivity 

The  CAP  continued  to  make  a  significant  contribution  to  food  security  by  achieving 
productivity gains and resilience in trade markets.  

The total factor productivity of EU agriculture increased by 6% from 2013 to 2019 (EU-27). 
The  CAP  supported  significant  labour  productivity  gains  (+24%  from  2013  to  2020).  By 
increasing  the  relative  amount  of  capital  available  for  farms  and  thus  boosting  their 
competitiveness, support for farm investments had an indirect positive effect on farm income.  

The  CAP  also  provided  support  to  improve  supply  chain  organisation,  with  the  number  of 
recognised  producer  organisations  and  associations  of  producer  organisations  being  7% 
higher in 2020 than 2016 and the share of fruit and vegetables production marketed by these 
organisations growing by 2.3 percentage points between 2014 and 2019 (to 45.6%). 

The EU accounted for 18% of  global agri-food  exports in  2019.  External  factors (including 
the Russian import ban on EU products) weakened to some extent the competitive position of 

3 

 
 
the EU’s agricultural farm sector in most of the years from 2014 to 2020, but EU agri-food 
trade  displayed  a  strong  degree  of  resilience.  Since  2018,  the  EU’s  competitive  position 
improved slightly, adding one percentage point to the EU’s share of world exports. 

EU  exports  mainly  consist  of  high  value  added  products,  underpinned  by  the  guaranteed 
quality  and  reputation  of  products  certified  by  EU  quality  schemes.  This  provides  a  clear 
economic  benefit  for  producers  in  terms  of  marketing  and  increased  sales.  Support  for 
promotion  programmes  was  effective  in  raising  the  awareness  and  profile  of  EU  products, 
particularly in markets with the highest growth potential. Sectoral policies were also effective 
in  promoting  competitiveness,  with  the  EU’s  wine  policy  playing  a  key  role  in  shifting  the 
sector’s focus from quantity to competitiveness and quality.  

Fair competition and openness 

The EU market increasingly opened up between 2014 and 2020. Agri-food imports increased 
and the EU market remained the number one importer from less developed countries. 

Marketing  standards  have  been  successful  in  creating  a  level  playing  field  for  producers  of 
agricultural products.  

State aid rules for the agricultural sector helped ensure that the positive effects of State aid on 
beneficiaries, and above all on the public policies concerned, outweigh the negative effects on 
competition  and  trade.  The  effects  of  voluntary  coupled  support  on  farmers'  decisions  and 
agricultural  production  have  not  generated  distortions  of  competition,  with  a  few,  limited 
exceptions. 

Quality and labelling  

The  CAP  has  helped  supply  the  EU  market  with  standardised  and  guaranteed  quality 
products,  giving  consumers  value  for  money.  The  estimated  total  sales  value  of  products 
under  geographical  indications  or  traditional  specialities  guaranteed  schemes  amounted  to 
EUR 77 billion in the EU-28 in 2017, accounting for 7% of total food and drink sales.  

CAP  measures  have  been  effective  in  providing  useful  and  transparent  information  to 
consumers on quality and organic labels and on the origin of agricultural products. However, 
there is room to improve consumer understanding of EU labelling rules and quality schemes 
and  to  make  marketing  standards  more  consistent  with  evolving  public  concerns  on  health, 
nutrition, environment and climate.  

1.5.  Sustainable management of natural resources and climate action  

Sustainable management of natural resources 

The  CAP  provides  an  extensive  level  of  ‘baseline  protection’  for  the  environment  via 
mandatory  cross-compliance  (on  84%  of  the  EU’s  agricultural  land  in  2019)  and  greening 
obligations  (80%,  up  from  76%  in  2015).  It  then  provides  for  more  targeted  but  voluntary 
commitments  under  rural  development  (12-15%  for  agri-environment-climate  measures  and 
3-5%  for  organic  farming)4.  The  CAP’s  income  support  and  support  for  areas  with  natural 

4  Organic farming, compared to conventional farming, resulted in a mean increase of 34% in the abundance and 

richness of species, and a mean increase of 23.5% in soil carbon stocks (kgC/ha) for cropland.  

4 

 
 
                                                      
handicaps  help  prevent  land  abandonment,  slow  down  intensification  and  specialisation  of 
farming systems and maintain crop diversification and permanent grasslands5.  

All farms receive basic payments, irrespective of their degree of input use. As a result, these 
payments  are  often  perceived  as  conflicting  with  the  sustainable  management  of  natural 
resources.  The  facts  do  not  always  support  this  perception.  By  decoupling  support  from 
production  and  linking  it  to  compliance  with  standard  environmental  and  climate  practices, 
basic payments are not an incentive to increase production intensity. Proof of this is the level 
of direct payments per hectare received by the 10% most intensive farms, which fell by 12% 
to  EUR 451 per hectare  (between  2017  and  2019)  compared  to  the  level  prior  to  the  CAP 
reform from 2011 to 2013. By contrast, direct payments increased by 23% for the 10% most 
extensive EU farmers, to EUR 154 per hectare. At EUR 1 900, direct payments per worker on 
the  most  intensive  farms  are  almost 78%  lower  than  for  the  most  extensive  farms 
(EUR 7 700).  

The cross-compliance mechanism makes CAP payments conditional on respecting a basic set 
of  rules  stemming  from  environmental  (and  other)  EU  legislation  and  good  agri-
environmental practice established under the CAP. Consequently, the CAP helps enforce the 
implementation  of  existing  legislation  relevant  for  the  environment,  with  notable  exception 
for soil, as this is not covered by specific EU legislation.  

The new greening scheme brought in by the 2013 CAP reform tried to tackle this issue with 
an  additional  incentive,  linking  30%  of  direct  support  to  practices  conducive  to  sustainable 
management  of  natural  resources.  ‘Greening’  was  successful  in  preventing  further 
environmental  damage,  but  the  incentive  to  change  farming  practices  (in  particular  the 
obligation  to  diversify  crops  or  to  maintain  ecological  focus  areas)  was  not  relevant  for  all 
farmers.  Although  the  greening  scheme  had  the  potential  to  promote  environmental  and 
climate practices, the choices  made by Member States and farmers did not fully  unlock this 
potential.  

Given  their  tailored  and  targeted  design,  voluntary  measures  under  rural  development  were 
the  most  effective 
in  encouraging  sustainable  management  of  natural  resources. 
Implementation choices greatly influenced the overall impact of these measures. Furthermore, 
their  uptake  by  farmers  and  foresters  was  limited,  notably  due  to  complex  eligibility 
conditions  and  premiums  that  are  too  low  to  stimulate  change,  particularly  in  certain 
productive  areas.  Agri-environment-climate  commitments  supported  practices  that  limit  the 
loss  of  soil  organic  matter,  foster  soil  biodiversity  and  reduce  soil  pollution  (even  though 
reduced tillage on arable land was limited to specific areas). 

By 2019, 8% of EU agricultural land was under organic farming. 66% of this land is farmed 
with CAP support. Organic farming clearly produces benefits for biodiversity, soil and water, 
climate  mitigation  and  animal  welfare,  while  reducing  the  use  of  chemical  pesticides  and 
antimicrobials.  

5  Also highlighted in Scenar 2030 - Pathways for the European agriculture and food sector beyond 2020, which 
assessed the implication of a counterfactual ‘no CAP’ scenario on land use and the environment (among other 
aspects).  This  showed  that  without  CAP,  land  abandonment  (including  grassland)  would  be  higher  (with  a 
reduction of 6.9% in utilised agricultural area and 8.8% in grassland area).  

5 

 
 
                                                      
Many external factors affect the environment and it takes time to see the results of measures. 
This  makes it  very difficult to  assess  the net  impact  of the  CAP  over the  2014-2020 period 
and  thus  the  causality  between  implemented  measures  and  results.  The  lack  of  relevant 
indicators  makes  estimating  the  overall  contribution  of  the  CAP  to  biodiversity  and 
landscapes more difficult (e.g. although the decline on the farmland bird index slowed down, 
it is not clear to what extent the loss in biodiversity can be attributed to the CAP). The CAP 
has  great  potential  to  promote  practices  that  improve  soil  and  water  quality  and  reduce 
pesticide and fertiliser use on a significant share of EU arable land. The  policy’s significant 
contribution to durable changes in farmers’ practices by promoting catch, cover and nitrogen-
fixing crops demonstrates this. 

Climate change and greenhouse gas emissions 

In  the  CAP  covering  the  period  2014-2020,  Member  States  gave  climate  mitigation  and 
adaptation only a small budget and a low priority.  

EU greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture have fallen by more than 20% since 1990, but 
they  have  stagnated  since  2010.  While  reducing  total  emissions  in  agriculture  remains 
essential  to  achieve  the  EU’s  climate  objectives,  it  is  worth  highlighting  the  significant 
increase in output efficiency (i.e. lower emissions per unit of output): agricultural production 
has  increased  by  9%  since  2010.  This  strengthens  the  resilience  of  the  sector  and  food 
security.  

The  CAP  does  more  to  reduce  emissions  from  managed  agricultural  soils  than  it  does  for 
livestock emissions. However, the debate on reducing livestock emissions cannot be narrowed 
down  to  reducing  livestock  numbers.  Ruminants  maintain  marginal  land,  which  often  helps 
carbon sequestration in extensive production systems. Improvement in livestock management 
must  go  hand  in  hand  with  reduced  consumption  and  more  sustainable  diets  to  effectively 
decrease  livestock  emissions,  while  decreasing  the  risk  of  carbon  leakage  effects  (such  as 
increased imports from countries producing with a higher climate footprint).   

Analysis  indicates  that  measures  to  mitigate  climate  change  mainly  require  extensive 
livestock grazing systems, feed optimisation, manure treatment including anaerobic digestion, 
and  maintaining  carbon  stocks  by  preserving  permanent  grassland.  The  main  contribution 
from  arable  systems  is  to  provide  support  for  nitrogen-fixing  crops  (e.g.  ecological  focus 
areas  or  coupled  support  for  protein  crops),  land  management  to  protect  and  increase  soil 
carbon stocks, and changes to N2O emissions from soil and manure. Protecting high-carbon 
soils  in  extensively  farmed  areas  is  particularly  important,  as  the  CAP  has  achieved  fewer 
reductions  in  intensive  grassland  or  arable  farms.  This  means  that  there  is  great  focus  on 
carbon sequestration. 

Although  very  few  rural  development  programmes  explicitly  refer  to  climate  adaptation, 
several CAP measures play part in it. The support it provides for crop diversity and farming 
systems, to invest in adaptation to new climate conditions, to limit soil erosion and improve 
resilience  to  floods  are  all  of  great  importance  given  the  rising  number  of  extreme  events 
affecting agriculture.  

However,  overall,  Member  States  have  not  fully  used  the  CAP’s  adaptation  tools  available 
(e.g. cross-compliance). Over the programming period, the percentage of irrigated land across 
the EU that farmers switched over to more efficient irrigation systems was very limited. There 

6 

 
 
is also scope to do more to spread knowledge and advise farmers on techniques and practices 
to improve climate performance.  

Overall,  the  CAP  provides  a  wide  range  of  tools  for  sustainable  management  of  natural 
resources and climate action, but Member States did not seize all opportunities to improve the 
environmental sustainability of farming and to  step up  climate action. The  CAP  could  have 
been more effective with a more strategic approach, more targeted measures and funding, and 
if beneficiaries had been more ambitious in implementation rather than minimising changes. 

Nevertheless,  the  CAP  did  provide  EU  added  value  by  raising  ambition  and  laying  down 
minimum spending levels for this general objective. 

1.6.  Balanced territorial development  

Generational renewal  

The  decline  in  the  labour  force  in  EU  agriculture  has  slowed  down  from  -3.8%  per  year 
between  2005  and  2011  to  -1.4%  per  year  between  2011  and  2019.  Employment  reached 
9.1 million full-time equivalents by the end of 2019. The ageing farming population is one of 
the top challenges facing EU rural areas, as only 11% of EU farmers are under 40 years old 
(2016). 

The  CAP  has  facilitated  generational  renewal  by  supporting  the  economic  sustainability  of 
jobs.  However,  it  is  insufficient  on  its  own  to  remove  the  main  entry  barriers  to  farming, 
which are access to land and capital and the attractiveness of working and living conditions of 
rural areas.  

The CAP provides financial support to young farmers and guarantees to banks. Nevertheless, 
access  to  credit  alone  does  not  free  up  the  land,  and  in  some  regions,  land  prices  are  very 
high.  Moreover,  in  some  regions,  CAP  income  support  may  have  slowed  down  inter-
generational  farm  transfer  and  land  release,  because  it  can  compensate  for  insufficient 
national pension systems. Other negative factors – including socio-cultural factors and wider 
economic disincentives to farm and to live in rural areas – dwarf the impact of the CAP. 

CAP spill-over effects on rural areas 

CAP support mainly targets farming, but evidence shows the significant spill-over effects on 
the wider rural economy, notably because it boosts local spending and provides employment. 
The agri-food sector provides 40 million jobs in rural areas. In addition, despite the low share 
of  funding,  CAP  support  can  be  key  to  improve  infrastructure,  services  and  connectivity, 
especially in remote areas. 

The CAP helps slow the rate of depopulation and land abandonment in the EU. It also plays a 
social  role  and  the  distribution  of  CAP  support  is  very  inclusive  (with  half  of  recipients 
receiving less than EUR 1 250 per  year). Agriculture and the CAP  significantly help reduce 
poverty in rural areas. 

7 

 
 
1.7.  Knowledge transfer and innovation  

The knowledge exchange, advice and innovation measures taken in 2014-2020 under the CAP 
had  a  low  programming  rate  (3.5%  of  the  rural  development  allocation),  then  delayed 
implementation  (also  due  to  the  administrative  burden6)  and  thus  low  spending  (with  only 
23% of the planned amounts spent after six years). The measures reached approximately 10% 
of farm holdings and were effective in building knowledge, in particular on cross-compliance 
and environmental sustainability.  

The level of basic training increased from 12% in 2010 to 23% in 2016, but remains too low 
to address the challenges for farmers of ensuring food security while bolstering environmental 
care and climate action.  

The same groups of farmers continue to participate in training, which means that it is difficult 
to  reach  out  to  the  wider  community  and  important  to  increase  peer-to-peer  learning. 
Agricultural  advice  is  an  essential  lever  to  change  farming  practice,  but  providing  qualified 
and  impartial  advisory  services  remains  an  important  issue.  There  is  also  a  need  to  update 
advisers’ knowledge and skills.  

The  European  innovation  partnership  for  agricultural  productivity  and  sustainability  (EIP-
AGRI)  had  a  positive  impact  thanks  to  the  use  of  the  interactive  innovation  model.  This 
makes  the  best  use  of  different  types  of  knowledge  (practical,  scientific,  technical  and 
organisational) and involves users of the project results. The partnership had resulted in 2 085 
completed operational groups (i.e. local interactive innovation projects) by September 2021. 

There  is  room  to  use  CAP  tools  more  strategically,  to  find  more  synergies  and  to  build  on 
well-established structures for knowledge exchange and advice in some Member States. 

4. 

TOWARDS A PERFORMANCE-BASED CAP 

1.8.  Lessons learned for the next period of the CAP, 2023-2027  

In 2021, the European Parliament and the Council agreed on a new design for the CAP that 
draws many lessons from the previous policy during the 2014-2020 period.  

Climate and biodiversity feature prominently among the new CAP’s 10 specific objectives. A 
new focus on food, health and animal welfare factors in the challenges of food systems. For 
the  next  period,  the  policy  seeks  to  modernise  practice  by  facilitating  knowledge  exchange, 
innovation and digitalisation, which underpin all CAP objectives across the three dimensions 
of sustainability (economic, environmental and social). 

Under  the  new  CAP,  each  Member  State  must  integrate  all  tools  in  a  single  plan  (the  CAP 
strategic plan) and anchor them in evidence. The new CAP largely discontinues the one-size-
fits-all  approach  of  direct  support.  Member  States  have  more  flexibility  to  design  and 
combine the policy tools. To ensure sufficient environmental and climate action, generational 
renewal and redistribution, a share of EU-level support is earmarked for these specific areas. 

6  During  the  programming  period,  the  Omnibus  Regulation  (Regulation  (EU)  2017/2393)  removed  the 

constraints on public procurement.  

8 

 
 
                                                      
Parliament  and  the  Council  have  lifted  certain  limitations  of  the  2014-2020  policy  for  the 
sustainable  management  of  natural  resources  and  greenhouse  gas  emissions.  Parliament  and 
the  Council  have  strengthened  aspects  of  the  basic  requirements  for  CAP  payments,  filling 
gaps on the protection of carbon stocks, high-diversity landscape features and soil protection. 
There is greater scope for voluntary action with eco-schemes under direct payments, adding to 
the  long-standing  rural  development  tool,  and  with  more  flexible  premiums  to  stimulate  a 
sufficient  scale  of  uptake.  These  changes  should  persuade  farmers  to  engage  in  sustainable 
agriculture  instead  of  telling  them  how.  However,  their  value  will  depend  on  the  quality  of 
action  financed.  Reducing  the  administrative  burden  and  simplifying  procedures  will  be 
important  to  improve  outreach  and  uptake  too.  Strong  links  with  EU  legislation  and  an 
obligation for Member States to demonstrate a higher level of ambition in their national plans 
than they did in the previous period are additional safeguards.   

Food  security  remains  a  political  priority.  To  ensure  that  farmers  are  able  to  produce  food 
everywhere in the EU, direct support continues to be a relatively efficient tool to support farm 
income in a market-oriented system. Parliament and the Council have agreed to a mandatory 
redistribution of 10% of Member States’ direct payments to smaller farms. However, reducing 
and  capping  large  amounts  of  direct  support  to  the  same  beneficiary  remains  voluntary  for 
Member States. The criteria governing who may claim direct payments are also quite wide.  

Mindful of the evaluations and increasing societal concerns, CAP support will – for the first 
time – be linked to farmers respecting EU basic social and labour rights of farm workers.  

Increasing  the  attractiveness  of  rural  areas  requires  integrating  this  policy  with  national 
policies.  In  particular,  the  policy  for  generational  renewal  in  agriculture  must  be  based  on 
such an integrated approach, aided by substantial CAP funding. 

Agricultural  policy  must  also  be  part  of  a  larger  food  system  transformation  to  achieve  the 
objectives  promoted  in  the  Farm  to  Fork  strategy.  Similarly,  the  long-term  vision  for  rural 
areas  contains  the  many  lessons  learned  on  territorial  development.  This,  in  turn,  provides 
additional input to the new CAP.  

The  new  legal  framework  is  a  solid  foundation  but  the  quality  and  implementation  of  the 
strategic  plans  from  2023  onwards  will  be  decisive  in  turning  the  goals  into  reality.  The 
Commission’s 2020 recommendations set out the key areas on which the plans should focus, 
factoring  in  the  objectives  of  the  Green  Deal  strategies.  The  year  2022  will  be  another 
milestone in this process with the Commission’s assessment and approval of these plans.  

1.9.  New performance, monitoring and evaluation framework 

The new performance and evaluation framework has fewer indicators, streamlined across all 
areas  and  funding  sources.  The  framework  covers  all  objectives  with  quantified  targets  for 
result  indicators,  enabling  improved  tracking.  Result  indicators  create  links  between  an  EU 
action and its purpose(s) to measure progress in achieving the CAP strategic plan targets. This 
provides  a  good  indication  of  annual  progress  of  CAP  performance,  but  to  assess  the  real 
policy impact, the Commission also uses in-depth evaluations.  

The new CAP contains several improvements to increase overall data quality: better reliance 
on  Member  State  notifications  and  statistics;  new  indicators  on  biodiversity,  pesticides  and 
animal health; and a new satellite area monitoring system to increase the reliability of output 

9 

 
 
indicators.  There  will  be  more  detailed  data  collection  on  farming  practices  and  better 
underlying knowledge to clarify causal links between objectives and impact-result indicators. 
The new CAP aims to limit the burden on farmers and administrations by exploring ways to 
improve data sharing. 

For future evaluations, the first data on 2023-2027 CAP implementation will only be available 
in 2025. Given the difficulty to reconcile the policy cycle with the time needed to collect data 
– including time for the  effects  of EU  action to  materialise – it is  important  to  take a long-
term  approach  to  data  availability  and  the  contribution  of  evaluations  to  the  performance 
assessment. 

5. 

CONCLUSIONS   

Between 2014-2020, measures taken under the CAP have provided economic, environmental, 
social and political EU added value. In particular, this has included:  

  supporting  a  fair  standard  of  living  for  farmers  and  addressing  needs  in  rural  areas, 
notably  in  remote  and  low  population  density  areas,  thus  strengthening  regional  and 
social cohesion; 

  ensuring a stable, safe and healthy food supply; 

  providing clear food information to EU consumers; 

  enhancing  environmental  protection  and  climate  action  by  raising  standards  and 

encouraging change.  

However, the CAP must do more to support the sustainability of EU agriculture, in line with 
the European Green Deal and its farm-to-fork strategy. In particular, it must contribute more 
to the environmental objectives and the higher climate ambition enshrined in the EU Climate 
Law.  The  2021  CAP  reform  will  enable  significant  contribution  to  achieving  these  more 
ambitious goals.  

10