COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of the CAP`s impact on knowledge exchange and advisory activities
Date: 2022-05-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, agricultural advisory services, agricultural performance, aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy, consultancy, forestry policy, innovation, rural development, sustainable development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 2.5.2022  SWD(2022) 137 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  of the CAP`s impact on knowledge exchange and advisory activities {SWD(2022) 138 final}  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................. 2 

1. 

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

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ........................................................... 4 

2.1.  Description of the policy and its objectives ...................................................... 4 

2.2.  Baseline and points of comparison .................................................................... 8 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION/STATE OF PLAY ................................................................ 10 

3.1.  Farm Advisory System (FAS) ......................................................................... 10 

3.2.  Knowledge exchange and advice .................................................................... 10 

3.3.  EIP-AGRI ........................................................................................................ 11 

4.  METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 12 

4.1.  Short description of methodology ................................................................... 12 

4.2.  Limitations and robustness of findings ........................................................... 13 

5.  ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 15 

5.1.  Efficiency ........................................................................................................ 15 

5.2.  Effectiveness ................................................................................................... 27 

5.3  Coherence ........................................................................................................ 36 

5.4  Relevance ........................................................................................................ 39 

5.5  EU added value ............................................................................................... 43 

6  CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED ....................................................... 48 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ................................................................ 52 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ........................................................... 53 

ANNEX 3: METHODS AND ANALYTICAL MODELS ............................................... 61 

ANNEX 4: GLOSSARY OF TERMS .............................................................................. 65 

ANNEX 5: INTERVENTION LOGIC ............................................................................. 70 

ANNEX  6:  SHARE  IN  TOTAL  RURAL  DEVELOPMENT  PROGRAMMES 

SPENDING ............................................................................................................... 72 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

AIR 

AKIS 

CAP 

EAFRD 

EC 

EIP-AGRI 

EU 

FAS 

M1 

M2 

M3 

M4 

M6 

M10 

M11 

M12 

M13 

M16 

M19 

SCAR 

Annual Implementation Report 

Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems 

Common Agricultural Policy 

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 

European Commission 

European 
Sustainability 

Innovation  Partnership 

European Union 

for  Agricultural  productivity  and 

Farm Advisory System (Articles 12 to 14 of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013) 

Knowledge transfer and information action (pillar II measure) 

Advisory  services,  farm  management  and  farm  relief  services  (pillar  II 
measure) 

Quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (pillar II measure) 

Investments in physical assets (pillar II measure) 

Farm and business development (pillar II measure) 

Agri-environment-climate (pillar II measure) 

Organic farming (pillar II measure) 

Natura 2000 and Water Framework Directive payments (pillar II measure) 

Payments  to  areas  facing  natural  or  other  specific  constraints  (pillar  II 
measure) 

Cooperation (pillar II measure) 

Support for LEADER local development (CLLD) (pillar II measure) 

Standing Committee for Agricultural Research 

2 

 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Purpose and scope 

The  2014-2020  Common  Agricultural  Policy  (CAP)  contains  instruments  and  measures  to 
foster knowledge exchange, advisory activities, and innovation in the agricultural and forestry 
sectors and in rural areas. The aim is to make the policy more viable, sustainable and inclusive 
by informing and advising farmers.  

Under Article 34 of the Financial Regulation1 applicable to the general budget of the European 
Union,  the  EU  knowledge  exchange,  advisory  activities  and  innovation  policy  is  subject  to 
periodical evaluations. The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the effectiveness, efficiency, 
relevance, coherence and EU added value of these CAP measures. 

The  evaluation  covers 
Regulations (EU) No 1305/20132, No 1306/20133, No 1308/20134, and No 1307/20135.  

relevant  measures  and 

instruments  established  under 

the 

The geographical coverage of the evaluation is EU-28, including the United Kingdom, as it was 
a member of the EU for the evaluated period 2014-20206.  

The evaluation period covers CAP instruments and measures from 2014 onwards. The situation 
in the previous programming period (2007-2013) was taken as a reference period. 

The  evaluation  is  underpinned  by  the  support  study  on  the  CAP’s  impact  on  knowledge 
exchange and advisory activities, published in February 2021 (the ‘support study’)7 and takes 
into account additional data and information.  

1   Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the 

financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union; OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 1–222. 

2   Regulation  (EU)  No 1305/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17 December  2013  on 
support  for  rural  development  by  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  (EAFRD)  and 
repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005.  

3   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 common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations 
(EEC)  No 352/78,  (EC)  No 165/94,  (EC)  No 2799/98,  (EC)  No 814/2000,  (EC)  No 1290/2005  and  (EC) 
No 485/2008. 

4   Regulation  (EU)  No 1308/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17 December  2013 
establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations 
(EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007. 

5   Regulation  (EU)  No 1307/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17 December  2013 
establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common 
agricultural  policy  and  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 637/2008  and  Council  Regulation  (EC) 
No 73/2009. 

6  For the purposes of the evaluation, which covers the period 2014-2020, the United Kingdom is considered as 
a member of the European Union (EU-28). To recall, the United Kingdom withdrew from the European Union 
as of 1 February 2020, entering a transition period until 31 December 2020, during which Union law, with a 
few exceptions, continued to be applicable to and in the United Kingdom. 

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

innovation-and-technology/caps-impact-knowledge-exchange-and-advisory-activities_en. 

3 

 
 
 
                                                 
2. 

2.1. 

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

Description of the policy and its objectives 

Major productivity gains have been achieved with innovations in agriculture since the 1960s, 
with its modernisation and green revolution. However, this trend slowed down in the EU in 
recent years (EU Standing Committee for Agricultural Research (SCAR), 2012). In addition, 
these  agricultural  productivity  gains  were  achieved  partly  by  putting  serious  strains  on  the 
environment. The lack of resilience of specialised farms, the increasing dependence to inputs 
and animal welfare are also questioned. Moreover, climate change has become a major issue, 
with necessary actions and adaptation from all economic sectors, including agriculture.  

Yet  with  the  current  population  growth  (among  other  factors),  the  global  demand  for 
agricultural products is expected to increase significantly. The 2007 financial crisis followed 
by the food crises is an illustration of potential future challenges. Public policies and regulations 
have increasingly integrated conditions aiming at addressing these various issues.  

Beyond the respect of the numerous existing standards set by the EU, substantial change of the 
production systems – technical as well as organisational change – are needed to face the dual 
challenge of sufficient food production and sustainability.  

The  above  assessment  has  led  to  the  political  will  of  fostering  innovation,  cooperation  and 
knowledge exchange in agriculture, emphasised as key levers for viable solutions. This in turn 
resulted in an EU knowledge exchange policy comprising of various instruments, presented in 
Figure 1 and 2 and described below (and in Annex 5). 

Figure 1. CAP instruments to foster knowledge exchange and innovation 

Source: ADE, Evaluation support study on the CAP’s impact on Knowledge Exchange and Advisory Activities, 2021, leaflet. 

4 

  
 
 
 
Figure  2.  Architecture  of  CAP  implementation  with  regard  to  knowledge  exchange,  innovation  and 
advisory activities 

Source: ADE, Evaluation support study on the CAP’s impact on Knowledge Exchange and Advisory Activities, 2021, p. 34. 

As part of the Horizontal Regulation setting rules on the management and financing of the CAP, 
all  Member  States  must  have  in  place  a  Farm  Advisory  System  (FAS)  covering  EU  legal 
standards  for  modern,  high-quality  and  environment  friendly  agriculture,  including  the 
standards covered by cross-compliance. The FAS obligation was introduced into the CAP in 
2005, and the implementation of a FAS has jointly been made mandatory for all Member States 
since 2007. Its scope was enlarged in 2013 to cover new topics such as the greening, the Water 
Framework  Directive,  and  Integrated  Pest  Management.  It  aims  to  raise  awareness  among 
farmers and CAP beneficiaries about the relationship between agricultural practices on the one 
hand, and the environment, climate change, plant/animal health, food safety, human health and 
animal welfare on the other. Access to advisory services by the FAS is open to all farmers of 
all  ages.  The  FAS  does  not  provide  funding,  which  has  to  come  either  from  national  and 
regional sources or from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in 
particular  the  measure  on  advisory  services  (M2).  In  many  Member  States  (14)  the  FAS  is 
organised  at  national  level,  in  other  Member  States  the  FAS  is  regionalised.  In  almost  all 

5 

 
 
 
Member States (95%), the authority responsible for the selection of advisory bodies is public. 
The selection procedure of these bodies is evenly made through either call for tender or direct 
designation.  

Under  rural  development  ,  Member  States  and  regions  can  use  specific  measures  to  offer 
financial support for training, advice, and innovation projects from the EAFRD. The choice of 
rural  development  support  offered  in  a  Member  State  is  based  on  a  SWOT  analysis,  which 
identifies the priority needs to be addressed. The three most important measures are:  

  The measure for knowledge exchange (M1), supporting training activities, information, 

demonstrations, exchange, and visits;  

  The  measure  for  advice  (M2),  supporting  the  use  of  advice,  the  setting  up  of  advice 

services, and the training of advisors;  

  The measure for innovation through cooperation  (M16), supporting the setting-up of 
EIP Operational Groups (M16.1), and the implementation of pilot projects (M16.2) co-
creating and testing new practical solutions. 

At the crossroads of the CAP and the EU’s research policy “Horizon 2020” is the European 
Innovation  Partnership  for  Agricultural  productivity  and  sustainability  (EIP-AGRI).  This 
partnership, created in 2012, aims to find innovative practical solutions to current challenges, 
and acts as an interface between agriculture and science at regional, national and EU levels. In 
this approach, stakeholders form Operational Groups work on specific issues arising directly 
from the field. The results of all operational group projects are shared all over the EU to create 
a network of knowledge and innovation. EIP-AGRI is coordinated by the EU EIP Network in 
collaboration with the National Rural Networks / EIP networks, with support from ‘’innovation 
brokers’, facilitators and service points (hubs). EIP-AGRI is a modern framework deploying 
new technologies, new business models, new forms of organisation and cooperation, bridging 
the gap between science and practice. It connects those active in agricultural innovation across 
regions and countries. It empowers people on the ground to design their own solutions to the 
problems they face. This helps acceptance of the outcomes and speeds up implementation in 
practice  thanks  to  the  co-ownership  generated  through  the  collaboration  during  the  EIP 
innovation project. In this way cooperation proves to be a necessary ingredient for innovation. 

Training, information sharing and advice are the common ways farmers build new skills and 
keep  up  to  date  on  the  latest  innovations  to  improve  their  activity.  But  new  approaches  to 
knowledge  production,  diffusion  and  utilisation,  such  as  Agricultural  Knowledge  and 
Innovation Systems (AKIS) are also needed to keep the momentum of the evolution of the 
farming profession, and to overcome the bottlenecks that can exist in linear knowledge transfer 
models (from scientists to end-users).  

6 

 
 
Figure 3. Actors in an AKIS 

Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development 

When knowledge is co-created, used efficiently, and shared widely, it is then considered as an 
AKIS, and this will further support the development and scaling up of innovative solutions that 
work in practice. Therefore, AKIS is a concept elaborated to describe if sufficient knowledge 
flows  are  organised  on  a  structured  and  regular  basis  between  the  actors  in  the  knowledge 
exchange and innovation system of a Member State. A well-functioning AKIS is key to respond 
to numerous issues of the agricultural sector, and to achieve the EU’s Common Agricultural 
Policy (CAP) objectives. AKIS functioning varies a lot across EU Member States (Figure 4) 

Figure 4. Diversity of AKIS in Member States 

Source: PROAKIS study, James Hutton Institute, 2014 

Many other CAP tools may contribute, including the market measure supporting innovation in 
the  wine  sector,  other  rural  development  measures,  and  direct  payments  to  farmers  that  are 
linked to new agricultural standards requiring knowledge update or advice. A minimum level 
of qualification and training is required to access some CAP aids (e.g. for farm modernisation 
investments, or young farmers start-up), which encourages the improvement of skills. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
The  intervention  logic  of  the  evaluation  of  the  CAP’s  impact  on  knowledge  exchange  and 
advisory activities describes the theoretical causal relationship of a public policy, showing how, 
in  theory,  the  inputs  (policy  framework  and  supported  actions)  triggered  by  the  needs  of 
stakeholders should provide the expected outputs, outcomes, and impacts, contributing to the 
CAP  general  objectives.  It  is  based  on  the  relevant  regulations,  including  their  recitals 
explaining the legislator’s intentions. All four CAP regulations introduced before act upon the 
evaluation topic. The intervention logic is illustrated in Figure 5. There are strong synergies and 
linkages between the different measures. These are presented altogether. Indirect links are not 
exhaustively represented. 

2.2. 

Baseline and points of comparison  

The  impact  assessment  of  the  CAP  2014-2020  entitled  The  Common  Agricultural  Policy 
towards 2020 pointed out that the instruments and measures on knowledge exchange, advisory 
activities and innovation would play a key role in fostering sustainable farming systems and 
practices, in particular addressing the multiple environmental challenges8.  

For  the  CAP  2014-2020,  summing  up  Member  States  programmes,  the  planned  number  of 
trainings of farmers was 2.9 million9, the number of advices 1.2 million and the number of EIP 
Operational  Groups  3 200.  These  figures  relate  to  the  targets  for  the  CAP  2014-2020,  i.e. 
without accounting for the two year transition period of 2021-2022. 

8   Commission  Staff  Working  Paper  Impact  Assessment  Common  Agricultural  Policy  towards  2020.    

https://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2011/sec_2011_1153_en.pdf.  

9   Excluding Belgium. 

8 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 5. Specific intervention logic for CAP goals and instruments related to knowledge exchange and advisory activities in rural areas 

Source: ADE, Evaluation support study on the CAP’s impact on Knowledge Exchange and Advisory Activities, 2021, p. 23.

9 

 
 
 
3. 

3.1. 

IMPLEMENTATION/STATE OF PLAY 

Farm Advisory System (FAS) 

In 2019, the use of advisory services by farmers is EU-funded in 15 out of 26 Member States 
(Greece and Romania not included because they did not return the questionnaire), the setting up 
of FAS  is  EU-funded in  6 out  of  26 Member States and the training of  FAS  advisors is  EU-
funded in 9 out of 26 Member States. 

Figure 6. EU funding for FAS in percentage of Member States 

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

FAS Access

FAS Set Up

Training FAS advisers

Source: Member States notifications in 2019. 

Yes No

The  scope  of  the  FAS  concerns  various  areas.  Depending  on  the  area,  the  status  of  advisory 
bodies may differ and be public, private or both.  

The main methods used for advice, such as provision of advice, the setting up of advice services 
and the training of advisors, are very heterogeneous and an overview is difficult to have. This 
also  depends  on  the  area  covered  by  advice  e.g.:  the  greening  payments,  identification  and 
registration (I&R) of animals, the Food Law, The Sustainable Use of pesticides Directive (SUD) 
and animal welfare (AW) based on the information provided by Member States.  

For the same reasons, it is difficult to have an overview of the number of advices given, due to 
various definitions of an advice and of the great variability of the type of advice. 

3.2. 

Knowledge exchange and advice 

At the end of 2020, budget execution stood at EUR 351  million for knowledge transfer (M1) , 
EUR 231 million for advisory services (M2) and EUR 769  million for cooperation (M16).  

In  2014-2020,  out  of  112  national  or  regional  Rural  Development  Programmes,  101  have 
programmed M1 (knowledge exchange). 

According to the figures reported in the 2021 Annual Implementation Report (AIR), 1.11 million 
participants  (Belgium  excluded  due  to  multiple  counting)  were  trained  as  a  result  of  the 
knowledge exchange measure (M1).  

The  Rural  Development  Programme  advice  measure  (M2)  supported  the  mandatory  FAS  in 
several Member States. By 2020, only in 52 Rural Development Programmes expenditure was 
realised  on  M2.  Five  countries  did  not  plan  to  use  this  measure  (namely  Cyprus,  Czechia, 
Denmark, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands) as well as 40 Rural Development Programmes (20 
in France, 6 in Germany, 6 in Italy, 7 in Spain and 1 in Belgium). This represents a 39% non-
adoption rate for this measure. Greece, Malta and Slovakia planned to use this measure but have 
not yet done so (as in 16 other regions, which represent 16% of the total).  

10 

 
 
 
The  number  of  countries,  which  planned  the  measure  for  advisory  services,  raised  slightly  in 
2014-2020.  Among  the  case  study  countries,  Ireland,  which  did  not  plan  the  measures  for 
advisory  services  in  the  period  2007-2013,  provided  a  budget  in  2014-2020.  Some  countries 
greatly  increased  their  budget  like  Greece  (+168%),  Germany  (+140%),  France  (+437%)  or 
Estonia (+350%). Others decreased it like Poland (-79%) or Italy (-41%).  

Figure 7 shows the implementation progress of the three measures  (M1 (knowledge transfer), 
M2 (advice) and M16 (cooperation)) at the end of 2020. Overall, expenditure realised on these 
three measures is relatively low with an average execution rate of 27%. 

Figure 7. Execution rates up to 2020 and total budget planned for rural development measures M1, M2 
and M16 (M16.1 to M16.9) for the programming period 2014-2020 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

E
B

G
B

Z
C

K
D

E
D

E
E

E
I

L
E

S
E

R
F

R
H

T
I

Y
C

V
L

T
L

U
L

U
H

T
M

L
N

T
A

L
P

T
P

I

O S
R

I

K F
S

E
S

K
U

8
2
-
U
E

Total budget planned

Total budget executed

Note: Expenditure up to end of 2020 when available, 2019 otherwise. 
Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development. 

3.3. 

 EIP-AGRI 

Rural  Development  ‘Establishment  of  Operational  Groups’  and  ‘Pilot  project’  measures 
(M16.1/M16.2), the measures funding EIP-AGRI, are new measures which did not exist in the 
previous programming period. Total expenditure (EU funds and national expenditure) for EIP-
AGRI and pilot projects amounted to 471 million euro by the end of 2020. As shown in Figure 8 
in the EU on average about 70% of M16 (Cooperation) was spent on these two measures, 30% 
on other cooperation measures.   

11 

 
  
Figure 8. Distribution of M16 (Cooperation) over EIP-AGRI and other measures in 2020 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

16.1

16.2

Rest of measures

Source: CATS Database (Clearance of Audit Trail System) 

The  partnership  has  resulted  in  2 195  completed  operational  groups  (i.e.  local  interactive 
innovation projects) by December 2021, i.e. 69% of the EU level target of 3 200 Operational 
Groups  planned  was  reached.    This  dynamic  now  covers  virtually  all  Member  States,  with 
Eastern Member States catching up after a slower start in the early years of the programming 
period.  

While Operational  Groups work at  national  level,  190 European  multi-actor research projects 
under Horizon 2020 work on similar issues but at larger scale, benefiting from two thirds of the 
overall budget for agricultural research calls (over 1 billion euro).  

4. 

4.1. 

METHODOLOGY 

Short description of methodology 

The  evaluation  is  underpinned  by  an  external  support  study  and  complemented  by  data  and 
analysis carried out by the Commission10.  

It  also  draws  on  the  five  responses  to  the  consultation  on  the  roadmap  conducted  from 
22 May 2019  to  19  June 2019  and  the  187  responses  to  the  public  consultation  carried  out 
between 10 November and 2 February 2021 on the Commission’s web portal ‘Have Your Say’. 
The results of these are presented in Annex 2. 

The evaluation started with an analysis of all CAP Regulations (2014-2020 and 2007-2013) to 
recall the legal and policy framework, to inventor the CAP instruments and measures relevant to 
the  study,  and  to  reconstitute  the  intervention  logic.  A  comprehensive  literature  review  also 

10   Evaluation  support  study  Evaluation  of  the  CAP’s  impact  on  knowledge  exchange  and  advisory  activities. 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/cmef/research-
innovation-and-technology/caps-impact-knowledge-exchange-and-advisory-activities_en.  

12 

 
 
                                                 
included an overview of the concept, evolutions, and diversity of AKIS, the EIP-AGRI network, 
the FAS, the agricultural and forestry context, the existing and emerging needs in rural areas, as 
well as the critical factors of success for policies supporting knowledge exchange and innovation 
among  farmers  and  foresters.  Case  studies  were  undertaken  in  eight  Member  States  and  nine 
regions,  selected  along  a  clustering  approach  in  order  to  catch  the  diversity  of  approaches 
regarding  knowledge  exchange,  innovation  and  advisory  activities  across  the  EU.  Restitution 
workshops  were  organised  online  (due  to  the  Covid-19  crises)  in  a  selection  of  case  studies 
including France, Belgium Flanders, Germany Lower-Saxony and Ireland, in order to discuss 
and validate the findings with Member States representatives and other stakeholders. 

Besides case studies, information and data were collected at EU level. An extensive desk work 
regarding  the  period  2014-2020  included  report,  discussion  document  and  database  analysis 
(European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds,  2018-2020  Annual  Implementation  Report, 
Common  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Framework  and  Joint  Research  Centre  FAS  databases). 
Interviews were organised with the EIP-AGRI Service Point and the European Network for Rural 
Development Contact Point, as well as with Commission services (DG Agriculture and Rural 
Development and Joint Research Centre). Rural Development Programme managing authorities 
(33  respondents)  and  national  FAS  coordinators  (21  respondents)  were  surveyed  through 
respective online questionnaires, as well as final beneficiaries (142 respondents) in the course of 
the French case study (Grand Est). A panel of final beneficiaries were also surveyed by telephone 
in Germany-Lower Saxony. 

4.2. 

Limitations and robustness of findings 

At EU level there is no reliable data covering actual and planned costs of delivery, notably for 
FAS. Equally, there is a lack of impact indicators e.g. on changed agricultural practices as a result 
of knowledge exchange and advisory activities.The robustness of findings of this evaluation is 
limited  by  restrictions  in  the  collection  of  data,  in  particular  on  uptake  of  the  measures  and 
spending rates, as set out below:  

  The relevant Rural Development measures have small decision rates and some had very 
low spending rates when the support study was carried out, hence it limits the assessment 
of impacts.  

  The data on which this report builds from, the Annual Implementation Reports, do not 
provide a systematic view at the level of the sub-measures for financial data, while EIP-
AGRI is a sub-measure of the cooperation measure (M16). The European Structural and 
Investment Funds (ESIF) database also does not provide data by sub-measure. 

  Despite the major efforts to standardize the definitions of the indicators undertaken within 
the  Common  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Framework  (CMEF),  there  are  major 
differences in the methods used to calculate certain indicators between Member States 
(i.e. indicators of the number of beneficiaries of training and advice). All participants to 
trainings are counted towards the output indicator, whether they participated already to 
another  training  or  not.  The  administrative  costs  for  training  organisers  to  avoid  this 
double counting of participants would be too high. In addition, in Belgium for 50 persons 
taking a training with 4 speakers, 200 participants are counted in the output indicator. 
Together, this makes the comparison and interpretation of the data complex at EU level. 
This  results  in  the  absence  of  robust  data  on  uptake  of  training  and  advice  by 

13 

 
farmers/foresters  (CMEF  indicators  O11-13)11.  In  addition,  the  figure  cannot  be 
accurately compared to the total number of farmers or CAP beneficiaries as same farmers 
can be counted several times. 

  Lack of monitoring data regarding the establishment and operation of the FAS, including 
advice provided under the FAS, unless advice is co-founded by the EAFRD (M2M2 –
advisory services). 

Indeed, monitoring data about the FAS rests on Member State(s) responses to a questionnaire 
pursuant to Article 102(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013. The questionnaire covers general 
questions about the establishment and operation of the FAS, as well as all FAS topics with several 
questions per topic. There are two main limitations:  

1.  Regionalised  or  decentralised  Member  States  cannot  answer  the  questions  at  national 
level  due  to  the  diversity  of  situations  among  their  regions  (Germany,  Spain,  France, 
Italy).  

2.  Figures provided for some key indicators such as the number of farmers advised are not 
homogenous. This is notably due to the fact that many types of “advice” are taken into 
consideration  with  multiple  choices:  "one-to-one  on  the  farm"/"one-to-one  outside  the 
farm 
the 
(consultations,  etc.)"/"telephone  helpdesk"/"Small  group  advice  on 
farm"/"Small  group  advice  out  of  the  farm"/"Internet"/"Publications"/"Other";  and  the 
guidance specifies in a footnote, that the figures “do not need to be precise but only aim 
at giving an idea of the functioning of the system”. The figure may compile all kind of 
information given in various forms. 

As  a  result,  Member  States  count  differently.  E.g.  in  Belgium,  Flanders  counted  the  farmers 
advised by the FAS (555) who are supported under rural development for the use of advisory 
services (M2.1) whereas Wallonia counted 134 000 farmers advised for a total number of farms 
of around 12 000. In Estonia  106 farmers received advice under the FAS while there were over 
3 000 under one to one advice supported by the Rural Development Programme. France did not 
provide any figure nor did Ireland. Germany mentioned about half of the German farmers.  

11   https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/output-indicator-

fiches-pillar-ii_en.pdf. 

14 

 
 
                                                 
5. 

5.1. 

ANALYSIS 

Efficiency 

The  analysis  is  based  on  the  results  of  the  case  studies  of  this  evaluation,  complemented  by 
comparing output data with budgets spent for the different measures as well as on the results of 
the  public  consultation12  conducted  in  the  framework  of  this  evaluation  in  the  period 
10 November 2020 to 2 February 2021.  

  General overview on the uptake of knowledge exchange measures 

The case studies show that in the period 2014-2020 the implementation of the CAP measures for 
knowledge exchange, advisory activities and innovation suffered from delays and low spending 
due to administrative burdens at the level of the Managing Authorities. 

The lower than expected uptake in the previous programming period 2007-2013 of the measures 
M1-knowledge transfer  and M2-advice led to  a  reduction of their budget in  the period 2014-
2020. 

Rural development planned support to lifelong learning and vocational training in the agricultural 
and forestry sectors (M1.1) has decreased from EUR 1.9 billion in 2007-2013 to EUR 1.5 billion 
in 2014-2020, but the amount planned for the 2014-2020 period corresponds to the amount spent 
during the 2007-2013 period. The situation is however very variable from one Member State to 
another. The total public budget dedicated to the knowledge transfer measure (M1) in 2014-2020 
represents on average only 1.1% of the public expenditure planned under rural development.   

The budget planned under the 2014-2020 Rural Development advisory services measure (M2) 
amounts  to  EUR 757 million,  which  is  also  lower  compared  to  the  2007-2013  programming 
period. However, this decrease does not necessarily imply a decrease of public support for these 
services, as in several Member States, they are supported by national funds only.  

However, the budget for measure M16 (the European Innovation Platform for Agriculture (EIP 
AGRI) and other cooperation measures) was in 2014-2020 five times the budget of 2007-2013. 
The increase of the budget of measure M16 was because of the specific emphasis that has been 
put on innovation.  

As a result, the overall budget for the sum of knowledge exchange (M1), advisory services (M2) 
and cooperation (M16) measures increased in both absolute (46% increase of the budgets) and 
relative amounts (57% increase in the share of planned budgets compared to the total budgets of 
the Rural Development Programmes). However, the cooperation measure does not cover EIP-
AGRI and pilot projects only, but includes notably rural tourism, short supply chains and local 
markets, diversification and social farming. Moreover, this combined planned budget remains a 
small share of Rural Development Programmes’ total budget (reaching only 3.6%).  

The average budget execution rate for the three measures amounted to 27% at the end of 2020. 
Spending rates excluding national top ups at the end of 2020 stood at 24% for knowledge transfer 
(M1), 31% for advisory services (M2) and 29%13 for cooperation (M16). These are particularly 
low compared to 53% for all Rural Development measures combined. No case studies identified 
data on the reach of FAS. 

12   https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/commission-seeks-views-caps-impact-knowledge-exchange-and-advisory-

activities-2020-nov-10_en.  

13  Projects are only counted when completed and may run until end 2023. 

15 

 
                                                 
The delay in implementation is notably due to the public procurement rules applicable until end 
of 2017 whose constraint was relieved by the ‘Omnibus’ regulation. The 2007-2013 period had 
also shown a strong under-achievement. 

Table 1. Total public expenditure EU-28 up to 2020 (million EUR, including national co-financing)  

Planned 

Executed 

M01 (knowledge exchange) 

M02 (advice) 

M16 (cooperation) 

Total 

1 488 

757 

2 686 

4 931 

Ratio 

24% 

31% 

29% 

27% 

351 

231 

769 

1 351 

Source: based on indicator plans and own calculations. 

Figure 9. Total public budget planned and spending (end 2020) for rural development measures 1, 2 and 
16 and evolution between the 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 periods at EU-28 level 

+46%

x5

-13%

-20%

Planned

Realised

6.000

5.000

4.000

3.000

2.000

1.000

0

2007-13 2014-20 2007-13 2014-20 2007-13 2014-20 2007-13 2014-20

Training
(m111, m331 / M1)

Advice
(m114, m115 / M2)

Cooperation
(m124 / M16)

Total M1, M2, M16

Source: ADE based on ESI Funds and own calculations. 

Respondents in the public consultation have a generally neutral perception about the efficiency 
of the CAP instruments and measures in fostering knowledge exchange, advisory activities and 
innovation in the agricultural and forestry sector and in rural areas. Almost half (88; 47%) of the 
187 respondents found the instruments and measures to be efficient ‘to some extent’, with no 
major differences between stakeholder groups. 

On the other hand, a clear majority (135; 73%) found that not all farmers have equal access to 
knowledge exchange, advice or innovation supported with the CAP which can explain the low 
uptake of the measures, in particular M1 (training) and M2 (advice). This statement is supported 
by the majority of all of the respondents from the stakeholdergroups, with special highlight on 
businesses associations (81% of them did not find that farmers had equal access to knowledge 
exchange), companies or business organisatinos (71%) and EU citizens (69%). 

  Uptake by knowledge exchange measures 

According to the evidence gathered in the case studies carried out uptake of the measures was 
low due to lack of interest and opportunity costs of farmers. A lack of funding to enable stronger 
promotion  and  targeting  of  excluded  groups  is  also  cited  by  stakeholders  and  knowledge 

16 

 
 
  
providers in many cases. Moreover, the primary interest of farmers is mainly in new technical 
equipment. In many cases managing authorities suggest uptake rates would be higher if measures 
responded more fully to farmers’ needs, but in some cases a majority is already covered (Ireland). 
However, those farmers that participated appreciated the measures and considered these useful.  

There is a relationship between perceived efficiency by farmers and their uptake of the measures. 
For  example  as  the  case  study  in  the  evaluation  support  study  shows14,  in  Greece,  managing 
authorities  and  experts  report  that  farmers  often  consider  participating  in  training  activities  a 
‘waste of time’ with courses not tailored to their needs.  

In  many  Rural  Development  Programmes,  the  targeted  population  is  the  entire  farming 
community  or  all  trainers  and  advisors.  However,  the  actual  target  population  may  be 
significantly lower (e.g. excluding non-active farmers in Greece, who make up a large proportion 
of those registered).  

Case study evidence of interviews with training and advice bodies as well as the survey of farmers 
in France reveal both under-recognised needs for training and advice among large numbers of 
conventional farmers but also of small, part-time, or less-educated farmers; and demand among 
younger and more ‘professional’ farmers for more advanced training and advice.  

Evidence  of  case  studies  suggests  also  incomplete  awareness  of  training  and  advisory 
opportunities  in  many  cases, especially  the cooperation measure  (M16) other than EIP-AGRI 
(Flanders, Belgium, Greece, Estonia).  

Knowledge transfer (M1) 

The  realised  expenditure  compared  to  the  planned  budget  at  24%  at  the  end  of  2020  for  the 
knowledge  transfer  measure  is  low  compared  to  other  rural  development  measures  but  also 
compared to the previous programming period. In terms of persons trained, the implementation 
is closer to the target excluding Belgium (65%) with a number of 1.22 million farmers trained up 
to 2020. It represents around 31% of CAP beneficiaries, although this comparison cannot be done 
directly,  as  participants  to  trainings  can  be  counted  several  times,  thus  this  is  likely  an  over-
estimate .  

Furthermore, there are wide variations in the planned target numbers among Member States (see 
Figure  9  below).  Some  countries  have  realised  more  than  what  they  had  planned,  such  as 
Denmark (542%), Finland (172%), Portugal (159%), Estonia (158%) whereas others have not 
even realised 10% of what they had budgeted, like Hungary (0.2%), Slovakia (6%) or Sweden 
(9%). This depicts a clear downward trend, also in terms of annual averages of participants and 
training days, at EU level and in a large majority of Member States.   

By 2020, a total of 83 441 actions or operations were supported as a result of M1 (knowledge 
transfer), representing more than 1 867 130 training days. Belgium, Greece and Italy supported 
the largest number of training days (greater than 250 000 days). Greece and Ireland adopted a 
strategy focusing on a few actions (respectively 12 and 10) with a large number of training days. 
Belgium, Spain and Italy supported a very large number of actions or operations (respectively 
27 074, 10 119 and 10 088). 

The majority of the measures under knowledge transfer is linked to Priorities 2 (“enhancing farm 
viability and competitiveness”) and 4 (“restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems related 

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

innovation-and-technology/caps-impact-knowledge-exchange-and-advisory-activities_en  

17 

 
                                                 
to agriculture and forestry”). Some Member States (such as France, Belgium and Poland) gave 
more  weight  to  the  economic  component  (with  more  than  70%  of  total  public  planned 
expenditure linked to Priorities 2 and 3) and others (e.g. Greece, Germany and Ireland) to the 
environmental and climatic component.  

Figure 10. Comparison of numbers of participants (planned and realised, in thousands) in trainings under 
M1.1 (support for vocational training and skills acquisition actions) in 2014-2020 for EU-28 

 3.000

 2.500

 2.000

 1.500

 1.000

 500

 -

E
B

G
B

Z
C

K
D

E
D

E
E

E
I

L
E

S
E

R
F

R
H

T
I

Y
C

V
L

T
L

U
L

U
H

T
M

L
N

T
A

L
P

T
P

I

O S
R

I

K F
S

E
S

K
U

8
2
-
U
E

Planned

Realised

Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development based on the AIR dataset. Data from 2020 when available, 2019 otherwise. 

Table 2. Number of participants to supported vocational training and skills acquisition actions (M1.1) by 
2020 

Value 

Range 

Median 

Average 

Total 

Planned 

Number of participants in trainings 
(including Belgium) 

Number of participants in trainings 
(excluding Belgium) 

Min 102 – Max 656 437 

Min 102 – Max 317 95715 

23 051 

139 112 

1.88 million 

2.90 million 

21 820 

93 967  

1.22 million 

2.72 million 

Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development.  

Advisory services (M2) 

As pointed out before the budget allocated to M2 – advice decreased by 20% compared to the 
previous period, mainly due to administrative constraints. It does not necessarily imply a decrease 
of public support for these services. In several Member States, these services are supported by 
national funds only (Wallonia, Belgium, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, France, Luxemburg, some 
German regions, Netherlands). 

15   The maximum number is for Spain. 

18 

 
 
                                                 
The  2017  FAS  questionnaire  to  Member  States,  indicates  that  the  FAS  reaches  a  minority  of 
farmers in most Member States – only Denmark and Slovenia report a number of farmers reached 
under  the  FAS  which  is  very  close  to  the  total  number  of  farm  holdings  in  their  country.  In 
aggregate,  considering  only  those  20  Member  States  where  the  data  appears  similar16,  ‘FAS 
stimulated’  advice  reaches,  at  most,  about  22%  of  farm  holdings  and  around  26%  of  CAP 
beneficiaries, for the period 2015-2019.  

Number of beneficiaries advised   

A  total  of  643 741  beneficiaries  were  advised  across  the  2014-2020  period  as  a  result  of  M2 
(advice): 54% of the planned target of 1.2 million beneficiaries and almost four times the level 
achieved over the entire 2007-2013 period (178 500), but the advice actions might be counted 
differently. This covers17 up to 5.9% of the total number of agricultural holdings18.  

The countries with the greatest number of beneficiaries advised by 2020 are Austria, Spain and 
Finland, who have each reported more than 50 000 beneficiaries.  

Austria and Finland had a planned number of beneficiaries advised exceeding their 2016 total 
number  of  agricultural  holdings:  this  implies  some  holdings  get  repeated  visits.  Austria  and 
Finland are also the countries with the highest percentage of beneficiaries actually advised (175% 
and 121%% respectively). 

Number of advisors trained  

Member  States  did  not  need  to  plan  the  number  of  advisors  trained.  In  addition,  only  nine 
Member  States  reported  results  by  31/12/2019:  Germany,  Estonia,  Spain,  Croatia,  Ireland, 
Poland, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom. A total of 6 540 advisors were trained across 
the 2014-2019 period as a result of M2 (advice). The Member States with the greatest number of 
advisors trained are Croatia and Ireland (1 180 and 2 950 trained respectively). 

The total number of advisors trained compared to the total number of beneficiaries advised gives 
thus a ratio of 0.02 advisors trained per final beneficiary advised. Predictably, it varies among 
the  highest  ratio  reaching  0.7  advisors 
the  different  Member  State(s).  Ireland  has 
trained/beneficiary advised. Estonia and Croatia follow but at distance since their ratios are only 
slightly above 0.1 advisors trained/beneficiary advised. 

Overall, the data suggest that uptake of advisors’ training in most case study areas is relatively 
high,  or  has  increased  since  the  previous  programming  period  (except  for  Germany-Lower 
Saxony where it has declined), whereas for advisory support the numbers are much lower than 
anticipated in many cases, with a lack of awareness cited as a reason in several Member States.  

One  common  thread  through  case  study  areas  is  that  the  enhanced  uptake  and  provision  of 
services  is  mostly  by  farmers  that  are  already  engaged  with  the  AKIS  and  there  has  been 
relatively  little  improvement  in  accessing  the  ‘hard  to  reach’  farmers  via  the  application  of 
relevant CAP instruments and measures. ‘Hard to reach’ farmers are those with a considerable 
distance to the knowledge exchange measures, that have been reluctant to engage in these so far 
or are not even aware of the measures. Often these are farmers of less profitable farms. The same 

16   Member states not included: Belgium, Cyprus, Czechia, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland and Romania. 
17   Without taking into account the different categories of participants trained and the possible double-counting. 
18   Based on 10.5M agricultural holdings. 

19 

 
                                                 
groups of farmers continue to participate in training, and so 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. In Germany-Lower Saxony Measure M2.1 (use of advisory services) has 
achieved a considerable  share of the set  objectives. Approximately  14 700 advisory  activities 
were attended by around 4 200 agricultural enterprises. Nevertheless it must be noted that topics 
with  high  social  and  lower  economic  benefits  for  the  farm,  such  as  the  advisory  topics 
"sustainability systems" and "biodiversity" would not be taken up without funding.  

The  Belgium-Flanders  case  study  indicated  that  for  M2  (advice)  between  2014-2018,  around 
20% of farms in Flanders benefited, which the authorities characterized as “extremely low”.  

Ireland has seen a large increase in advice activities, and it has been reported in the literature 
Kinsella  (2018)  that  two  thirds  of  farmers  choose  to  formally  engage  with  advisors  through 
contracts19.  In  2015  approximately  43 500  farmers  were  clients  of  national  public  agency 
Teagasc and a similar number contracted the services of private sector agricultural consultants. 
Less is known about services purchased from private consultants but Kinsella estimates that 58% 
of  all  farmers  have  either  no  engagement  or  the  lowest  level  of  engagement  with  advisory 
services. The case study revealed that CAP instruments and measures have resulted in a larger 
number of advisors becoming involved in providing advisory support (e.g. through FAS, Green, 
Low-Carbon,  Agri-Environment  Scheme  (GLAS),  and  running  Knowledge  Transfer  groups), 
and a higher level of training for advisors. Farmers have thus benefitted from greater access to 
advisory support and better trained advisors.  

In Poland, actual impact is limited due to late launch of the measures. In addition, the demand 
for advisory support is small, as it was in the previous  Rural Development Programme 2007-
2013.  Reasons  for  low  uptake  of  support  for  using  advisory  services  were  identified  by  the 
Managing  Authorities  in  2013  as:  the  requirement  to  cover  the  entire  cost  of  the  service;  the 
psychological barrier related to farmers' fear of being found to be in non-compliance and fear of 
disclosing this  information; complicated application  procedures;  too  narrow range of services 
and  low  funding  limit  per  farm;  unprofitability  of  production  in  small  farms;  and  too  low 
expenditure on promotion and poor flow of information. In relation to M2 (advice, based on 2019 
data), 230 agricultural advisors were trained (no trained forest advisors). This is viewed by the 
Polish Rural Development authorities as a good basis to intensify the implementation of Sub-
measure M2.1 (advice) in the future, which involves reaching farmers and forest owners with 
professional knowledge. 

For  Italy-Veneto  the  rate  of  achievement  for  M2  (advice)  is  very  low,  due  to  the  delay  in 
implementation, starting only after the Omnibus revision of rules on public procurement. 

19  

Kinsella, J. (2018).  Acknowledging hard to reach farmers: cases from Ireland.  International Journal of 
Agricultural Extension, 61-69. 

20 

 
                                                 
Cooperation (M16) 

Number of EIP-AGRI Operational Groups supported  

A total of 20 Member States provided data on the number of completed EIP-AGRI Operational 
Groups20. The notification takes place only when the project is completed, which might explain 
also the lack of notification in certain Member States. Nevertheless, by December 2021, 69% of 
the target to support 3 200 EIP-AGRI Operational Groups was reached.  

Farmers represent 28% of the partners in operational groups. The involvement of farmers in the 
partnership  of  Operational  Groups  is  recognised  as  an  added  value  of  the  measure  by  all 
stakeholders,  as  it  promotes  solutions  adapted  to  farmers’  needs.  However,  in  practice  this 
involvement is not so simple. Institutional structures often provide de facto leadership because 
they know the EAFRD procedures and have resources to allocate to them. For farmers, the main 
difficulties are the mobilisation of time to participate in these Operational Groups at the expense 
of time spent on the farm.  

The difficulty of integrating agricultural advisors was also noted in several Member States. The 
Operational  Groups make use of different  types  of knowledge (practical, scientific, technical, 
organisational, etc.) in an interactive way.  

Figure 11. Distribution of partners (percentage of total number of Operational Groups) 

SME; 15%

Research institute; 
20%

Advisor; 9%

Other; 25%

Farm holder; 28%

Source: European Commission. 

NGO; 3%

  Administrative burden of CAP instruments as a cause for low budget execution  

According to the analysis of the case studies and the public consultation, the low execution rate 
is,  in  particular  for  the  measures  M1  (knowledge  transfer)  and  M2  (advice),  largely  due  to 
administrative burden, such as the complexity of the application procedure in combination with 
adequate staff numbers of Managing Authorities. Member States have implemented EIP-AGRI 
to a higher degree due to the larger interest in the latter by farmers.  

Administrative burdens for the farmers are quite negligible for M1 (knowledge transfer) and 
for M2 (advice), since most of the burden for private beneficiaries (farmers) has been charged to 

20  

The other 8 Member States did not implement it or did not provide on the result indicators. These Member 
States  have  been:  Bulgaria,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Croatia,  Malta,  Luxembourg  and  Romania.  Out  of  this 
group, only Luxembourg had not programmed any expenditure under this measure. 

21 

 
 
                                                 
training and advisory bodies. Even in case of individual advice, the procedure set up for farmers 
is quite simple. 

The burden for farmers participating in an Operational Group (EIP-AGRI) is variable according 
to  the  case  studies  and  the  distribution  of  roles  within  the  Operational  Group.  The  burden  is 
noticeable in coordinating and managing the Operational Group, especially when the lead partner 
is a farmer, who are reportedly not accustomed to managing innovation projects. 

According to the consultation, the amount of administrative requirements is the most burdensome 
(see  Figure  11).  Furthermore,  with  regards  of  the  administrative  burden  for  the  receivers  of 
advice, the most significant administrative burden across all stakeholder groups were the large 
number of administrative requirements. Only exception to this were academics and/or research 
institutions  which  found  the  complexity  of  the  operations  as  the  major  source  of  the 
administrative  burden  (31%  of  all  of  them).  The  respondents  also  gave  their  opinion  on  the 
sources of administrative burden for providers of advice. The administrative requirements were 
found to be the major source of administrative burden for all groups. The providers of advice 
also point at the time consuming preparation of CAP files. 

Figure  12.  Most  important  aspects  of  administrative  cost  and/or  burden  in  the  implementation  of  the 
current CAP measures and instruments fostering knowledge exchange, advisory activities and innovation 
in the agricultural and forestry sector and in rural areas 

Administrative burden for managing authorities

7%

11%

8%

7%

20%

5%

13%

28%

Administrative burden for providers of advice

14%

15%

16%

5%

26%

4%

8%

11%

Administrative burden for receivers of advice

7%

15%

10%

7%

28%

4%

19%

10%

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

Too costly

Too complex operation

Too time consuming preparation

Unclear eligibility

Too many administrative requirements

Too frequent policy changes

Administrative burden acceptable

Do not know

Source: Public consultation. 

Administrative burden at the level of Member States’ administrations. 

Concerning M1 (knowledge transfer), M2 (advice) and M16 (cooperation): the process phases 
with the more critical issues regarding administrative burden for public administrations are the 
projects’ implementation and the preparation of the call for applications. 

For  these  measures,  the  different  kinds  of  factors  of  burden  can  be  summarised  in  three 
categories: a) related to EU Regulations; b) related to measures design and public administration 
procedures; c) related to characteristics of the delivery structure. 

a) burden related to EU regulations, includes: 

  M1 (knowledge transfer) :  

o 

the  definition  of  eligible  expenditures  and  the  related  control  and  payment  system 
(Umbria, Italy, Flanders, Belgium, Lower Saxony, Germany, Estonia);  

o 

the rigid allocation of EAFRD support by priorities and focus areas (Umbria);  

22 

 
 
o 

the lack of advance payments (Lorraine (France)), mentioned by training bodies who 
find it hard to start projects only with their own financial resources. 

  M2 (advice): there  was  a very  general  problem  with  public procurement  rules.  In some 
Member States like Lorraine, the Managing Authorities dropped the Rural Development 
advice  measure  (M2)  due  to  this  obligation.  In  other  Member  States  like  Umbria  and 
Veneto, the ‘Omnibus’ regulation (Regulation (EU) No 2017/2393) solved this problem at 
the end of 2017, meaning much-delayed implementation. In a few Member States where a 
call for tender was launched (in 2016 or in late 2019), its preparation and issuing required 
a substantial effort from public officials (e.g. Lower Saxony in Germany, Veneto in Italy). 
Furthermore, the maximum level of support and the rigidity in allocating the resources to 
the different Focus Areas were mentioned in Italian cases. 

 

EIP-AGRI: includes the early difficulty of interpreting the logic and the novelty of the EIP-
AGRI  approach;  the  allocation  of  the  resources  per  focus  areas;  the  lack  of  advance 
payments. 

b) burden related to measures design and public administration procedures, includes: 

  M1 (knowledge transfer):  

o 

the complexity of selection criteria in the phase of the selection process (Veneto and 
Umbria (Italy), and Flanders (Belgium)); 

o  standard costs or “reasonable costs”, which are adopted to facilitate the approval and 
administrative  management  of  the  projects  (Veneto  and  Umbria  (Italy),  Lorraine 
(France) and Estonia);  

o 

o 

the difficulties and hard process of accrediting and certifying training bodies (Lorraine, 
France and Estonia); and 

the already burdensome EU rules regarding controls which were more constraining for 
training bodies (Umbria, Italy, Flanders, Belgium). 

  M2 (advice): includes the short deadline given to potential project promoters to prepare 
and  submit  their  project  proposal;  use/non-use  of  simplified  costs;  requirements  and 
accreditation  procedure  for  beneficiaries;  changes  of  implementing  rules  over  time; 
workload for advice projects’ management; and finally, burdensome control and payment 
system. 

  M16 (cooperation): the complex management of selection criteria;  

o 

o 

o 

the short deadline given to potential Operational Groups to prepare and submit their 
project proposal;  

the coordination and financial management of the Operational Group, especially when 
the lead partner is a farmer; 

the  rigidity  of  the  partnership  structure;  the  public  procurement  rules  for  external 
services; 

the non-adoption of standard costs;  

o 
o  administrative controls not proportionate to the budget and duration of the projects. 

c) burden related to characteristics of the delivery structure, includes: 

  M1 (knowledge transfer):  

23 

 
 
o 

the  burden  relates  to  the  number  of  staff  involved  in  the  instruction  of  project 
applications (lack of regional staff) and the organisation of personnel employed in the 
selection  process.  In  some  cases,  a  more  general  problem  of  governance  between 
national and regional institutions arose where these institutions had different policy 
and budgetary preferences; 

o 

the  rigidity  of  the  partnership  structure;  the  public  procurement  rules  for  external 
services; 

the non-adoption of standard costs;  

o 
o  administrative controls not proportionate to the budget and duration of the projects. 

 

EIP-AGRI: the burden concerns the organisation of a two-stages procedure for selecting 
innovation  projects:  more  in  detail  the  setting  up  of  Operational  Group  plus  innovation 
project versus expression of interest plus full project proposal (like in Ireland case). 

Administrative burden at the EU level  

There  was  no  significant  administrative  burden  related  to  M1  (knowledge  transfer)  and  M2 
(advice).  

As regards M16 for innovation projects, the novelty of the EIP-AGRI approach has created the 
need  for  a  learning  process  both  in  the  public  administration  and  in  Operational  Groups.  It 
required a strong initial effort in Commission services in coordination, training, technical support 
and communication. 

  Administrative burden derived from the FAS in the Member States 

Administrative burden was identified in Member States and regions where the advisory system 
is financed directly through Rural Development Programme measures (M2). Regarding Member 
States and regions where the advisory system was already pre-existent and supported by national 
legislations and financial provisions (Germany, France and Ireland), the administrative burden 
was (i) very limited in cases of a simple designation of operating bodies, and (ii) higher in cases 
of application of an accreditation process, even if no data was available to specifically assess this 
burden. 

The  FAS  and  the  associated  requirements  as  conceived  by  the  legislator  should  not  generate 
substantial administrative burden – provided that the needed resources pre-existed. Establishing 
the FAS does nevertheless generate costs and burden, especially (i) for the drafting of specific 
decrees, (ii) for the definition and application of procedures to select/designate/accredit operating 
bodies, and (iii)  to  ensure the “suitable qualification  and regular training of FAS  advisors” is 
respected (either through checks and/or organisation of training activities). 

Also, the use of M2 (advice) to support the FAS (M2.1 for the use of advisory services, M2.3 for 
the  training  of  advisors,  or  to  a  lesser  extent  M2.2  for  the  setting  up  of  the  FAS),  adds 
administrative  constraints  linked  to  EAFRD  requirements,  e.g.  the  public  procurement  rule 
applying to the selection of bodies.  

Case studies revealed that, despite the CAP goal of simplification, the latter increasingly became 
a burden due to staff cuts in public administrations during the evaluation period.  

Of course, those constraints are not of the FAS itself, but of the M2 used for funding the FAS 
(advice) package’, as are the benefits. 

24 

 
  Cost and organisation of training 

For  M1  (knowledge  transfer),  beneficiaries  (knowledge  exchange  providers)  confirmed  their 
ability  to  achieve  good  results  with  a  limited  budget,  although  in  some  cases  they  reported 
struggling with covering the cost of delivery, using own resources to fulfil financial requirements, 
for  example  in  Flanders  Belgium,  Lorraine  France  and  Poland.  In  some  Member  States  the 
budget is viewed as sufficient by training bodies (for example Lower Saxony, Germany), who 
argued that perceived cost efficiency depends on the complexity of the projects funded.  

Interviews with training bodies suggest measure funding does not cover the costs of outreach and 
promotion activities. There is very limited connection with “hard to reach” farmers. Farmers in 
some  cases  complain  it  is  not  easy  to  find  out  about  available  activities,  largely  because  of 
inconsistent and fragmented information (e.g. Greece, Poland). This can cause reduced efficiency 
in measure performance.  

  Cost and organisation of advice 

The cost for farmers entails any financial outlay to receive advice (which varies between case 
studies from free to 100% of direct cost), also the time spent on these activities, which may be 
perceived as too high.  

Some case studies (Poland, Greece) reported farmers’ opinion that it is hard to find an interesting 
activity in which to participate. However, expert interviewees say this may be because there is 
low  appreciation  by  farmers  of  the  value  of  expert  advice.  Training  advisors  to  deliver 
information  in  a  way  that  is  understood  and  valued  by  farmers  was  highlighted  as  a  way  to 
enhance cost-effectiveness of advice. Such advice does not only focus on sustainability issues 
but also on technical and productivity ones.  

In respect of the FAS obligation, no information on costs of meeting this obligation could be 
provided  by  interviewees  in  case  studies.  In  those  cases  (Lorraine  France,  Lower  Saxony 
Germany) where it was widely agreed that the FAS had not made any difference to the extent or 
operations  of  previously-existing  provision,  both  administrative  costs  and  benefits  were 
considered  negligible.  In  other  Member  States,  the  FAS  obligation  is  linked  to  Rural 
Development support through M2 (advice), thus comments relating to administrative efficiency 
apply to the delivery of the funded measure(s) via which the FAS obligation is ensured. It has 
not been possible to make a generalised assessment of the cost-efficiency of the FAS obligation 
because its implementation varies considerably between Member States, and the implementation 
costs are not separately monitored or acknowledged by the public administration. 

Interviews with stakeholders within the case studies indicated that for advisory bodies, although 
the process has been simplified since the last period, making it easier for beneficiaries to apply, 
M2 (advice) brought difficulties in estimating and covering emerging costs (e.g. Lower Saxony, 
Germany). This results in some advisors losing interest in participating in the activities because 
the  rewards  are  insufficient  compared  to  the  ‘paperwork’  and  time  spent  calculating 
implementation costs.  

The promotion of advisor training is essential to meet the key CAP objectives, as required both 
by  the  FAS  and  the  Rural  Development  advisory  services  (M2).  Together,  they  have  been 
beneficial for advisors to  enhance their understanding of best  practice (e.g. animal  welfare in 
Ireland).  They  have  also  assisted  the  maintenance  of  jobs  in  advisory  services,  and  advisors’ 
ability  to  deliver  flexibly  to  meet  the  needs  of  their  recipients.  Thus,  requiring  and  funding 
training for advisors can enhance their efficiency. Conversely, strict administrative rules (e.g. 

25 

 
standard assumptions on costs as imposed in Flanders, Belgium) impede the ability of advisors 
to be flexible in designing attractive courses or consultations, decreasing efficiency.  

  How the benefits of the policy compare to the costs 

Looking at the benefits, the Joint Research Centre found that setting up of the FAS during the 
2007-2013 programming period helped to raise awareness of farmers on cross-compliance topics 
(Statutory  Management  Requirements  (SMRs)  and  Good  Agricultural  and  Environmental 
Conditions (GAEC)) and to introduce good practices for farm management21.  
Focusing on the 2014-2020 period, the FAS in the surveys and interviews of the case studies was 
found beneficial for the agricultural sector mostly: 

 

 

 

to raise awareness of beneficiaries on the offer of advice; 

to  ensure  the  existence  of  advice  on  specific  topics  (in  particular  environmental 
standards); and 

thanks to EAFRD support for training of advisors, to enhance the quality of advice, with 
well qualified and updated advisors. 

These  benefits  and  how  they  are  proportionate  to  costs  are  heterogeneous  between  Member 
States/regions.  

From case studies, benefits appeared rather limited in Member States where the offer of farm 
advisory services is already comprehensive and embedded in a strong and integrated AKIS. 
This is the case for instance in Germany and France, where the FAS obligation is not considered 
of added value. In Ireland, a general improvement and homogenisation of advisor’s skills was 
encouraged through training schemes (supported by M2.3 (training advisors) of the EARFD) and 
these are linked to the FAS22. In those three Member State(s) (Germany, France, Ireland), tasks 
related  to  FAS  are  part  of  the  usual  tasks  of  the  concerned  advisory  bodies.  Hence  the 
establishment and application of the FAS had overall limited costs but also with very limited 
secured benefits (France, Germany). In Flanders, M2.1 (advice) supported the FAS and together 
they led to the integration of new topics, especially on environment linked to advisory modules 
of interest to farmers but more focused on economic issues.  

Other Member States characterised by an intermediate AKIS (e.g. Estonia, Italy-Umbria and 
Veneto),  with  a  weaker  advice  offer  and  more  budgetary  constraints,  chose  to  use  Rural 
Development  advisory  services  (M2  -  advice)  to  support  the  FAS.  In  those  Member  States, 
representatives appeared to strongly assimilate the two instruments, and could not differentiate 
the respective contribution of each. Hence, they considered the ‘FAS-M2 package’: costs arose 
mainly from the accreditation procedures (public procurement rule), and the advisors’ training 
requirement; the benefits regard the structuring of AKIS (improved integration of advisors), the 
improved services’ offer (topics and quality) and the increased farmers’ awareness. Overall, the 
benefits outweighed the costs, the CAP FAS-M2 contributing to a better functioning of the AKIS 
and providing a helpful financial support. 

21  

22  

JRC  (2017).  FAS  database  2017/2018  based  on  the  FAS  questionnaire  to  Member  States,  pursuant  to 
Article 102.2 of the Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013; Vincenzo Angileri, Farm Advisory System in the EU: 
proposals for improvement, JRC Scientific and Technical Reports, Luxembourg, 2011. 

In order to be eligible to participate in other Rural Development Programme focused training schemes and 
advise  farmers  on  those  (e.g.  Green,  Low-Carbon,  Agri-Environment  Scheme  (GLAS),  Knowledge 
Transfer groups, EIP-AGRI, Burren Programme, etc.) advisors need to be FAS registered. 

26 

 
                                                 
Finally, in Member States with a weak and fragmented AKIS such as Greece (and Malta), Rural 
Development M2 (advice) and the FAS are expected to have a substantial contribution to the 
development of advisory services, in terms of topics and quality (potentially the case for Greece 
– still under development, and already functioning in Malta). Historically, the FAS obligation 
exists since 2007, but Greece had not mobilised the Rural Development advice measure (m114) 
across 2007-2013. In the current period, the Rural Development advice measure (M2) was well 
selected and, while its implementation is delayed, it is slightly ahead of the FAS setup. Overall, 
the  Rural  Development  advice  measure  (M2)  appears  an  essential  tool  to  support  the 
establishment and operation of the FAS in Member States/Regions facing strong financial and 
institutional capacity constraints. 

Overall,  despite  the  data  limitations  described  in  the  beginning  of  this  chapter,  it  can  be 
concluded,  according  to  case  study  interviewees  in  Managing  Authorities  and  stakeholder 
organisations, that CAP funding appears to be an efficient way to enhance AKIS functions, and 
according  to  the  same  source  and  evidence  EIP-AGRI  is  widely  considered  to  be  efficient. 
Notably the EIP-AGRI Service Point23 is perceived to have substantially assisted cross-border 
communication  by  national  networks  and  to  play  an  important  role  in  dissemination  of 
information and knowledge exchange between stakeholders at EU level. 

5.2. 

Effectiveness 

5.2.1  Entry and maintenance of adequately skilled farmers 

In 2010, the percentage of farmers with basic agricultural training24 was quite low (12%) whereas 
81% had practical experience only. This inhibited largely the pass-through of CAP objectives to 
agricultural practices. Between 2010 and 2016, the number of farmers with basic training raised 
by 1 million. However, in 2016, 68% of farmers still had practical experience only.  

Between 2010 and 2016, there has been a very small progress, for all age groups, in the number 
of farm managers having a basic training (22.1% to 22.5%, +0.4pp) and a significant progress in 
terms of full agricultural25 training (6.9% to 9.1%, +2.2pp). This increase is notably linked to the 
entry of young farmers with higher education levels than their elders.  

The interviews of the case studies pointed out that the Rural Development young-farmer measure 
(M6.1) has contributed to this improvement. Despite this progress, the level of trainings remains 
an issue. As was shown in Table 1 in 2016 less than a third (31.6%) of farm managers had at 
least a basic agricultural training. Less than one farmer in 10 has a full agricultural training. 

 23  The EIP-AGRI Service Point in Brussels, established in 2013, acts as a mediator within the EIP-AGRI network, 
enhancing communication and   cooperation between everyone with a keen interest in innovating agriculture: 
farmers, researchers, advisers, businesses, environmental groups, consumer interest groups and other NGOs. 
24  Basic  agricultural  training  is  any  training  courses  completed  at  a  general  agricultural  college  and/or  an 
institution  specialising  in  certain  subjects  (including  horticulture,  viticulture,  silviculture,  pisciculture, 
veterinary science, agricultural technology and associated subjects); a completed agricultural apprenticeship is 
regarded as basic training (source: Eurostat). 

25  Full agricultural training refers to any training course continuing for the equivalent of at least two years full-
time training after the end of compulsory education and completed at an agricultural college, university or other 
institute of higher education in agriculture, horticulture, viticulture, silviculture, pisciculture, veterinary science, 
agricultural technology and associated subjects (source Eurostat). 

27 

 
                                                 
Table 3. Training level of farm managers 2010-2016 

Training level of 
farmers 

Practical experience 
only 

2010 

2013 

2016 

2016 

all farmers 

all farmers 

all farmers 

young farmers 

8.1 million 

7 million 

6.6 million 

0.6 million 

81% 

71% 

68% 

57% 

Basic training 

2.2 million 

2 million 

2.2 million 

0.2 million 

22% 

20% 

23% 

21% 

Full agricultural 
training 

0.7 million 

0.9 million 

0.9 million 

0.2 million 

7% 

9% 

9% 

22% 

Source: Eurostat (EF_MP_TRAINING); Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on generational renewal, local 
development and jobs in rural areas. 
On the question of the effectiveness of CAP measures and instruments in fostering knowledge 
exchange, advisory activities and innovation in the agricultural and forestry sector and in rural 
areas,  respondents  of  the  public  consultation  found  them,  in  general,  more  ineffective  than 
effective. That meant, as figure 12 shows, that the sum of the categories “not effective at all” and 
“to a very small extent” was larger than the categories “to a very large extent” and “to a large 
extent effective”, with no significant differences by stakeholder category. The only exception to 
this statement is ‘Support for knowledge exchange and information actions (M1)’, which 27% 
found effective to a large or very large extent, in comparison with 20% who found it effective to 
a very small extent and 2% not at all effective, with similar percentages across all stakeholders. 

On support for lifelong learning (LLL) and vocational  training (M1), the case studies such as 
Estonia,  Lower  Saxony  Germany,  Lorraine,  France  and  the  2018  AIRs26  showed  that  many 
participants  considered  trainings  useful,  in  particular  with  regard  to  their  aim  of  technical 
improvements of farming and viable food production.  

The  case  studies  were  not  able  to  report  effectively  on  the  number  or  share  of  farmers  and 
foresters  involved  in  ongoing  learning  networks  or  communities  of  practice.  In  Flanders  and 
Estonia, circles of farmers organised farm visits and met several times a year. However, the issue 
remains  the  low  proportion  of  farmers  participating  in  training,  with  a  large  majority  not 
receiving adequate training. 

26   The  impacts  reported  in  the  2018  AIRs  of  M1-knowledge  transfer  are  generally  positive,  with  24  AIRs 

specifically stating that the final beneficiaries were satisfied with the training they received. 

28 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 13. Effectiveness of CAP instruments in fostering knowledge exchange, advisory  activities and 
innovation in the agricultural and forestry sector and in rural areas 

Support for knowledge exchange and information
actions (M1)

8%

19%

46%

4%

2%

20%

Support for the Advisory service measures (M2)

8%

10%

34%

30%

10%

7%

Cooperation and EIP projects (M16)

7%

21%

30%

24%

7%

10%

Support for networking, notably EIP (M20)

6%

12%

33%

30%

10%

10%

AKIS

2%

8%

37%

24%

10%

19%

FAS

6%

11%

34%

25%

7%

17%

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

To a very large extent To a large extent

To some extent

To a very small extent Not at all

No opinion

Source: Public consultation. 

Notwithstanding the result of the public consultation mentioned above it can be concluded on the 
basis of the case studies and the surveys carried out  that CAP instruments and measures have 
supported the entry and maintenance of adequately skilled farmers into the agricultural sector 
mainly in four ways: 

 

 

 

funding knowledge transfer (supported by the equivalent Rural Development knowledge 
transfer measure - M1); 

funding  advisory  services  (supported  by  the  Rural  Development  advisory  services 
measure - M2); 

the obligation to implement a FAS offering advice to farmers in each Members State, and 
directly; 

  specific requirements notably in terms of skills, related to CAP Priority 2 ‘Farm Viability 
and Competitiveness’ and Focus area 2B (designed specifically to facilitate the entry of 
young adequately skilled farmers into the agricultural sectors).   

The  Rural  Development  Programme  advice  measure  (M2)  supported  the  mandatory  FAS  in 
several  Member  States,  and  in  this  way,  they  have  fostered  together  the  maintenance  of 
adequately skilled farmers in various ways.  

According to the AgriLink project27 and the survey of FAS coordinators, the FAS on its own 
increased  the  awareness  of  farmers  on  the  offer  of  advisory  services  and  also  the  specific 
mandatory topics, in addition to cross-compliance (such as greening, maintenance of agricultural 
area,  the  Water  Framework  Directive,  Integrated  Pest  Management,  etc.).  In  several  Member 
States, support by the Rural Development advisory services measure (M2) is instrumental for the 
implementation  of  the  FAS.  Together,  they  contributed  to  the  improvement  of  the  quality  of 
advice proposed. 

Other  CAP  instruments  and  measure  have  been  identified  in  case  studies  and  AIRs,  as 
encouraging  farmers  and  foresters  to  participate  in  lifelong  learning  and  vocational  training 

27  https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/727577. 

29 

 
 
                                                 
actions: investment support (M4), setting-up of young farmers (M6.1), cooperation (M16) and 
LEADER (M19).  

If the implementation choices of the Member States include the Rural Development investment 
(M4)  and  young  farmer  (M6)  measures,  they  mainly  encourage  farmers  and  foresters  to 
undertake training as a condition of accessing these CAP supports.  

Regarding  new  entrants,  the  conditions  set  both  by  the  EU  and  Member  States  on  the  Rural 
Development  start-up-aid  (M6.1)  are  the  CAP's  main  lever  for  improving  the  level  of 
qualification  of  young  farmers.  The  requirements  in  terms  of  a  minimum  initial  level  of 
qualification or compulsory vocational training and advice during the first years of installation 
increase the initial qualifications among young farmers. The associated mandatory business plans 
also stimulate uptake of training and advice. It appears that often such training or advice is funded 
by national/regional funds, with  the  Rural  Development Programmes, and potential synergies 
between the various measures remain little exploited. 

Some  training  or  advisory  measures  are  targeted  more  specifically  to  young  farmers  and  are 
included under the CAP Priority 2 ‘Farm Viability and Competitiveness’ and Focus Area 2B 
‘Entry of skilled farmers into the agricultural sector’. It represents 6.8% and 4.4% of planned 
expenditure  under  respectively  Rural  Development  knowledge  transfer  (M1)  and  advisory 
services (M2) measures. 

M19 (LEADER) or M20 (Technical assistance and Regional Rural Networks) also contribute to 
influence knowledge exchange, innovation and advice to various degrees in each Member State, 
in  some  cases  by  funding  innovation  support  services.  LEADER  (M19)  measures  can  foster 
lifelong learning and vocational training in a direct way by setting up training or demonstrations. 
However, these occurrences remain rare. Among the other European actions, the Horizon 2020 
research and innovation programme is directly related to the implementation and extension of 
the  EIP-AGRI.  To  a  much  lesser  extent,  other  programmes  such  as  the  LIFE  programme, 
INTERREG  and  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF)  also  contribute  to  the 
strengthening of the AKIS.  

Regarding  the  wine  sector,  the  innovation  measure  (Article  51  of  Regulation  (EU) 
No 1308/2013) was included by just three Member States in their National Support Programmes 
(NSP),  namely  Germany,  Spain  and  Cyprus,  with  a  very  limited  budget.  In  addition,  the 
implementation of the measure was very low within these Member States. The main reason is 
the  combined  requirement  for  “new  products”  that  are  strictly  connected  to  wine  products 
(defined explicitly in the annex of the regulation) and the fact that grape producers who do not 
own a processing facility cannot benefit from the innovation measure. 

5.2.2  Change in farming practices 

Agricultural advice remains an important lever to change farming practices, as highlighted in a 
recent survey (performed for the 2018 AIRs) of over 150 advisors in Lower Saxony (Germany)28. 

The topics covered by the training and advice actions are broad. Those supported by the CAP or 
national  funds  not  only  aim  at  meeting  the  needs  expressed  by  farmers  such  as  enhanced 

28  Eberhardt, W. (2018). PFEIL - Programm zur Förderung im ländlichen Raum 2014 bis 2020 in Niedersachsen 
und Bremen: Einzelbetriebliche Beratung (TM 2.1) - Auswertung der Erfahrungsberichte der Beratungsanbieter 
zum  1.  Vergabezeitraum  (5-Länder-Evaluation,  12/18).  https://www.eler-evaluierung.de/fileadmin/eler2/ 
Publikationen/Projektberichte/5-Laender-Bewertung/2018/NI_EB__Bericht_Befragung_Berat-
Anbieter_2018__Endversion.pdf. 

30 

 
                                                 
competitiveness, but also, as envisaged by the intervention logic of the policy presented in figure 
5 and explained in chapter 2, especially integrate environmental and climatic needs or societal 
requirements like animal welfare, to a rather large extent, as illustrated by the case studies. This 
public support for training and advice enables independent advice. It covers more broadly topics 
such  as  agro-ecology,  alternative  to  use  of  pesticides  or  chemical  inputs,  animal  health  and 
welfare, security at work, organic farming, water, biodiversity, soil and climate measures. 

In most case studies, there are however no specific training or advice provided related to  the 
management of seasonal workers, the relevant labour standards or working conditions.  

The EIP AGRI was effective in bringing innovation, augmenting human capital and changing 
agricultural practices (although with small spill- over to farmers outside the cooperation) but also 
for EIP AGRI, there was a lack of involvement of farmers. 

The CAP had a potential to promote knowledge exchange, advisory services and innovation also 
to support climate action, in particular the change of farming practices to integrate climate needs 
such as carbon farming, but this potential was not fully used, mainly due to the low uptake of the 
measures. Yet the importance of such measures must be stressed for the purposes of creating 
enabling  conditions  for  land  managers  to  transition  to  sustainable  management  practices,  in 
particular carbon farming. To that end, also digital solutions in the context of the FAS such as 
FaST could play an important role and be promoted across the EU. 

The public consultation identified various fields of advice, which reflect the topics mentioned 
above (Figure 13, 187 respondents). 34% of advice activities relate only to economic aspects, 
while 47% to environmental and climate actions and 19% are more holistic. The major recipients 
of training were companies and/or business organisations and EU citizens, with special focus on 
farm  management  in  general  covering  farm  economics,  environmental  sustainability,  climate 
action and/or animal welfare and environmental trainings. The stakeholder groups do not show 
significant differences in the training received. 

Operational Groups are working on a wide range of themes such as water and soil management, 
control of pests and diseases, food quality, competitiveness of the value chains, energy efficiency 
and  many  others.  18%  of  them  are  testing  new  technology  solutions.  Around  65%  work  on 
environment or climate related issues. The results of all projects are pooled into the EIP-AGRI 
network, providing lots of new ideas and inspiration for the farming community.  

31 

 
 
Figure 14. Fields in which the respondents received advice 

Social aspects
6%

Other
1%

Food 
safety
5%

Farm management in 
general covering farm 
economics, 
environmental 
sustainability, climate 
action and/or animal 
welfare
12%

Plant health
6%

Animal welfare and 
health
7%

Environmental 
action on 
biodiversity
10%

Economic viability
7%

Climate action
13%

Farming using digital 
technologies
7%

Innovation
8%

Environmental 
action on water
9%

Environmental 
action on soil
9%

Source: Public consultation. 

Figure 15. Subjects of Operational Group projects 

Genetic 
resources; 2%

Forestry; 
2%

Energy management; 
2%

Plant 
production 
and 
horticulture; 
11%

Farming/forestry 
competitiveness and 
diversification; 10%

Animal husbandry and 
wellfare; 10%

Landscape / land 
management; 4%

Water, by-
products and 
residues 
management; 4%

Water management; 
5%

Farming equipment 
and machinery; 5%

Climate and climate 
change; 5%

Biodiversity and nature 
management; 5%

Soil management / 
functionality ; 6%

Fertilisation and 
nutrients 
management; 6%

Pest/disease 
control; 7%

Food quality 
/processing and 
nutrition; 8%

Supply chain, 
marketing and 
consumption; 8%

Source: European Commission. 

32 

 
 
 
5.2.3  Flow of information between researchers, advisors and famers 

A condition for the effectiveness of the knowledge exchange is the strong flow of information 
between  researchers,  advisors  and  famers.  According  to  the  public  consultation  (187 
respondents), there seems to be a common perception by respondents that current measures and 
instruments are not very effective on fostering information between researchers and the other 
two stakeholder groups. Between researchers and advisors 46% of the respondents found it not 
very effective (sum of ‘to a very small extent’ and ‘not at all’), and 60% of the respondents found 
it not very effective between farmers and researchers. 

Figure 16. Effectiveness of current CAP measures and instruments on fostering the flow of information 

Between researchers and advisors

3%

11%

35%

33%

13%

6%

Between farmers and researchers

3%

7%

26%

46%

15%

4%

Between farmers and advisors

13%

32%

33%

14%

4%

4%

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

To a very large extent To a large extent

To some extent

To a very small extent Not at all

No opinion

Source: Public consultation. 

On the other hand, 45% of the respondents found positively effective (sum of ‘to a very large 
extent’ and ‘to a large extent’) the information flow between farmers and advisors. There were 
not major differences across stakeholder groups for any of the categories asked. 

The  cornerstone  of  AKIS  and  EIP-AGRI  is  the  strengthening  of  information  flow  between 
farmers, advisors, researchers. The case studies illustrate that (1) making a link between research 
and farmers is a challenge in all Member States; (2) in some Member States, the information 
flow between researchers and advisors is weak; (3) the information flow between advisors and 
farmers is generally good but depends on the quality and number of impartial advisors, and in 
some Member States where advice is charged for, on the ability of farmers to pay for the service. 

5.2.4  Other critical success factors 

The assessment of the effectiveness of the CAP measures in terms of more viable, sustainable 
and inclusive agricultural practices considers the critical success factors that increase the impact 
of  the  policy  on  knowledge  exchange,  advisory  activities  and  innovation.  On  the  basis  of 
longstanding experience and/or other sources of evidence such as surveys it was perceived by 
the Managing Authorities that training or advice were a critical element in encouraging beneficial 
changes  in  farming  practices.  However,  in  all  case  studies,  it  was  reported  that  Managing 
Authorities  are  unable  to  say  what  proportion  of  those  receiving  training  or  advice  actually 
implement changes as a result. 

Factors regarding policy design 

Widespread beneficiary awareness of opportunities for training and advice is an essential factor 
for success as is  shown by the assessment  of the implementation  of  the knowledge  exchange 
policy in the case studies. 

33 

 
A strong emphasis upon effective promotion is demonstrated as important in Flanders, Lorraine, 
Ireland,  Umbria  and  Veneto  where  according  to  interviews  and  surveys  the  uptake  of  the 
measures is found to be higher than in other regions with less promotion. 

Policies  which  recognise  and  work  with  existing  providers/groups/networks  can  according  to 
case  studies  interviews  be  more  effective  than  those  designed  in  isolation,  particularly  if 
established providers are well-known and trusted. However, it is important to ensure their quality 
and capacity.   

Evidence  from  interviews  with  farmers  organisations  and  surveys  of  managing  authorities  in 
Lorraine, Estonia, Poland, Lower Saxony, Umbria and Veneto reveals that sources of knowledge 
exchange and advice have to be easy to access / locally based close to farmers (i.e. less than one 
hour’s travel away), seen as credible, and able to deal with a wide range of individual situations. 
Trainers  need  to  offer  courses  in  places  and  at  times  of  the  day,  week  and  year  which  suit 
beneficiary  groups,  and  relief  services  may  be  needed  to  enable  them  to  undertake  training. 
Advisors need to be located close to where their client base is, and familiar with local practices 
and systems. Those delivering services must keep up to date with research and relevant practice. 
Evidence confirms these points in Lorraine, Estonia, Poland, Lower Saxony, Umbria and Veneto. 

Collective  learning  approaches  can  be  particularly  useful  for  new  ideas,  but  there  can  be 
organisational or behavioural barriers to establishing groups. A group approach offers potential 
benefits over advice or information taken individually, in both efficiency and effectiveness due 
to group dynamics and interaction. However, where collective structures do not already exist or 
are viewed with suspicion, farmers need encouragement to get involved and develop trust and 
this takes time and effort to create or strengthen collective structures. Formal collective structures 
require people skilled in organisation and coordination. 

It  follows from the surveys of the managing authorities and national FAS coordinators that a 
proper qualification of advisors and trainers is necessary – both initial/formative qualifications. 
Linking aid to qualifications can help to ensure advice is relevant and up to date as for example 
in Ireland, Lorraine and Lower Saxony. 

Factors of Rural Development Programme operational design 

From the assessment of the policy implementation in the case studies it becomes clear that new 
legislation or making training compulsory or key to accessing other measures can be a strong 
trigger for uptake as was the case in Lorraine, Flanders and Lower Saxony. 

In the survey of managing authorities these pointed out that bureaucratic obstacles and narrow 
focus can reduce effectiveness: setting "verifiable and controllable" requirements on innovation 
projects can be limiting, also restricting reallocation of funds to where uptake is most successful. 
This happened in particular in Estonia and Italy. It is clear that innovation is difficult to measure 
and  that  the  funds  must  follow  the  need  for  the  knowledge  exchange,  advice  and  innovation 
measures rather than being fixed to a particular location without the possibility to switch to an 
expenditure items in a different place. CAP interventions may be fragmented and uncoordinated 
both  because of EU requirements and implementation  in the Member States, whereas experts 
suggested that a more systemic and coherent approach to knowledge exchange for agricultural 
transformation could be more effective in achieving policy objectives. 

Intermediary  organisations  and  multi-actor  initiatives/institutions  can  help  to  overcome 
administrative issues and increase efficiency  – e.g. setting up an intermediary body to handle 

34 

 
procedures  and  funding  to  simplify/accelerate  access  to  training  and  advice,  or  enabling  pre-
existing collective institutions to play a key linking role to beneficiaries.  

Coordination and linkage between providers of knowledge (encouraging collaboration between 
training  and  consultancy/advisory  operators)  is  necessary  and  valuable  to  enhance  their 
efficiency and effectiveness. Farmers undertake training to learn new skills and then advisors 
help them to put these skills into practice, on their farms: this, as the case studies of Italy, Poland 
and Flanders demonstrated, requires services to work together in a coordinated way. The case 
study Veneto showed that: 

 

Including  EIP-AGRI  intervention  within  the  Local  Development  Strategy  (LDS)  of 
LEADER Local Action Groups (LAGs) can ensure a stronger linkage between LDS and 
Operational Groups activities and innovation meeting local needs.  

  Stimulating successful producer organisations and cooperatives acting as local bodies to 
ensure  communication,  advice,  training  and  spread  innovative  solutions  in  their 
territories, can be highly effective. 

The results of the evaluation suggest that 1) ease of implementation of measures affects outcomes 
but this is not in itself a sign of success 2) measures are more likely to be impactful in Member 
States and regions where there is a broad and well-integrated AKIS and 3) the measures have 
effectively targeted CAP Priorities, in many situations, but on its own this is not a critical factor 
of success. 

The  more  successful  policies  are  those  moving  towards  more  participatory,  locally  designed 
approaches  which  involve  strong  inter-institutional  coordination  and  multiple  actors  working 
together. This trend is based upon widely shared experience across case study countries. 

Case studies have demonstrated that often the success of the EIP-AGRI is linked to the efforts of 
individuals,  notably  within  "innovation  support  services"  whether  or  not  they  are  carried  out 
under a national rural network (NRN), regional rural networks (RRN) or by other actors. At the 
EU level, the EIP-AGRI network plays an important role in stimulating dynamic and fostering 
information exchange at all levels.  

According  to  recent  studies  and  surveys  the  uptake  of  the  agricultural  EIP  is  adequate  (all 
member  states  except  Luxembourg  fund  Operational  Groups),  with  the  farmer-led  approach 
“truly distinctive” and “highly appreciated by stakeholders”. The great majority (between 81% 
and 92%) of participants in EIP Operational Groups are very satisfied with the group partnership 
and  cooperate  with  external  entities.  However,  there  is  room  for  improving  cooperation  with 
research projects (only 14% of Operational Groups are currently collaborating with Horizon 2020 
projects).  Another  important  challenge  is  the  dissemination  of  projects'  results.  This  requires 
intensifying networking activities dedicated to agricultural research and innovation. 

Taken together, all the CAP instruments and measures (M1, M2, M16, the FAS and other specific 
measures) contributed to strengthening knowledge exchange, innovation training and advisory 
activities  in  rural  areas  from  a  significant  to  a  limited  contribution  to  Member  States’  AKIS. 
Despite  limited  financial  allocation  and  administrative  burdens  in  implementation,  each 
instrument and measure mentioned above contributes individually to strengthening knowledge 
exchange, innovation and advisory activities in rural areas.  

35 

 
5.3 

Coherence 

5.3.1  Coherence  of  CAP  instruments  with  regard  to  knowledge  exchange,  innovation  and 

advisory activities 

Regarding the legal framework, the CAP 2014-2020 sought to strengthen the links between direct 
payments  and  rural  development,  to  reinforce  the  CAP’s  internal  coherence.  As  coherence 
depends not only on the policy design but also on the implementation this does not automatically 
implicate strengthening of coherence. In this perspective, with the CAP 2013 reform, common 
objectives were explicitly assigned to the CAP as a whole, and a single common monitoring and 
evaluation  framework  (CMEF)  was  set.  However,  in  contrast  to  the  European  Structural  and 
Investment Funds, no such common programming was carried out for direct payments funded 
by  the  European  Agricultural  Guarantee  Fund  -  EAGF  and  rural  development  funded  by  the 
EAFRD. Both pillars of the CAP are mostly managed by different competent authorities, often 
based  in  different  locations,  particularly  in  regionalised  or  devolved  Member  States.  The 
resulting approach, intended at EU level as more comprehensive and integrated, remained in the 
strategic documents without materialising in the case study Member States. 

Regarding  the  CAP’s  internal  coherence,  the  mandatory  topics  of  the  FAS  fall  under  the 
regulation  on financing,  management  and monitoring of the CAP, while support  for  advisory 
services  (M2)  falls  under  the  Rural  Development  Regulation.  As  a  result,  FAS  and  Rural 
Development  supported  advisory  services  (M2)  are  managed  by  authorities  from  different 
departments and, in regional Member States, by authorities with different jurisdictional powers. 
According  to  the  case  studies  this  influenced  negatively  the  coherence  of  the  CAP  regarding 
advice to farmers. 

The successive CAP reforms (2007-2013 and 2014-2020) have also sought to strengthen internal 
coherence within Rural Development (and its different measures). In the context of the 2014-
2020 period, Priority 1 is a cross-cutting priority, and funds for Measures 1, 2 and 16 are allocated 
within  the  thematic  Priorities  2  to  6.  Jointly  with  the  introduction  of  primary  and  secondary 
contributions,  they  have  strengthened  the  coherence  between  these  support  measures  and  the 
other Rural Development Programme measures (at least in the design phase). Measures 1, 2 and 
16 were also conceived by the Commission to work together, as well as to be complementary to 
each other. 

Overall,  the  case  studies  and  interviews  carried  out  do  not  show  contradiction  between  CAP 
objectives,  measures  or  instruments  related  to  fostering  knowledge  exchange,  innovation  and 
advisory activities, as part of their design and the overall architecture of the CAP. There were 
also strong expectations in terms of complementarities between the different Rural Development 
measures related to fostering knowledge exchange, innovation and advisory activities (especially 
for those directly related but also including those indirectly related). 

However,  the  synergies  and  complementarities  at  the  design  stage  could  not  always  be  fully 
implemented  due  to  implementation  delays  e.g.  as  a  result  of  staff  cuts  of  the  Managing 
Authorities or the abandonment of certain sub-measures due to administrative burdens e.g. as a 
result of public procurement procedures. Although the 2014-2020 architecture is more strategic 
and demonstrates a greater internal coherence than the one of 2007-2013, CAP support measures 
remain complex and sometimes, due to the intrinsic complexity of knowledge transfer policies, 
difficult to comprehend and explain for stakeholders involved in Rural Development.  

Within national or regional administrations, separate management by individual measure or sub-
measure  is  still  common  which  can  influence  knowledge  exchange  policies  negatively.  Few 

36 

 
managers of measures have a cross-cutting vision of their Rural Development Programmes and 
the  way  “their”  measures/sub-measures  support  broader  goals  identified  at  the  level  of  the 
programme or the CAP as a whole. 

Nevertheless, the case studies show clear progress towards greater integration and coordination 
between the different measures, but differences exist across the Member States. Overall, the CAP 
architecture  allows  for  a  better  integration  of  the  measures  linked  to  knowledge  exchange, 
innovation and advisory activities within the different Priorities.  

Some case studies show an important link with an EIP-AGRI unit or innovation support service, 
possibly  setup  within  a  national  rural  network  (NRN)  or  regional  rural  network  (RRN)  at 
programme level.  

These EIP-AGRI units play a role of facilitation, coordination and transfer of information. The 
coherent implementation of knowledge transfer and dissemination among the entities involved 
(EIP-AGRI Networks, National Rural Networks, various innovation support services within or 
outside the National Rural Networks, etc.) is an important feature both at Member State and EU 
level. 

Although the internal coherence of Rural Development regarding M1- knowledge transfer and 
M2 - advice has improved compared to 2007-2013, there still remains a lack of coherence due to 
flexible and combined use of M1 and its sub-measures with M2.1 and the Operational Groups 
(Measures 16.1 and 16.2), in particular regarding dissemination of results. 

5.3.2  Coherence with other relevant national and EU policies 

Based on the case studies and interviews, only a portion of Member States (France and Ireland) 
possess  specific  national  programmes  with  regard  to  knowledge  exchange,  innovation  and 
advisory activities in sectors covered by the CAP.  

Despite this, a significant proportion of the current support to knowledge exchange, advice and 
innovation is funded by national or regional resources and/or is indicated to fall short of meeting 
needs. This is partly due to complexity and administrative burden linked to the implementation 
of the relevant CAP instruments and measures). 

At the level of many Member States, the CAP only supports a (sometimes very limited) part of 
the knowledge exchange, advice and innovation measures and actions implemented at national 
or regional level. The case studies only give a partial picture of the coverage of needs, with many 
initiatives  being  taken  elsewhere,  which  makes  it  difficult  to  assess their relevance.  The  case 
studies have highlighted different approaches to the coverage of needs in terms of topics. Most 
case study Member States made training and advice available for farmers, targeting their needs 
(technical, economic, social related topics) and societal needs (carbon management, biodiversity, 
environment,  animal  welfare).  However,  some  have  put  more  of  an  emphasis  than  others  on 
societal  themes  and  quality  of  life,  mainly  Member  States  with  stronger  AKIS  (Belgium-
Flanders,  France,  Italy,  Germany-Lower  Saxony,  Ireland).  On  the  other  hand,  other  Member 
States have concentrated CAP-facilitated advice on themes related to farmers’ needs, giving little 
attention to societal topics (Estonia, Greece, Poland). These Member States with notably weaker 
and less integrated AKIS also cover fewer emerging topics (which need to be addressed). 

A  strong  coherence  with  the  CAP  objectives  and  a  parallel  evolution  of  specific  national 
programmes are noted both in France and Ireland.  

In other Member States or regions, occasional intended complementarities between the CAP and 
national programmes have been noted but most have not always been materialised (yet) due to 

37 

 
different  objectives  and  implementation  approaches,  implying  that  the  expected  coherence  or 
integration have been more limited in the implementation than in the policy design. 

Table 4 National programmes with regard to knowledge exchange, innovation and advisory activities 

Case study Member State 
– region 

Presence of national programmes with regard to knowledge exchange, innovation and 
advisory activities 

Belgium - Flanders 

No 

Germany – Lower Saxony  No 

Estonia 

France - Lorraine 

Greece 

Ireland 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Italy – Umbria and Veneto  No 

Poland 

No 

National  Programme  for  the  agricultural  and  rural  development  (“Programme 
National  pour  le  développement  agricole  et  rural”)  with  a  strong  focus  on  agro-
ecology  

Food Harvest 2020 (FH2020), Foodwise 2025 (FW2025) and Forestry Knowledge 
Transfer Group (KTG). 

Source: ADE based on Case studies and Interviews. 

With  regard  to  knowledge  exchange,  innovation  and  advisory  activities,  other  related  EU 
instruments and policies play a role, notably the other European Structural and Investment Funds 
(European Social Fund, European Regional Development Fund) and the Horizon 2020 policy 
research programme.  

Regarding the legal framework the EU placed increased emphasis upon coherence, especially in 
the  context  of  the  2014-2020  programming  period,  via  higher  level  requirements  in  order  to 
strengthen  the  complementarities  of  the  European  instruments  and  programmes.  The  cross-
cutting  enhancement  of  research,  innovation  and  training  is  clearly  present  within  two  of  the 
thematic  objectives  defined  under  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  legal 
framework (Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013) ensuring that each of these funds shall 
support these objectives, in line with Europe 2020 strategy.  

The analysis of the cases studies concluded that a high degree of coherence, complementarity 
and  potential  synergies  also  exist  between  the  Horizon  2020  Societal  Challenge  2  -  “Food 
Security,  Sustainable  Agriculture  and  Forestry,  Marine,  Maritime  and  Inland  Water  Research 
and  the  Bioeconomy”  -  and  the  CAP  (with  the  implementation  of  the  EIP  'Agricultural 
productivity and sustainability'). 

The surveys of the case studies revealed that EIP-AGRI is a link between the CAP and Horizon 
2020 that increases their coherence. It is a model of connecting EU policies and create synergies. 
The EIP-AGRI network is acting as a platform for connecting the CAP, Horizon2020 and the 
Digital Europe Strategy. Agricultural research and innovation under both Horizon 2020 and the 
CAP  also  link  up  with  Regional  policy  through  the  Smart  specialisation  AgriFood  platform, 
which coordinates regions that focused their smart specialisation strategy on AgriFood. Regional 
policy, in particular the European Regional Development Fund, plays a role in the structuring of 
regional innovation ecosystems and capacities and could be developed to support Member States' 
AKIS systems, as some examples already illustrate.  

38 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  framework  and  the  provisions  mentioned  above  are  meant  to  ensure  coherence  and 
convergence  in  the  objectives  and  clarify  the  demarcation  lines  between  each  of  the  funding 
instruments, with a view to avoid any duplication. Overall, the objectives of the 2014-2020 Rural 
Development  Programmes  have  been  built  in  line  with  the  Common  Strategic  Framework, 
Partnerships Agreements and European Structural and Investment Funds. Attempts have been 
made in certain Member States or regions (France, Flanders, Belgium, Estonia, Italy and Poland), 
at  least  in  the  programme  design  phase,  to  link  the  new  Rural  Development  measure  on 
cooperation (M16) and/or the EIP-AGRI network with Horizon 2020.  

The  implementation  to  date  however  does  not  always  reveal  a  search  for  strong  synergies  or 
complementarities  between  the  European  instruments.  They  are  mostly  being  implemented 
independently  or  in  parallel  (notably  with  the  European  Social  Fund  and  European  Regional 
Development Fund). Nevertheless, overall, no contradictions were noted, with a few marginal 
exceptions due to the demarcation lines (e.g. non-agricultural trainings for farmers). 

At  EU  level,  the  coherence  with  Horizon  2020  is  acknowledged  by  EU  staff  involved  in  the 
policy. Effective synergies and complementarities have been built between Horizon 2020 and 
the CAP within the EIP-AGRI (for e.g. in the organisation of seminars by the EIP-AGRI, with 
the support of national EIP-AGRI units, rural networks and some Operational Groups). Synergies 
of EIP-AGRI with research projects under the Horizon programme could be further developed, 
with a view to upscaling the adoption of green business models. 

In the beginning of the period, some Member States have encountered difficulties in ensuring 
national  coordination  with  Horizon  2020  (Germany  and  Estonia),  especially  at  Operational 
Group  level,  but  most  of  them  address  it  in  the  remaining  period  (until  2023)  by  building 
synergies and complementarities in the same effective way as set out above. In France, there is 
first evidence of synergies between the implementation of the measure on cooperation (M1M16), 
the EIP-AGRI network and Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation programme.  

5.4 

Relevance 

5.4.1  CAP instruments with regard to knowledge exchange, advisory activities and innovation 
needs and relevance 

The agricultural sector must constantly adapt to new challenges, notably “produce more with less 
in a sustainable way”. Also, the sector has seen an escalation of a wide range of challenges: price 
volatility, crises (e.g. milk), diseases (African Swine Fever, avian flu, etc.), the effects of climate 
change  (droughts),  changes  in  regulations,  limits  on  the  use  of  pesticides  (e.g;  an  anticipated 
glyphosate ban in numerous Member States), and risks for salaried work, farmers’ groups, etc. 
All these challenges have to be addressed by changes in farming practices, to which knowledge 
exchange policies can provide support. 

At farm level, these needs can relate to certain topics, such as economics (income instability, 
diversification,  risk  management  and  smart  farming…),  socio-economic  aspects  (stress 
management, quality of life, succession, management of labour forces) or technical topics. They 
can also refer to needs in terms of methods of knowledge exchange.  

On the question of relevance, most (56%) of the 187 respondents of the public consultation have 
a neutral perception of the sufficiency of CAP instruments and measures regarding the need to 
foster knowledge exchange, advisory activities, and innovation in the agricultural and forestry 
sector and in rural areas, with no major difference among the respondents. It is then followed by 

39 

 
negative perception (25%) and positive (18%). The remaining 1% had no opinion.  Not a single 
public authority expressed negative perceptions. 

Figure 17 shows the results of a survey of the needs of farmers in the Grand-Est region in France. 
It reveals that the needs of farmers are more in the field of economic viability than in the field of 
farming  practices  that  are  beneficial  to  the  environment.  Nevertheless,  trainings  to  adapt  to 
climate change (droughts) is the first need expressed by these farmers. 

Figure 17. Emerging needs for training and advice expressed by Grand-Est farmers 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Climate change: droughts

Economy and performance of the farm

Managing income instability

Adapting to price volatility

Stress management related to the job

PPP

Protein autonomy

Big data

Climate change: emissions

Debt management

Access to financial instruments

Precision agriculture

CAP declaration

Quality of life/isolation

Nitrates and water quality

Human resources management

None

Source: ADE Final Beneficiaries survey in Grand Est (France), 2020. 

The survey conducted by ADE among the farmers of the Grand-Est region (France) showed that 
a majority of the 142 respondent farmers consider that the available training activities and advice 
correspond to their needs. However, 34% of them considered that the available offer was not 
very adapted (29%) or not adapted at all (5%) to their needs. 

Droughts (24% of farmers) came as the most urgent need as the region has suffered several years 
in a row from severe droughts. Unstable income (20%), price volatility (12%) came close behind 
alongside  economy  and  holdings’  performances  (17%)  and  stress  management  (12%)  as 
insufficiently  developed  themes  in  trainings  and  advice.  As  for  reasons  given  by  surveyed 
respondents  for  non-subscription  to  training  programmes  or  not  seeking  for  advice,  36% 
answered  the  services  proposed  do  not  correspond  to  their  needs.  The  other  main  barriers  to 
training and seeking advice are purely material reasons: they lack the time (35%), the centres are 
located too far (33%) and the times chosen for the training programmes are not adapted (29%). 
Cost  limitation  (15%)  and  lack  of  information  (12%)  are  for  a  minority  a  reason  for  not 
participating in training activities or not seeking advice. 

Society  also  expresses  relevant  needs  in  terms  of  sustainability  and  public  goods,  such  as 
environmental enhancement (reduced use of chemical inputs including pesticides), biodiversity, 
climate actions (mitigation and adaptation), animal welfare, food security and food safety, etc. 

40 

 
 
All the needs above can potentially be addressed by CAP instruments and measures for training, 
advice and innovation to meet the expectations of farmers and society. However, due to lack of 
specific  incentives  many  Member  States  focus  only  on  using  CAP  provisions  to  cover  the 
obligatory requirements under cross-compliance and greening. 

For the FAS, in order to meet better the needs of famers and society, the mandatory list of topics 
on which advice must be available for farmers has been expanded in the 2014-2021 CAP with 
greening,  advice  for  beneficiaries  of  Rural  Development  supported  measures  (especially 
investments), the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and Integrated Pest Management (IPM). 

In  Rural  Development  Programmes,  compared  to  the  previous  period,  the  framework  has 
expanded  to  include  new  activities  like  information  or  demonstration  activities  or  visits  and 
exchanges at farm level (sub-measures 1.2 and 1.3), the possibility to offer one-to-one advice 
combined  with  advice  in  small  groups  (M2.1  –  use  of  advisory  services)  and  the  training  of 
advisors (M2.3). The EIP-AGRI Operational Groups are a completely new approach based on 
‘bottom-up’ co-creation of knowledge in response to farmers’ and foresters’ needs.  

However,  although  the  EU  framework  of  policies  regarding  knowledge  exchange,  advisory 
services and innovation is meant to be broad, Member States identify limitations compared to 
their own initial scoping of needs. This means that the policy is to some extent lacking relevance 
with respect to the existing needs in the field. To fund one-to-one advice combined with advice 
in  small  groups (M2  -  advice), the ‘duly justified and taking into account  the situation of the 
individual user of the advisory service’ condition made implementation difficult for Managing 
Authorities due to uncertainty of interpretation and subsequent controls. Some Member States 
also  encountered  difficulties  to  adapt  a  pre-defined  national  funding  framework  to  support 
notably webinars or other online training courses (Flanders, Belgium, Lower Saxony, Germany, 
Lorraine, France, Estonia, Greece, Poland) or new types of final beneficiaries.  

To  respond  to  national/regional  needs,  the  European  Commission  required  a  SWOT  analysis 
within  the  Rural  Development  Programme  preparation.  The  SWOT,  linked  to  the  explicit 
identification  of  needs  and  responses  to  those  needs,  is  highly  structured  in  the  Rural 
Development Programmes and is a step forward compared to the previous programming period. 
This  exercise  has  made  it  possible  to  refocus  knowledge  exchange,  advice  and  innovation 
activities on specific themes, which was a recommendation of the European Court of Auditors 
report29.  

At  the  level  of  many  Member  States  such  as  France  and  Ireland,  the  CAP  only  supports  a 
(sometimes very limited) part of the knowledge exchange, advice and innovation measures and 
actions implemented at national or regional level which makes it less relevant than envisaged. 
The case studies only give a partial picture of the coverage of needs, with many initiatives being 
taken  elsewhere,  which  makes  it  difficult  to  assess  the  relevance  of  the  CAP  in  the  field  of 
knowledge  exchange,  advisory  services  and  innovation.  The  case  studies  have  highlighted 
different approaches to the coverage of needs in terms of topics. Most case study Member States 
made training and advice available for farmers, targeting their needs (technical, economic, social 
related  topics)  and  societal  needs  (carbon  management,  biodiversity,  environment,  animal 

29  European Court of Auditors. (2015). Special Report No 12/2015. The EU priority of promoting a knowledge-
based  rural  economy  has  been  affected  by  poor  management  of  knowledge-transfer  and  advisory  measures. 
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2015. ISBN: 978-92-872-2998-4.   

41 

 
                                                 
 
welfare).  However,  some  have  put  more  of  an  emphasis  than  others  on  societal  themes  and 
quality  of  life,  mainly  Member  States  with  stronger  AKIS  (Flanders,  France,  Italy,  Lower 
Saxony,  Ireland).  On  the  other  hand,  other  Member  States  have  concentrated  CAP-facilitated 
advice  on  themes  related  to  farmers’  needs,  giving  little  attention  to  societal  topics  (Estonia, 
Greece,  Poland).  These  Member  States  with  notably  a  weaker  and  less  integrated  AKIS  also 
cover fewer emerging topics which need to be addressed. 

The M1 (knowledge transfer) measure fiche30 also calls for a recurrent need’s analysis following 
the SWOT analysis. The aim of this exercise is to ensure that knowledge transfer activities really 
correspond to the needs of the target groups. 

About half of the case studies Member States have realised an updated needs analysis  with  a 
SWOT (Lower Saxony, Germany, Estonia, Lorraine, France, Poland), while the other half has 
not (Flanders, Belgium, Greece, Italy, Ireland). For the Member States who have, the update of 
the needs analysis is rarely formalised and happens rather on a continuous basis at the initiative 
of operators in close contact with the field or through satisfaction surveys. A limit to these needs 
analysis  is  that  these  only  reach  farmers  who  regularly  participate  in  training  and  advisory 
activities.  Since  an  inclusive  and  adequate  analysis  of  needs  is  necessary  to  address  needs 
properly the situation described above has negatively influenced the relevance of the CAP policy 
on knowledge exchange, advisory services and innovation.  

On the one hand, Member States with stronger AKIS are expressing needs related to the social 
aspect  of  agriculture  and  quality  of  life.  On  the  other  hand,  farmers,  advising  bodies  and 
managing authorities from Member States with weaker or/and less integrated AKIS go less into 
the details of emerging topics which need to be addressed but concentrate on needs that relate to 
the structure of their AKIS (e.g. ageing advisors). 

Overall, the EU framework is flexible enough when it comes to the content of the training and 
advice activities in order to ensure their relevance. The difficulties that have been reported in the 
case  studies  mainly  come  from  the  national/regional  framework  or  interpretation  of  EU 
framework, which, once written, can be binding and rather inflexible. 

5.4.2  CAP instruments, development and the relevance for the FAS obligation 

Examination of actual and planned expenditures for Measures 1 (knowledge transfer), 2 (advice) 
and 16 (cooperation) in Rural Development Programmes show only weak links to the notion that 
funding should be greatest in Member States with greatest needs for knowledge exchange, advice 
and  innovation,  as  an  indicator  of  relevance.  The  correlation  between  planned  use  of  these 
measures  and  need  as  indicated  by  territories  with  weaker  AKIS  appears  stronger  than  that 
between actual use and this indicator, up to 2018, suggesting that implementation issues may 
have reduced the relevance of CAP measures in practice.  

However, interviewees in most case studies feel strongly that all the relevant CAP measures and 
instruments promote better functioning of the AKIS in their Member State or region, in a variety 
of ways. In some cases the AKIS is deemed highly reliant upon CAP funding to survive, while 
in others, funding is much less a factor and it is more the impact of the specific measures which 
is deemed significantly to improve AKIS functioning and relevance.  

30   Measure  Fiche  –  Knowledge  transfer  and  information  actions  (M1M1  –  Article  14  of  Regulation  (EU) 

No 1305/2013); DG AGRI non-binding guidance. 

42 

 
                                                 
There  is  evidence  that  the  EU  and  Member  States  networks  and  institutional  developments 
supporting  EIP-AGRI,  in  particular,  were  relevant  and  have  fostered  significant  new 
functionality,  mobilising  farmer  learning  and  strengthening  links  between  research  and 
innovation in practice; albeit for relatively small numbers of farmers, to date. Many interviewees 
among Managing Authorities, stakeholder organisations and knowledge exchange providers in 
most of the case study countries express positive views about the emerging potential of the EIP-
AGRI  approach  to  transform  the  functionality  and  innovation  capacity  of  the  AKIS.  Also, 
National  Rural  Networks  in  some  Member  States  (e.g.  Italy,  Estonia)  are  identified  by 
stakeholders as important in enhancing knowledge exchange among Pillar 2 beneficiaries and 
the advisory and training community. 

Specific  examples  of  measures  enhancing  AKIS  include  distinctive  approaches  to  M16 
(cooperation) in Ireland, Poland, France, Germany and Estonia. To a lesser extent, M2 in Italy 
and M1 in Flanders are also highlighted as important and relevant. However, the case studies 
also  emphasise  that  an  integrated  approach  to  deployment  of  all  relevant  measures  can  be 
particularly beneficial, as described in Italy, France, Ireland and Germany. 

There  is  a  clear  division  among  Rural  Development  Programmes  between  those  for  which 
support to advisory services (M2)  has been critical for mobilising the FAS, and those where the 
funding can still be important but is not directly impacting the relevance or performance of FAS 
(Lower Saxony in Germany, France). The former situation is encountered most often in Member 
States with relatively weak AKIS where implementing the FAS was closely linked to establishing 
one  or  more  farm  advisory  services,  for  which  EAFRD  funding  was  and  remains  valuable. 
However, even in Member States or regions with quite strong or medium AKIS, such as Flanders, 
Italy and Estonia, Managing authorities used support to advisory services (M2) notably but not 
only to meet the FAS obligation. In those Member State(s) and regions where a pre-existing and 
strong integrated advisory service was simply identified to fulfil the FAS obligation, there is little 
influence and relevance of Rural Development Programme funding on the FAS– as appears the 
case in Ireland, France and Germany (Lower Saxony). 

5.5 

EU added value 

According to the evidence provided in the Rural Development ProgrammeManaging Authorities 
survey CAP instruments and measures have created added value regarding knowledge exchange, 
innovation and advisory activities across Member States because the cross-cutting Priority 1 of 
Rural  Development  encourages  Managing  Authorities  to  consider  supporting  knowledge 
exchange,  advice  and  innovation  under  each  thematic  Priority  and  Focus  Areas.  Cross-
compliance provides a core set of topics common across the Member States while the framework 
determined by the EU regulation and directives as well as the financial support to Member States 
enable to limit the risk of ‘unfair competition’ between the different Member States. 

43 

 
Figure 18. Rural Devekopment Programme Managing Authorities survey – Added value of Rural 
Development Programme M1 (indicating number and percentage of respondents) 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

... essential, to support KE well adapted to the
needs of rural actors in terms of content

... essential, to support a variety of KE
approaches (visits, workshops, coaching...)

7

7

9

9

2

1

2

1

... essential, to have training providers with the
required capacity

6

8

1

3

1

... of no specific EU Value added

7

6

3

Strongly agree

Agree

I don't know

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Source: ADE Rural Development Programme Managing Authorities survey (N=20/33) 

Figure  19.  Rural  Development  Programme  Managing  Authorities  survey  –  Added  value  of  Rural 
Development Programme M2 (indicating number and percentage of respondents) 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80% 100%

... essential, to have advice fostering the
overall performance of farms

2

... essential, to support sustainable and
environment-friendly farming practices

4

... essential, to support new and emerging
themes

... essential, to have adequately qualified
advisors

... essential, to have a diversity of advisory
bodies and advisors

... essential, to ensure independent farm
advice

3

3

3

3

... of no specific EU Value added

4

10

3

2

2

10

10

3

1

1

Strongly agree

3

2

1

Agree

I don't know

Disagree

Strongly disagree

9

8

9

5

3

2

3

3

2

2

3

3

1

4

3

Source: ADE Rural Development Programme Managing Authorities survey (N=20/33) 

44 

 
 
 
Figure  20.  Added  value  of  the  common  framework  provided  by  the  FAS  largely  supported  by  M2 
(indicating  number  and  percentage  of  respondents)  to  Rural  Development  Programme  Managing 
Authorities and National FAS coordinators 

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

1

2

1

2

1

10

16

1
1
1

11

1

2

1

10

4

1

7

9

5

5

5

2

2

1
1

7

10

2

6

7

2

2

4

6

4

4

3

1

4

1

9

4

1

7

7

6

1
1
1

8

10

1

3

1

8

6

1

3

1

3

1

10

14

4

3

MA

FAS
coord.

MA

FAS
coord.

MA

FAS
coord.

MA

FAS
coord.

MA

FAS
coord.

MA

FAS
coord.

MA

FAS
coord.

... essential, to
have
independent
farm advice

... essential, to
have a diversity
of advice
providers

... essential, to
have adequately
qualified
advisors

... essential to
avoid unfair
competition
between MS

... essential to
coordinate farm
advice

... essential to
support
sustainable
farming
practices

... essential to
support new
and emerging
policy priorities

Strongly agree

Agree

I don't know

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Source: ADE Rural Developemnt Programme Managing Authorities survey (N=20/33) and ADE FAS Coordinating 
Authorities survey (N=21/28) 

Figure  21.  Rural  Development  Managing  Authorities  survey  –  Added  value  of  Rural  Development 
Programme Measures 16.1 and 16.2 (indicating number and percentage of respondents) 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

... essential to facilitate information flows
between practice and research

... essential, to achieve results by pooling
resources and expertise at EU, national, local
level

... essential, for the co-creation of knowledge
between farmers - foresters - research - advisors

... essential, to ensure bottom-up innovative
approaches

6

4

5

7

10

12

11

9

... of no specific EU Value added

8

5

Strongly agree

Agree

I don't know

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Source: ADE Rural Development Programme Managing Authorities survey (N=20/33) 

1

1

2

2

1

3

3

2

45 

 
 
 
 
There is further evidence that CAP instruments and measures have created added value in relation 
to  knowledge  exchange,  training  and  advice.  Regarding  knowledge  exchange  at  the  level  of 
Member States the following elements were highlighted compared to the situation if Member 
States acted on their own: 

  The  EAFRD  support  enables  to  secure  budgets  dedicated  to  knowledge  exchange  in 
certain Member States. The EU action, also by the means of financial support, enables to 
drive additional achievements and deliver extended services. 

  The EU policies and measures allow for a wider thematic coverage, with potentially also 

a greater attention given to environmental topics and resource management. 

  They  also  initiate  and/or  further  encourage  a  key  evolution  in  terms  of  methods  of 
knowledge exchange activities (away from classical training and towards a multitude of 
activities). 

  The  national  and  regional  rural  networks  as  well  as  the  EIP-AGRI,  which  are  “Rural 
Development concepts”, play an important role in facilitating knowledge exchanges.  

There is also evidence that CAP instruments and measures have created some added value related 
to advisory activities at the level of Member States compared to the situation if Member States 
acted on their own. The assessment of EU added value related to advisory activities is however 
hindered by administrative burden. 

Some findings are similar to those of knowledge exchange (as listed here above):  

  The EAFRD support enables to secure budgets dedicated to advisory activities in certain 

Member States. 

  The EU policies and measures allow for a wider thematic coverage, with potentially also 
a greater attention given to public goods and societal issues (environment, stress, animal 
well-being, etc.). 

Other added values of the EU action are however specific to advice: 

  The EAFRD support enables to make advisory activities more accessible and/or attractive 
to final beneficiaries, in certain Member States. Because advice on environmental issues 
for  instance  is  supported  and  thus  less  costly,  farmers  accept  to  spend  time  on  issues, 
which they do not consider as essential. 

  The list of mandatory topics in Member States’ FAS obligation has also been broadened. 

There is evidence that CAP instruments and measures have created considerable added value in 
relation  to  innovation,  for  example  EIP-AGRI,  at  the  level  of  Member  States  compared  the 
situation if Member States acted on their own: 

  The EU offers a decisive added value regarding cooperation and innovation, particularly 
in  terms  of  approach  and  method.  This  contribution  lies  mainly  in  the  bottom-up 
collective  co-creation  of  the  EIP-AGRI  Operational  Groups.  Indeed,  the  Rural 
Development  regulation  contributes  to  considering,  implementing  and  co-creating 
bottom-up innovation.  

  The EU policy linking the CAP  (through EIP-AGRI) to  the Research policy (Horizon 
2020  Research  and  Innovation  programme)  is  acting  as  a  booster  of  research  and 
innovation processes across the agricultural sector. 

46 

 
  The EU action, also by the means of the obligation to disseminate the results, enables to 
drive  additional  cooperation  and  enhances  information  flows,  sometimes  even  cross-
border. 

47 

 
 
 
6 

CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED 

The evaluation assesses the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value 
of CAP measures and instruments relevant for fostering knowledge exchange, advisory activities, 
and innovation in the agricultural and forestry sectors and in rural areas. The evaluation period 
covers the 2014-2020 period and the EU of 28 Member States, including the United Kingdom. 
The evaluation is underpinned by the support study on the CAP’s impact on knowledge exchange 
and advisory activities, published in February 2021, the 187 replies to the public consultation 
carried  out  between  10  November  2020  and  2  February  2021,  as  well  as  additional  data  and 
information.  

Efficiency 

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 burden ) and thus low spending (with only 23% 
of the planned amounts spent after six years). Spending rates excluding national top ups were 
33% for knowledge transfer (M1), 19% for advisory services and 18% for cooperation (M16) at 
the end of 2020, compared to 53% for all Rural Development measures combined.  

The  measures  reached  approximately  10%  of  farm  holdings  and  were  effective  in  building 
knowledge, in particular on cross-compliance and environmental sustainability.  However, this 
figure on the uptake of the measures could be lower in reality, as the same farmers are counted 
several times when they participate repeatedly. Administrative burden of the CAP’s policy on 
knowledge exchange, advisory activities and innovation was found to be an important driver of 
the  low  uptake  and  reach.  Stakeholders  and  knowledge  providers  claim  a  lack  of  funding  to 
enable strong promotion and targeting of excluded groups as an additional constraint. 

At  the  level  of  farmers,  the  administrative  burden  is  found  to  be  low.  However,  there  are 
substantial opportunity costs for famers to engage in training and advice. Moreover, the primary 
interest of farmers is in new technical equipment. 

Administrative burdens for public administrations, often confronted themselves with staff cuts 
over the evaluation period, and intermediate bodies (advisory and training bodies) are important 
and are related to different factors: EU regulations, measures’ design and public administration 
procedures and finally structural and institutional features of delivery.  

At the level of the Managing Authorities, the administrative burden was quite significant for all 
knowledge exchange, advice and innovation measures and this partly explained the low degree 
of implementation and the delay in implementation. The specific reasons for high administrative 
burdens on Managing Authorities and intermediate bodies vary per measure. For example, the 
now ‘former’ obligation of public procurement (removed in 2020) was a burden in carrying out 
the advice measure (M2). 

The novelty of the EIP-AGRI approach, relying on mixed partnerships, has created the need for 
a learning process both in the public administration and in operational groups. 

At EU level there were no significant administrative burdens arising from Rural Development 
training and advice (M1 and M2) according to interviews with EU officials. 

Thanks to Rural Development support under the measures M 2.1 and M 2.3 the quality of advice 
was  enhanced,  including  the  qualification  of  advisors.  Overall,  benefits  of  the  advice  for 
countries  with  an  intermediately  developed  Agricultural  Knowledge  and  Information  System 
outweigh  the  costs,  mainly  thanks  to  the  advisory  measure  (M2)  contributing  to  a  better 

48 

 
functioning of the Agricultural Knowledge and Information System as a whole and providing a 
helpful  financial  support.  For  Member  States  with  medium  to  weak  AKIS,  facing  budgetary 
constraints, the M2 (advice) support constitutes an essential complement to national resources. 
Some Member States with strong AKIS also decided to mobilise M2 (advise), mainly to support 
the development and use of advice on new – more societal/sustainability-oriented – topics. 

Overall, while the uptake of the measures is rather low compared to other Rural Development 
Programmes, the cost-efficiency of knowledge exchange, advice and innovation measures and 
instruments  appears  reasonable.  Yet,  inefficiencies  in  the  public  administrations  arising  from 
budget cuts, lack of experience and foresight in the skills of demand management and careful 
targeting of measures are also evident. 

Effectiveness 

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 support for lifelong learning and vocational training (through knowledge transfer (M1) under 
Rural Development) was planned by a large majority  (101 of 112) of the Rural Development 
Programmes (and in 27 of the 28 Member States). Despite a reduction of 13% of the budget for 
Rural  Development  measure  M1  (training)  in  the  period  2014-2020  in  comparison  with  the 
previous period, the measure was effective in raising the number of farmers with basic training. 
Generational renewal may also have played a positive role.  The 1.22 million farmers trained by 
2020 make up only 42% of the target and around 20% of CAP beneficiaries. Despite the 20% 
reduction  of  the  budget  for  advice  (Rural  Development  measure  M2),  the  number  of  advised 
beneficiaries increased from 178 500 in 2007-2013 to 643 741 in 2014-2020. However, this was 
only 51% of the target. 

The evaluation found that there is very limited connection with “hard to reach” farmers. ‘Hard 
to reach’ farmers are those with a considerable distance to the knowledge exchange measures, 
that have been reluctant to engage in these so far or are not even aware of the measures. Often 
these are farmers of less profitable farms. 

The same groups of farmers continue to participate in training, and so 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 
which is one of the main functions of a well-organised AKIS.  

The EIP AGRI was effective in bringing innovation, augmenting human capital and changing 
agricultural practices (although with small spill- over to farmers outside the cooperation) but also 
for EIP  AGRI, there was  a lack of involvement  of farmers. The latter applies to  all the CAP 
measures  for  knowledge  exchange,  advisory  activities  and  innovation.  The  partnership  had 
resulted  in  2 195  completed  operational  groups  (i.e.  local  interactive  innovation  projects)  by 
December 2021. 

Overall, despite the low uptake, the CAP measures on knowledge exchange, advisory activities 
and innovation were able to raise, to a small extent, the education level of farmers, in particular 
on technology, cross-compliance and environmental sustainability.  

49 

 
Coherence 

Coherence between the EU measures on knowledge exchange, advisory activities and innovation 
is lacking. The efforts of the national and regional administrations determine largely whether the 
AKIS and the FAS is strong or not in a particular country or region. 

As a result of their different legal basis, FAS and Rural Development supported advisory services 
(M2) are managed by authorities from different departments and, in regional Member States, by 
authorities with different jurisdictional powers, which produces a lack of coherence between the 
two policy instruments, as these authorities often have different objectives.  

Although the internal coherence of Rural Development has improved compared to 2007-2013 
there remains a lack of flexible and combined use of measures, both among knowledge exchange, 
advice and innovation measures as well as between these and other Rural Development measures. 

Relevance 

Given  that  the  agricultural  sector  must  constantly  adapt  to  new  challenges,  notably  “produce 
more with less in a sustainable way”, it remains relevant for the CAP to provide farmers with the 
means to adapt, including through instruments and measures for training, advice and innovation. 

EU added value 

The  CAP  fostering  knowledge  exchange,  advice  and  innovation  provides  EU  added  value  in 
many aspects, but subject to uptake in Member States. 

The  added  value  of  the  EIP  AGRI  and  Operational  Groups  approach  is  highly  recognised, 
throughout the case studies carried out for this evaluation as well as in the surveys and interviews 
with  staff  of  the  European  Commission.  With  regard  to  knowledge  exchange  and  advice,  all 
evidence  gathered  for  this  evaluation  confirms  that  CAP  funding  enables  additional 
achievements (in comparison to what would have been achieved only with national budgets) and 
extended services. The created added value in relation to innovation is considerable, for example 
through the EIP-AGRI approach allowing to co-create bottom-up innovation. 

Lessons learned 

The EIP-AGRI shows potential in terms of impact by responding to a variety of innovation needs 
(both in terms of content and method) faced by the sector and by farmers (foresters).  

There  is  room  for  strengthening  the  information  flows  between  advisors  and  farmers,  and  in 
particular with Operational Groups and research. Advisory services that form an important part 
of the AKIS have to be embedded in their AKIS with a clear flow of information. Moreover, 
advisors need to be constantly updated on emerging topics.  

Expectations  and  needs  emerging  from  the  agricultural  sector  are  increasingly  numerous  and 
complex, covering competitiveness, environmental issues, climate issues, societal issues, etc. In 
this context, farmers need to be able to access and be strongly incentivised to use a variety of 
high-quality  forms  of  advice  taking  into  account  the  specificities  of  their  farm.  Emphasis  is 
needed upon reaching the “hard to reach” famers, who include many conventional farmers.  

Reducing  the  administrative  burden  is  key  to  improving  the  implementation  of  measures, 
ensuring an efficient understanding of the measures’ operation by the managing authorities and 
final beneficiaries, and reducing transaction costs for all stakeholders.  

This  evaluation  illustrated  the  monitoring  difficulties  even  for  straightforward  indicators 
(training, participants in training, beneficiaries advised (FAS)). Impact indicators – with respect 

50 

 
to changes in agricultural practices towards more sustainable farming as a result of knowledge 
exchange  and  advisory  activities  –  are  necessary  to  evaluate  the  effects  of  CAP  policy  of 
knowledge  transfer  and  advisory  activities  on  the  economic,  environmental  and  social 
performance of EU farming. Too much flexibility in the approach to collecting information is 
counterproductive when it comes to EU aggregation of data (multiple counting of beneficiaries, 
different types of training units, collection within a single indicator of different types of advice 
and  information,  no  opportunity  for  assessing  the  percentage  of  uptake  in  relation  to  target 
populations, etc.).  

Monitoring data about the FAS rests on Member State(s) responses to a questionnaire pursuant 
to Article 102(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013, which has two main limitations:  

  Regionalised  or  decentralised  Member  States  cannot  answer  the  questions  at  national 
level due to the diverse situation among their regions (Germany, Spain, France, Italy).  

  Figures provided for some key indicators such as the number of farmers advised are not 

homogenous.  

There  is  room  to  use  CAP  tools  more  strategically,  to  find  more  synergies  –  especially  with 
Horizon  Europe  multi-actor  projects  with  a  view  to  upscaling  the  adoption  of  green  business 
models - and to build on well-established structures for knowledge exchange and advice in some 
Member States. 

The EIP-AGRI shows potential in terms of impact by responding to a variety of innovation needs 
(both in terms of content and method) faced by the sector and by farmers (foresters).  

There  is  room  for  strengthening  the  information  flows  between  advisors  and  farmers,  and  in 
particular with Operational Groups and research. Advisory services, including digital advisory 
tools, that form an important part of the AKIS have to be embedded in their AKIS with a clear 
flow of information. Moreover, advisors need to be constantly updated on emerging topics.  

51 

 
 
 
 
Annex 1: Procedural information 

Lead DG, decide planning/CWP references 

Lead DG of this evaluation is DG Agriculture and Rural Development. 

The registration in DECIDE is PLAN/2019/5241. 

Organisation and timing 

The Roadmap for public feedback on the design of the evaluation was open from 22 May 2019 
to 19 June 2019. 

A support study “Evaluation of the impact of the CAP on knowledge exchange, innovation and 
advisory services” was commissioned under Specific Contract AGRI-2019-0258 implementing 
Framework Contract No. AGRI-2017-0319, signed by the parties on 19 December 2017. The 
specific contract came into force on 13 August 2019. 

The following Directorates General and General Services participated in the Steering Group of 
the  support  study:  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development,  Environment,  Maritime  Affairs  and 
Fisheries, Budget, Secretariat-General, Competition, Economic and Financial Affairs, Energy, 
Climate, Growth, Research and Innovation as well as the Joint Research Center.  

The Steering Group held nine meetings. The kick-off meeting was held on 26 September 2019.  

The  evaluation  support  study  was  delivered  on  4  December  2020  and  published  on 
25 February 2021. 

Evidence, sources and quality 

The evidence of this evaluation is based on interviews and surveys of key stakeholders, ten  case 
studies carried out by experts, comprehensive literature review and desk research. In addition an 
public consultation provided additional opportunities for stakeholders and the wider public to 
express their views. 

In view of data limitations signalled in this evaluation the case studies are an important part of 
the evidence of the evaluation. Ten case study countries were chosen for this evaluation, each 
representing a country or a region.  

All case studies followed the same general approach and applied the same methodology. A case 
study template and guidance was prepared to seek as much homogeneity as possible and to allow 
the results of the case studies to be synthesised in a streamlined way.  

52 

 
 
 
Annex 2: Stakeholder consultation 

A number of consultation activities were carried out at different points in time for the elaboration 
of the evaluation, including consultations by the Commission and surveys and interviews in the 
context  of  the  evaluation  support  study.  The  ones  carried  by  the  Commission  included  the 
roadmap consultation and the public consultation. 

The  table  below  summarises  how  and  on  which  issue  the  different  stakeholder  groups  were 
consulted and involved as regards target groups. 

Table 5. Target groups 

Stakeholder 
activities  vs 
target 
group 

s
n
e
z
i
t
i
c

l
a
u
d
i
v
i
d
n
I

√ 

Public 
consultation 

Surveys 

Stakeholder 
interviews 

Expert 
groups 

d
e
t
a
n
g
i
s
e
d

/
s
e
i
t
i
r
o
h
t
u
a

c
i
l
b
u
p

l
a
n
o
i
t
a
N

s
p
u
o
r
g
l
a
n
o
i
t
a
r
e
p
o
–
P
I
E
g
n
i
d
u
l
c
n
i

s
e
i
d
o
b

e
g
n
a
h
c
x
e
e
c
i
v
d
a
d
n
a
e
g
d
e
l
w
o
n
k
g
n
i
g
a
n
a
m

g
n
i
d
i
v
o
r
p

s
e
i
d
o
b

e
t
a
v
i
r
p

d
e
t
c
e
l
e
S

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s
y
r
o
s
i
v
d
a

s
p
u
o
r
g
y
t
e
i
c
o
s

l
i
v
i
c
/
s
O
G
N

s
s
e
n
i
s
u
b

d
n
a

s
e
i
n
a
p
m
o
c

e
t
a
v
i
r
P

s
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
o

s
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
o
l
a
n
o
i
t
a
n
r
e
t
n
I

s
n
o
i
t
a
s
i
n
a
g
r
o

/
s
n
o
i
t
a
i
c
o
s
s
a

'
s
r
e
m
r
a
F

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

√ 

s
c
i
m
e
d
a
c
a
/
s
r
e
h
c
r
a
e
s
e
R

√ 

√ 

√ 

Civil 
Dialogue 
group/s 
Source: DG Agriculture and Rural Development. 

√ 

√ 

Roadmap 

The  Commission  started  its  consultations  with  the  evaluation  of  the  impact  of  the  CAP  on 
knowledge  exchange  and  advisory  activities.  The  feedback  of  the  roadmap  took  place  from 
22 May 2019 to 19 June 2019.  

This roadmap included key aspects to be covered by the evaluation, such as purpose and scope, 
data collection and methodology, consultation of citizens and stakeholders. The total feedback 
received  on  the  roadmaps  were  five  responses  from,  sectorial  and  industry  associations  (1), 
business organisations (1), NGOs (3). 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  overall  position  of  respondents  about  the  roadmap  was  neutral,  deeming  the  evaluation 
necessary and raising points for the analysis of the impact of the CAP on knowledge exchange 
and advisory activities.  

The small number of responses yields not enough robustness to be extrapolated. Nevertheless, 
most  of  them  pointed  to  the  importance  of  knowledge  exchange  on  the  implementation  of 
greening practices and innovative agro-ecology measures by farmers, in the context of the new 
CAP and the Green Deal.  

Overall, the feedback to the roadmap consultations provided useful input for the drafting of the 
relevant technical specifications on the evaluation support studies when not covered already in 
the relevant evaluation approaches. 

Surveys and interviews of stakeholders 

The  evaluation  included  also  several  surveys  of  stakeholders  to  answer  various  evaluation 
questions. Two online surveys were conducted at the level of EU-28, among Rural Development 
Programme managing authorities and FAS coordinators respectively. 

  The Rural Development Programme managing authorities survey has been opened from 
20 January  to  mid  of  March  2020.  It  was  sent  to  115  contacts  (out  of  112  Rural 
Development  Programmes;  18  appeared  non-valid  e-mail  addresses).  In  total  33  partial 
answers were received, from 10 Member State(s) (AT, BE, CY, DE, DK, ES, FR, IT, MT 
and PT) and several regions.  

  FAS coordinators were surveyed between 12 February and mid of March 2020. The survey 
was sent to 45 contacts (some non-valid). In total 28 Member State(s) opened the survey 
but only 21 answers were received, from 17 Member State(s) (AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, FR, 
HR, HU, IE, LU, LV, MT, NL, PT, SE, SI and SK)31. 

An additional survey was conducted among final beneficiaries (farmers) in France, in the Grand 
Est  Region.  The  survey  was  sent  to  3 600  beneficiaries  of  CAP  Pillar  2  support,  namely 
investment  support  (M4.1)  and  setting  up  of  young  farmers  (M6.1)  (contacts  provided  by 
Managing Authorities). With a response rate of 3.9%, 142 farmers have answered partially the 
survey.  In  the  other  case  studies,  beneficiaries  were  interviewed  through  focus  groups  and/or 
direct phone call with farmers. 

A panel of final beneficiaries was also surveyed by telephone in Lower Saxony in Germany.  

In addition, interviews were organised with the EIP-AGRI Service Point and European Network 
for  Rural  Development  Contact  Point,  as  well  as  with  European  Commission  services  (DG 
Agriculture and Rural Development - FAS unit and Innovation unit, Joint Research Center). 

Public consultation 

The other consultation launched by the Commission via the European Commission’s website32, 
in all official EU languages excluding Irish, was the Public consultation on knowledge exchange.  

It aimed to seek information and feedback from the relevant stakeholders, notably representatives 
of the agri-food and forestry sectors, as well as administrators, advisory services, NGOs and the 

31   In  Belgium  and  Germany,  the  survey  addressed  at  national  level  was  relayed  to  the  regional  coordinators, 

accounting for multiple answers received for the same Member State. 

32   https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1859-Evaluation-of-the-EU-

agricultural-promotion-policy/public-consultation.  

54 

 
                                                 
wider public to support the evaluation of the common agricultural policy’s (CAP’s) impact on 
knowledge exchange and advisory activities.  

The  public  consultation  was  conducted  from  10  November  2020  to  02  February  2021  using 
EU Survey, via the European Commission’s website, in all official EU languages.  

A total of 187 contributions (and 11 documents annexed to contributions) were received from 21 
EU Member States33 and China. 

Figure 22. Number of respondents to the public consultation by country of origin 

20

21

5

13

8

8

4
5

Belgium
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Hungary
Lithuania
Netherlands
Austria
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Slovakia
Sweden
China
United Kingdom

2
1

2

1

2

1
2
1

1
1
1
2
1
2

83

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Source: Open Public Consultation. 

Companies  and  business  organisations  provided  the  most  contributions  to  this  consultation 
accounting for 34% of all respondents (number of responses ‘N’=63), followed by EU citizens 
for 22% of all respondents (N=42), business associations for 12% of all respondents (N=23) and 
academic  and  research  institutions  for  7%  of  all  respondents  (N=14).  Of  all  the  respondents, 
public authorities accounted for 5% of the total responses (N=10), NGOs for 5% (N=9), trade 
unions  1%  (N=2)  and  non-EU  citizens,  environmental  organisations,  consumer  organisations 
accounted for less than 1% (N=1) each. The remaining 12% (N=22) of respondents identified 
themselves as ’others’.  

On the stakeholder type represented by the respondents, ‘farm advisers’ is the most common, 
with  92  respondents  (50%),  followed  by  ‘farmers  or  foresters’,  33  (18%),  ‘researchers’,  22 
(12%), ‘managing authorities’, 10 (5%), ‘training organizers’, with 6 responses (3%). The rest 
(11%) corresponds to ‘other’ sectors. 

33   Including the United Kingdom, which was considered as a Member State for the purpose of the consultation (and 

in line with the observation period). There were no contributions from Croatia, Malta and Lithuania. 

55 

 
 
                                                 
A total of 58 respondents (31%) chose to make their full personal details (i.e. name, organisation 
name and size, transparency register number, country of origin) available for publication with 
their contribution whereas 129 respondents (69%) opted for anonymity. 

Analysis of results  

In general, a clear majority of the respondents (184, 99%) are aware that the EU tries to foster 
knowledge exchange, advisory activities, and innovation in the agricultural and forestry sector 
and  in  rural  areas  by  providing  Member  States  with  financial  support  for  rural  development 
measures via the CAP. Additionally, 163 respondents (87%) are aware that the CAP has required 
national  administrations  to  set  up  a  Farm  Advisory  System  (FAS)  to  help  farmers  and  other 
beneficiaries find advice to better understand and meet EU rules. 

Regarding  the  areas  on  which  the  CAP  should  focus  its  support  for  knowledge  transfer  and 
innovation, responses were very equally distributed among the options given. ‘Farm management 
in general covering farm economics, environmental sustainability, climate action and/or animal 
welfare’ received the highest rate of responses (12%), followed by: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘Environmental action on biodiversity’ and ‘Climate action’ (10%). 

‘Environmental action on water’ and ‘environmental action on soil’ (9%). 

‘Farming using digital technologies’ and ‘Economic viability’ (8%). 

‘Animal welfare and health’ and ‘Plant health’ (7%). 

‘Food safety’ and ‘Social aspects’ (6%). 

‘Other’ (1%). 

Most of the respondents (122, 66%) benefited from knowledge exchange, advice or innovation 
projects supported by the CAP in the last five years, and an absolute majority found advice to be 
positively useful (95%).  

A  majority  of  the  respondents  also  found  the  advice  given  to  be  independent  (47%),  in 
comparison with those who found that it was not (9%). A large percentage of the respondents 
were neutral about it (34%) and the rest (4%) had no opinion. 

Effectiveness 

Concerning  the  question  on  the  effectiveness  of  current  CAP  measures  and  instruments  on 
fostering the flow of information between researchers, advisors and farmers, there seems to be a 
common perception by respondents that current measures and instruments are not very effective 
on fostering information between researchers and the other two stakeholder groups.  

Between researchers and advisors 46% of the respondents found it not very effective (sum of ‘to 
a very small extent’ and ‘not at all’), and 60% of the respondents found it between farmers and 
researchers.  

On the other hand, a clear majority of the respondents found positively effective (sum of ‘to a 
very large extent’ and ‘to a large extent’) the information flow between farmers and advisors 
(45%). 

On the question of the effectiveness of CAP measures and instruments in fostering knowledge 
exchange, advisory activities and innovation in the agricultural and forestry sector and in rural 
areas, respondents found them, in general, more ineffective than effective. This means that the 
sum of the categories of respondents “effective to a very large extent” and “to a large extent” 
was smaller than the sum of the categories “to a very small extent” and “not at all effective”. 

56 

 
The only exception to this statement is ‘Support for knowledge exchange and information actions 
(M1)’, which 27% found it to have positive effectiveness, in comparison with 22% who found it 
negative. 

Efficiency 

Respondents have a generally neutral perception about the efficiency of the CAP instruments and 
measures in fostering knowledge exchange, advisory activities and innovation in the agricultural 
and forestry sector and in rural areas.  

Most of the respondents found the instruments and measures to be efficient ‘to some extent’ (88, 
47%). On the other hand, a clear majority find that not all farmers have equal access to knowledge 
exchange, advice or innovation supported with the CAP (135, 73%).  

On  the  issue  of  administrative  costs  and  burdens  in  the  implementation  of  the  current  CAP 
measures and instruments, the amount of administrative requirement is the response chosen the 
most by responders, for managing authorities, providers of advice and receivers of advice, as it 
could be seen in Figure 12.  

Relevance  

On  the  question  of  relevance,  most  respondents  have  a  neutral  perception  (103,  56%)  of  the 
sufficiency CAP instruments and measures need to be to address the need to foster knowledge 
exchange, advisory activities, and innovation in the agricultural and forestry sector and in rural 
areas. It is then followed by negative perception (47, 25%) and positive (33, 18%). The remaining 
1% had no opinion. 

Analysis of the long questions 

There has been a coordinated campaign from Irish respondents (representing mostly companies 
and/or  business  associations),  arguing  that  funds  should  be  allocated  with  parity,  as  private 
advisors are not funded as public ones are. They argue that a better distribution (mainly from 
public advisors to private ones) of funds could increase the uptake of farmers, especially small 
farmers. Additionally, some users have mistakenly/purposely chosen a different user type from 
what stems out of the written text in the additional text/long questions. 

The analysis of the long questions of the OPC, takes together the question on how to increase the 
uptake  of  farmers’  beneficiaries  of  knowledge  exchange,  advisory  services  and  innovation 
fostered through the CAP along with the question to elaborate further.  

Company/business associations argued that it is necessary to support to knowledge links between 
researchers, advisors and farmers, especially on innovation. Use of AKIS and farm advisers to 
increase  the  adoption  of  innovative  farm  techniques.  This  could  be  accompanied  of 
examples/demonstrations  of  the  adoption  of  such  techniques,  to  incentivize  farmers  to 
participate.  Additionally,  it  is  necessary  to  reduce  the  administrative  burden  for  farmers  and 
advisors (both public and private), making advice easily accessible for farmers. In the same line, 
with better infrastructure and internet connection in rural areas, farmers can reach information 
and  data  even  easier.  Better  access  to  internet  could  increase  the  promotion  of  the  measures 
through newsletters to mailbox on knowledge transfer. On top of that, advice made on the base 
of the needs of the farms, and integrated in their economic activity without causing additional 
cost. Lastly, uptake could be increased if made mandatory to attend a meeting with other farmers, 
advisers, etc., at least once a year. This continuous training could be supported with payments, 
especially on completion of successful knowledge transfer. On top  of discussion groups, it is 

57 

 
argued  that  they  should  be  complemented  with  one-on-one  meetings  between  advisors  and 
farmers.  

Some business associations also argued that to get farmers to participate in knowledge transfer it 
is needed for the funds to be centrally managed and not used just as a compliance mechanism. 
The advisory services should include a vocational training component (modular and short-term) 
complemented  by  the  audit  of  the  agricultural  holding.  Lastly,  respondents  mentioned  the 
necessity  of  including  particularly  novel  approaches  in  environmental  sector  to  be  backed  by 
legislation, so even though they are not in the priority list, as it does not benefit the production 
of the farm directly, knowledge transfer practices in this direction can be supported. 

There  are  also  some  suggestions  to  reduce  administrative  burden  (for  public  and  private 
stakeholders) which revolve around harmonization of the CAP/EAFRD procedures with other 
EU funds (i.e., European Regional Development Fund), as they have a different management and 
control system. Additionally, it is proposed to create larger programmes with many operational 
groups on a certain topic for both farmers and advisors, so information exchanges are fostered. 
It  is  also  highlighted  the  importance  of  well-functioning  national  structures  for  knowledge 
exchange and advisory activities in the CAP to be built upon.  

Trade  unions  argue  that  less  administrative  burden  it  is  necessary  for  farmers  for  joining 
Knowledge Transfer groups. Advice should be provided exclusively by farmers’ organizations. 

Research/academic institutions highlight the necessity of having public advisors, not just private 
ones.  They  also  propose  to  ease  information  dissemination  of  the  available  options,  less 
restrictions  in  requirements  and  less  administrative  burden.  Also  flexibility  to  potential  new 
farmers/foresters that one to start some business in the rural areas. Earlier involvement of farmers 
and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) in innovation projects should be fostered. 

They also elaborated that it is necessary to better monitor the results of the innovative projects 
financed, in order to be able to prioritise those with the greatest added value, and so that they are 
not a means of financing the operating costs of cooperatives, companies. Additionally, they find 
that constant communication between groups and increasing trust are critical for the viability of 
knowledge transfer. To ensure this, regular meetings, wide-ranging information on activities and 
the dissemination of good practice contributing to the co-operation of the parties are necessary, 
fostering consistency in the potential participation of farmers in the program. 

EU Citizens propose for farmers to attend some mandatory knowledge for LEADER to reinforce 
the role of the local action groups to enable a higher level of adequate, constant and progressive 
knowledge access and production. 

EU citizens also propose for more funds to support knowledge exchange activities (M1, M2 and 
especially M16). They  also  argue that a better  connection should be sought  between Horizon 
2020  and  other  EU  projects  and  knowledge  transfer.  Not  just  that,  but  they  ask  for  further 
initiatives with community involvement as they allow to connect farm investment, management 
and  innovation  (especially  focused  on  agro-ecology  and  environment)  with  local  needs  and 
perception.  To  support  these  initiatives,  funded  demonstration  farms  locally  are  proposed,  to 
allow  farmers  to  see  best  implementation  practices  in  action,  which  works  in  their  local 
environment. 

It  is  also  asked  for  public  authorities  to  provide  better  information,  to  advertise  knowledge 
transfer actions and to speed up the aid. 

58 

 
NGOs propose that advisory services should focus more on farmers’ needs, with a bottom-up 
approach when setting the areas of focus of the advisory targets, which would increase farmers’ 
participation  in  knowledge  transfer  programmes.  This  advice  should  focus  on  practical, 
innovative on-the-field knowledge, and should followed up and monitored. CAP should support 
the costs necessary to farmers to keep-up of the administrative burden, which could be deterring 
farmers from participating in knowledge transfer programmes. Peer to peer knowledge transfer 
should be supported along with training courses. 

Managing  authorities  argue  that  it  is  necessary  more  flexibility  for  managing  authorities 
(reduction of reporting requirements), to have simplified cost options and simplification of the 
conditions of state aid to support farmer’s uptake. 

Summary of attached documents 

Agricultural Consultants Association of Ireland considered that the Knowledge Transfer scheme 
was good and, being the first significant knowledge transfer programme for the involvement of 
the  private  advisory  sector  (their  own  analysis  also  showed  that  feedback  from  farmers  and 
managing authorities was very positive). They also claim that, unfortunately, there is no real flow 
of information between farmers, advisors and researchers, and whatever information exists has 
effectively  to  be  collated  by  private  advisors  at  their  own  expense,  as  “only  the  delivery  of 
knowledge transfer was funded”. They also criticize AKIS as not functioning correctly, with no 
formal  information  exchange  structures  in  place  and  too  many  commercial  entities  providing 
advice. It is considered that private companies should be able to access freely to publicly funded 
research/advisory  aid.  Lastly, they consider that  FAS  requires  a  complete overhaul,  as public 
sector received allowances and payments for training days, whereas private sector does not. They 
consider they should also get access to EU/government paid training days. 

An EU citizen (private adviser) considered that there is a clear unavailability of publically funded 
research/advisory aids. Additionally, considers that private advisers should receive allowances 
and payments for training days, similarly to public advisers. 

The Spanish Agri-food Cooperatives argue that cooperative and private agri-food exploitations 
should  be  also  considered  advisers,  as  they  claim  doing  so  would  push  more  efficiently  the 
change of production model of a country. 

The  Italian  Association  of  farmers  considers  that  advisory  services  should  focus  more  on  the 
farmers’ needs and use a bottom-up approach when defining areas of focus within these areas. It 
is also mentioned that knowledge transfer between farmers, advisers and researchers could be 
done  under  the  umbrella  of  Horizon  2020  Research  and  Innovation  programme,  which  could 
increase  farmers  participation  in  these  programs.  They  also  consider  that  farmers  should  be 
funded further for participation on knowledge exchange activities. 

Copa*cogeca argues that farmers should be able to freely choose the advisory services and topics 
and  receive  more  financial  backing.  Horizon  2020,  supporting  the  multi-actor  approach 
implemented especially in EIP-Agri, is highlighted as a tool to increase AKIS between farmers, 
advisers and researchers. 

Confagricultora (business association) highlights professional organizations as the right entity to 
play the role of Innovation Broker, i.e. facilitator of innovation within the farm, especially in a 
context  of fragmentation of  agricultural enterprises. They  also  highlight  that  AKIS should be 
directed towards advising of innovation techniques into agriculture.  

59 

 
The  Internationale  Akademie  für  land-  und  hauswirtschaftliche  Beraterinnen  und  Berater 
(IALB)34 argues that the following criteria for education and advisory activities is to be made 
binding by the EU: (a) Implementation of socially intended effects should not be an indicator for 
the success of advisory activities, as implementation decisions depends on the entrepreneur; (b) 
The control system is to be set up goal-oriented and not, as up to now, analogous to the investment 
measures; (c) Knowledge transfer is also to be given its own financial position as a cross-cutting 
objective, with a minimum quota of 5% of the funds of the second pillar; (d) advice and education 
should be 100% eligible for funding. 

CAP (Portuguese farmers association) argues that advisers training must be funded in a different 
way- covering not only the trainers’ costs but also the trainees costs to attend the training session. 
Additionally,  is  asked  to  associate  added  value/advantages,  besides  knowledge  acquired,  to 
knowledge  exchange,  agricultural  services  and  innovation  and  for  them  to  be  recognized  as 
equivalent to training that is already mandatory for farmers on some issues. Lastly, AKIS should 
have a coordination member and a platform for sharing information / knowledge / innovation by 
thematic area should be provided. 

The  Romanian  ministry  of  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  proposed  that  knowledge 
exchange  and  advisory  activities  should  take  into  account  the  socio-economic  profile  of  the 
potential beneficiary, to adapt the quantity and complexity of the information disseminated. 

34  https://www.ialb.org/. 

60 

 
 
                                                 
Annex 3: Methods and analytical models 

Information sources and tools 

Table 6. Summary of the information sources and tools used for the evaluation 

Information sources 

  Tools 

  Regulations, evaluations, other 

   Literature review 

  EU databases on expenditure 

  Documentary analysis (Regulations, expenditures) 

  Common  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Framework 

  Data analysis 

indicators’ database 

  FAS questionnaire and database from JRC 

  Eurostat  and  national  statistics  on  the  agricultural 

and forestry sectors 

  Rural  Development  Programmes  and  Annual 

Implementation Reports (AIR) 

 

Interviews  with  competent  authorities  and  relevant 
stakeholders (Case studies and EU levels) 

  Other data from  case study country  correspondents 

and interviewees 

Source: ADE. 

  Multivariate 

analysis 

a  Principle 
component  analysis,  2-step  cluster  analysis  and 
econometric analysis 

including 

  Case studies (literature review, interviews and focus 
groups,  beneficiaries’  survey,  and  Member  States 
restitution workshops) 

  Online surveys with Rural Development Programme 
authorities and FAS coordinator units (EU-28)  

 

Interviews at EU level 

  EU workshop  

The different information sources have been used to support quantitative and qualitative analysis. 
The information from those different sources has been triangulated, ensuring that the evaluation 
is based on solid and cross-checked evidence. 

Literature review  

A comprehensive literature  review was performed by the evaluation  team,  and included an 
overview of the concept, evolutions, and diversity of: 

  AKIS,  

 

 

 

 

 

the EIP-AGRI network,  

the Farm Advisory System (including its evolution since 2007 in terms of objectives, scope, 
implementation, and organisation in Member State(s)),  

the agricultural and forestry context, 

the existing and emerging needs in rural areas, as well as 

the critical factors of success for policies supporting knowledge exchange and innovation 
among farmers and foresters (also including the reasons for take-up of advice and training, 
their impact on employment and a cost benchmark for their provision). 

In addition, the evaluation team investigated relevant research projects (including ProAKIS35 and 
AgriLink36).  

A comprehensive literature review was also performed by the country correspondents in the case 
study. 

35  https://430a.uni-hohenheim.de/pro-akis. 

36  https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/727577. 

61 

 
                                                 
Documentary analysis 

The Rural Development Programme Annual Implementation Reports (AIR) of 2020 (covering 
the 2014-2020 period) include an enhanced report on evaluation activities, structured along the 
Common  Evaluation  Questions.  112  of  these  AIRs  were  analysed  for  this  evaluation  .  Since 
reports  are  in  all  EU  28  languages,  the  6  mentioned  evaluation  questions  were  previously 
translated with an on-line translator. This work allowed to validate or complete certain findings 
from the case studies.  

Data analysis 

Apart  from  previous  evaluation  studies,  reports  and  internal  discussion  documents,  the 
documentary review included an extended data analysis from various sources. 

Regarding financial data, the evaluation relies primarily on two sources at EU level.  

On the one hand, the European Structural and Investment Funds database (ESIF 2014-2020 
Finance  Implementation  Details),  which  provides  a  view  by  measure  of  the  amounts 
programmed, decided and spent  at  31st December 2018, calculated on the same basis. Unless 
otherwise stated, the financial data are expressed as total public expenditure.  

These data were supplemented by the so-called Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework 
(CMEF) indicators37, namely output and result indicators taken from the 2020 AIR database 
(situation at 31 December 2020)38, an extraction of target values from the Rural Development 
Programmes  (section  11  of  the  Rural  Development  Programmes  and  the  dynamic  of  CAP 
spending from 2017 to 2018.  

A  multi-variate  principal  components  analysis  and  regression  was  also  implemented  to 
examine  the  relationship  between  CAP  expenditure  decided  on  KE,  innovation  and  advice 
measures  1,  2  and  16,  and  agricultural  and  rural  employment,  in  different  types  of  rural  area 
across the whole EU-28.  

The  JRC  database  developed  upon  the  FAS  questionnaire  to  Member  State(s)  (pursuant  to 
Article 102(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013) (2017/2018) was used, as far as possible given 
the limitations39, in order to provide an EU perspective of the establishment and implementation 
of the FAS. 

Case studies 

A  clustering  approach  was  adopted  to  propose  a  relevant  selection  of  case  studies  across  the 
Member States, trying to capture the variety of knowledge and innovation systems in Europe as 
well as possible. The clustering is based on five criteria:  

 

Intensity of farming, describing the farm output per labour unit; 

37   https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/cmef_en.  

38   When 2020 not available, 2019 has been used. 
39   The JRC database covers 15 general questions and eight questions repeated for each of the FAS topics.  The 
responses  to  the  general  questions  were  assessed  as  fairly  reliable,  except  the  one  covering  the  ‘number  of 
farmers advised’ (due to the different counting methods and large definition of advice). The responses for the 
eight topic questions were assessed as insufficiently reliable. It must be noted that part of the ‘unreliability’ arises 
from  the  impossibility  for  regionalised  Member  States  to  provide  one  single  answer  as  required  by  the  FAS 
questionnaire. 

62 

 
                                                 
  AKIS strength and integration, according to the PROAKIS project classification; 

  FAS operating bodies status (private, public, mixed); 

 

‘Knowledge sharing and innovation’ Rural development budget allocation; 

  Decision  rate40  of  planned  budget  of  ‘knowledge  sharing  and  innovation’  at  the 

31 December 2018. 

Table 7. Case study selection and characterisation 

Member 
State 

Belgium -
Flanders 

Criteria 1 

Intensity of 
farming in € 
(SO/AWU) (i) 

153 513 

Estonia 

46 305 

France 

-Lorraine 

88 581 

93 978 

Germany 

100 671 

-Lower 
Saxony 

Greece 

Ireland 

Italy 

162 172 

17 927 

41 603 

60 895 

-Veneto 

113 362 

-Umbria 

Poland 

EU average 

63 576 

17 134 

Criteria 2 

AKIS 

Criteria 3 

FAS Operating 
body status 

Criteria 4 

Sharing 
knowledge  and 
innovation 

Criteria 5 

Decision  
rate (ii) 

Strong, 
integrated 

Rather weak, 
rather 
fragmented 

Strong 
integrated 

Strong 
integrated 

Strong 
intermediate 

Strong 
intermediate 

Weak 
fragmented 

Strong 
integrated 

Rather weak 
fragmented 

Rather weak 
fragmented 

Rather weak 
fragmented 

Strong 
integrated 

- 

Mixed 

7.1% 

Mixed 

4.4% 

Mixed 

Mixed 

Mixed 

Mixed 

2.4% 

2.7% 

2.8% 

7.0% 

Private (both) 

4.5% 

Mixed 

Mixed 

Mixed 

Mixed 

Mixed 

- 

5.0% 

5.2% 

6.1% 

9.7% 

1.5% 

3.3% 

74% 

77% 

36% 

6% 

62% 

83% 

5% 

48% 

25% 

42% 

41% 

4% 

66% 

Source: ADE, based on clustering exercise. (i) Standard Output per Annual Working Unit (EUROSTAT 2019b);  
(ii) Calculations done by ADE based on European Structural and Investment Funds data (EC, 2020b). 

Case  studies  are  used  to  provide  in-depth  knowledge  about  the  implementation  choices  of 
different Member States, to make a detailed assessment of efficiency and administrative burdens, 
and to gain robust understanding concerning the intervention logic and causal relations linking 
policy instruments (individually and in combination) to results and impacts. Cases also provide 
specific  examples  of  good  practice  in  the  application  of  measures  relevant  to  knowledge 

40   The ‘decided’ budget is the total amount (EU + National) allocated to the projects (operations) selected by the 
programme managers. It can also be referred to as the total eligible cost reported by the national and regional 
programmes to the Commission. The ‘decision rate’ is the ratio between the total planned budget and the decided 
budget. In this specific case, the reference to ‘knowledge sharing and innovation’ includes Rural Development 
measures 1, 2 and 16. 

63 

 
 
                                                 
exchange-innovation-advice.  Finally,  they  also  served  to  collect  the  views  of  the  competent 
authorities with regard to the relevance and coherence of the CAP  instruments and measures, 
their effectiveness and their value added. 

The  case  studies  include  a  specific  and  comprehensive  literature  review  and  analysis  of  their 
AKIS,  policy  and  administrative  framework  and  an  inventory  of  the  CAP  instruments  and 
measures  mobilised.  In  some  case  studies,  important  literature  from  national/regional  rural 
development  evaluations  was  used  (DE,  FR,  IT,  PL).  In  particular,  in  DE-LS,  the  country 
correspondent valorised work performed by the Thünen Institute since 2007 with an essential 
contribution to the efficiency analysis41. In-depth investigations were also performed on the 2018 
Annual Implementation Reports, especially for the FR and DE-LS case study reports.  

Meetings were organised with the numerous competent authorities involved at national and, for 
some  Member  State(s),  regional  level.  Advisors  and  trainers  were  met  (face  to  face,  through 
focus  groups  and  telephone  interviews)  as  well  as  beneficiaries  or  their  representatives  (one 
beneficiary  online  survey  was  conducted  in  the  Grand-Est  region  in  France  and  a  panel  of 
beneficiaries  were  surveyed  by  telephone  in  DE-LS).  Interviews  were  also  conducted  with  a 
number of other stakeholders involved in agricultural research and education, EIP-AGRI network 
and Operational Groups, rural networks, and some actors specifically involved in the forestry 
sector.  

Restitution workshops were organised online (due to the Covid-19 crises) in the following case 
study Member State(s): FR, BE-FL, DE-LS and IE, in order to discuss and validate the findings 
with Member State(s) representatives and other stakeholders. 

41   Regarding  efficiency,  quantitative  data  on  the  implementation  costs  of  “human  capital  and  cooperation 
measures” of the Managing Authority of Lower Saxony were collected in various  evaluation studies over the 
three funding periods (2000-2006, 2007-2013, 2014-2020).  

64 

 
 
 
                                                 
Annex 4: Glossary of terms 

AKIS 
(Agricultural 
Knowledge and 
Innovation 
System) 

Effective 
functioning of 
Member 
States’ AKIS 

Information 
flows 

Advisory 
activities  

Knowledge 
Exchange  

Innovation  

The  term  Agricultural  Knowledge  and  Innovation  System  (AKIS)  is 
used to describe the whole knowledge flow (interaction and generation) 
system:  the  ways  people  and  organisations  interact  and  generate 
innovation  within  a  Member  State  or  a  region.  Different  AKIS-
components include – Extension, Education and Research – and many 
more actors in the food chain that directly influence the decision making 
of  farmers  and  their  innovations  (EU  SCAR,  2015).  AKIS  includes 
farmers,  foresters,  advisors,  researchers,  actors  of  the  whole  supply 
chain, NGOs, businesses, authorities, research, etc. and can vary a lot, 
depending on the Member State or sector (EC, 2018a and 2020). AKIS 
covers  whatever  topics  farming  and  rural  activities  relate  to,  such  as 
landscape, environment, climate, biodiversity, consumers and citizens, 
food  and  non-food  systems  including  processing  and  distribution 
chains.  

An effective AKIS bridges gaps between research and practice; a well-
functioning  AKIS  should  comprehensively  cover  the  provision  of 
relevant knowledge and innovation in agriculture, and network farmers 
and foresters with researchers, advisors, businesses etc. to this purpose 
.  Innovation  may  also  be  generated  in  innovation  projects/groups 
without the inclusion of research (e.g. a group of farmers and an advisor, 
a farmer and an entrepreneur, etc.). 

the  flow  of 

information  (mainly  agricultural 
Mainly  concerns 
knowledge) 
through 
knowledge exchange, knowledge transfer, innovation or advice. Flows 
involve a source and a recipient or destination. 

from  one  person/organisation 

to  another 

Wide  range  of  activities  that  are  intended  to  help  farmers  decision 
making. 

Knowledge exchange is a multiple process that generates, shares and/or 
uses  knowledge,  through  various  methods  appropriate  to  the  context, 
purpose  and  participants  involved.  It  involves  multiple  actors, 
especially farmers/land managers and the many actors they interact with 
(CCRI, 2013). 

“Innovation is often described as a new idea that proves successful in 
practice. Innovation may be technological, but also non-technological, 
organisational, or social. Innovation may be based on new but also on 
traditional  practices  in  a  new  geographical  or  environmental  context. 
The  new  idea  can  be  a  new  product,  practice,  service,  production 
process or a new way of organising things, etc. Such a new idea turns 
into an innovation only if it is widely adopted and proves its usefulness 
in practice” (EC, 2017a). 

65 

 
CAP 
implementation 

Rules governing EU CAP instruments and measures are set at EU level; 
however, their implementation  is  managed by each  Member State(s)/ 
region  (Rural  Development  Programme).  Member  State(s)  have  a 
certain level of flexibility in the type of schemes they use and the way 
they  set-up  programmes  (in  particular 
in  Rural  Development 
Programmes,  wine,  but  also  to  a  limited  extent  for  certain  aspects  of 
DP) to take account of national farming conditions, which vary greatly 
throughout the EU. 

CAP 
architecture 

Refers to the CAP intervention logic, includes all CAP provisions, and 
the way Member States apply them considering the CAP specific and 
general objectives. 

Critical factors 
for success 

Success means firstly uptake, followed by the effective acquisition and 
application into practice, of knowledge gained by farmers and foresters 
(and rural development actors) through training and advice. The critical 
factors which promote success could be identified as certain attributes 
of the AKIS which could be structural, situational or behavioural, and 
certain  characteristics  of  the  training  and  advice  offered  (features  of 
design and delivery, technical competence and human skills of advisors 
and  trainers,  involvement  in  EIP-AGRI  Operational  Groups),  which 
particularly  favour  acquisition  and  application  of  new  knowledge  by 
farmers and foresters. 

M1 Rural 
Development 
“Knowledge 
transfer and 
information 
action” measure 

M1  (Article  14  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1305/2013)  supports  various 
form  of  knowledge  transfer  and  information  action  (including 
vocational  training,  workshops,  coaching,  demonstration  activities, 
short-term farm and forest management exchanges as well as farm and 
forest visits) which Member States (Member State(s)) may want to offer 
to  persons  engaged  in  the  agricultural,  food  and  forestry  sector,  land 
managers and other rural areas actors. 

M2 Rural 
Development 
“advisory 
services” 
measure 

M16 Rural 
Development 
“cooperation” 
measure 

M2  (Article  15  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1305/2013)  supports  various 
kinds of advice which Member States (Member State(s)) may want to 
offer  to  farmers,  foresters,  etc.  This  advice  can  be  delivered  by  any 
public  or  private  body  or  entity 
in  Member  State(s)/regions, 
irrespective  of  the  bodies  designated  according  to  the  Farm 
Advisory System (FAS) obligation. 

M16 (Article 35 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013) supports different 
forms of cooperation and in particular those among different actors of 
the  agriculture,  forestry  and  food  chain  sectors,  the  creation  of  new 
clusters  and  networks,  as  well  as  the  establishment  and  operation  of 
Operational Groups of the EIP-AGRI. 

66 

 
Overall CAP 
support (equals 
CAP 
Instruments and 
Measures) 

Farm Advisory 
System (FAS) 

Standards of 
modern high-
quality 
agriculture 

Overall  CAP  support  includes  all  possible  support  provided  by  CAP 
instruments  and  measures  (from  Regulation  (EU)  No  1305/2013  to 
Regulation  (EU)  No  1308/2013,  namely  the  Rural  Development 
Regulation  (European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  - 
EAFRD),  direct  payment  schemes:  basic  payment,  green  payment, 
Young Farmer (YF) scheme, possibly coupled support, areas of natural 
constraint 
redistributive  payment,  Common  Market 
Organisation). 

(ANC), 

A  system  for  advising  beneficiaries  on  land  management  and  farm 
management,  established  by  Member  State(s)  under  the  Regulation 
(EU) No 1306/2013.  That  farm advisory system  shall be operated by 
designated  public  bodies  and/or  selected  private  bodies,  and  cover  a 
scope  specified  in  the  Regulation.  Member  State(s)  shall  ensure  the 
suitable  qualification  of  advisors,  the  separation  between  advice  and 
checks, and the proper information of beneficiaries on the designated/ 
selected bodies. The FAS is accessible to all CAP beneficiaries and non-
beneficiary  farmers  on  a  voluntary  basis.  Member  State(s)  may 
determine priority beneficiaries and shall ensure access to those farmers 
with  the  most  limited  access  to  advice  other  than  the  FAS.  Member 
State(s) must report on farmers' participation in the FAS (see Pillar 1 
output indicator O58). Member State(s) are not obliged to fund it. 

Market  oriented  agricultural  production  systems/farming  systems 
providing  products  at  affordable  prices  while  respecting  strict 
conditions in terms of environment, animal welfare and food safety. 

Standards of 
sustainable and 
environmental 
friendly farming 
systems 

Rules  enhancing  sustainability,  notably  greening  under  Pillar  1  and 
cross-compliance  under  the  Regulation  (EU)  No  1306/2013  on 
financing,  management  and  monitoring  of  the  CAP:  Common 
Agricultural Policy (CAP) Payments are linked to these standards, if not 
fulfilled, part of the payments may be withdrawn. 

67 

 
Measures to 
stimulate 
environmentally 
friendly 
practices 

Knowledge 
infrastructure 

Lifelong 
learning (LLL) 

Several  measures  under  Pillar  2:  The  implementation  of  Pillar  2 
measures requires the application of environmentally friendly practices 
and strict compliance with specific production methods according to the 
measure  (e.g.  without  pesticides  and  synthetic  fertilisers  for  organic 
farming).  Notably:  quality  schemes  (M3.1),  agri-environment  and 
climate measures  - AECM (M10.1), Organic farming (M11), support 
for Areas of Natural  Constraints  - ANC (M13), Natura 2000 and EU 
Water Framework Directive - WFD (M12). Also, European Innovation 
Partnership  for  Agricultural  productivity  and  Sustainability  (EIP-
AGRI)  Operational  Groups 
of 
environment/climate  solutions  (around  65%  according  to  the  2018 
Operational Group assessment study). 

stimulate 

testing 

(M16) 

Producers’  organisations  (Common  Market  Organisation  Regulation) 
may  also  work  on  certification  schemes  and  activities  to  prove  the 
environmental friendliness of their products. 

This  concerns the institutions and processes in  place which  generate, 
transfer and apply knowledge: from research (pure and applied/in situ) 
via  dissemination  /  sharing,  to  informed  action  and  feedback.  In  the 
context  of  this  study,  the  structuring  of  active  training  and  advisory 
bodies is an element of infrastructure to focus upon evaluating; other 
elements provide key context. 

 
All learning activities undertaken throughout life with the aim of 
improving knowledge, skills and competences, within personal, civic, 
social or employment-related perspectives. The intention or aim to learn 
is the critical point that distinguishes these activities from non-learning 
activities, such as cultural activities (EUROSTAT, 2019a). 

 
All learning activity undertaken throughout life, with the aim of 
improving  knowledge,  skills/competences  and/or  qualifications  for 
personal, social and/or professional reasons (CEDEFOP, 2014). 

Vocational 
training (VT) 

Training which aims to equip people with knowledge, know-how, skills 
and/or competences required in particular occupation or more broadly 
on the labour market (CEDEFOP, 2014).  

Vocational training and skills acquisition actions may include training 
courses,  workshops  and  coaching  (Article  14  of  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1305/2013). 

Initial 
education and 
training 

General or vocational education and training carried out in the initial 
education  system,  usually  before  entering  working  life  (CEDEFOP, 
2014). 

Skill 

Ability to apply knowledge and use know-how to complete tasks and 
solve problems (CEDEFOP, 2014). 

68 

 
Adequately 
skilled farmers 

Coherence 

Internal 
coherence 

External 
coherence 

EU added 
value 

Farmers  having  at 
training  (Common 
least  basic  agricultural 
Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Framework  (CMEF)  common  context 
indicator  24)  and  having  the  necessary  knowledge  to  correctly 
implement  cross  compliance  and  standards  of  modern,  high  quality 
agriculture on sustainable and environmentally friendly farming system 
as defined above. 

The extent to which complementarity or synergy can be found within 
an intervention and in relation to other interventions (EC, 2017b). 

Correspondence  between 
the  same 
intervention.  Internal  coherence  implies  that  there  is  a  hierarchy  of 
objectives, with those at the bottom logically contributing towards those 
above (EC, 2017b). 

the  different  objectives  of 

Correspondence between the objectives of an intervention and those of 
other interventions which interact with it (EC, 2017b). 

Concerns  achievement  of  results  and  impacts  over  and  above  what 
could  have  been  achieved  with  national  or  regional  programmes 
(measures) alone. 

69 

 
 
 
 
Annex 5: Intervention logic 

The intervention addresses the societal need for an EU agriculture that is viable, sustainable and 
inclusive.  It  is  expected  that  the  implementation  of  the  FAS  and  the  knowledge  exchange, 
advisory and innovation measures in rural development and the wine sector should deliver the 
following outputs: 

  Knowledge transfer and information actions (M1): 

o  Knowledge transfer events are supported; and  
o  Farmers (forest holders and persons engaged in the food sector and rural Small 
and  Medium-sized  Enterprises  (SMEs))  participate  in  supported  events.  The 
target is to train 2.9 million farmers in the period 2014-2020. 

  Advisory services (M2): 

o  Advice is provided for farmers and farmers take-up financially supported advisory 
services (M2.1) (the target is that 1.2 million farmers are advised in the period 
2014-2020); and 

o  Advisors are trained (M2.3). 

  Cooperation (M16): 

o  Operational Groups are supported for the preparation and implementation of their 
innovation projects (with a view to collaborate in finding innovative solutions for 
challenges in the agricultural and forestry sector at the outcome level, bringing 
together  complementary  knowledge  and  ensuring  co-ownership  to  enable  a 
quicker implementation of novelties). 

o  In certain Member States, the Operational Groups can also include an information 
or  training  component  (implying  Knowledge  transfer),  including  trainings  to 
advisors. 

  Agri-environment-climate (M10): 

o  May  support  agri-environment  and  climate  measures’  beneficiaries  with 
knowledge  transfer  and/or  advisory  activities  before  implementing  the  agri-
environment and climate measures (AECM).  

o  The National / Regional Rural Network (and the EIP-AGRI network which may 

be encompassed within). 

o  May support Operational Groups for the implementation and the diffusion of their 

results. 

  Farm Advisory System (FAS): 

o  A list of advisors is provided to farmers, from whom they can take-up advice; and 
o  Advisors are suitably qualified and regularly trained. 

 

Innovation in the wine sector (Common Market Organisation) measure. 

  Support  to  the  development  of  new  products,  processes,  technologies  concerning 

grapevine products. 

The expected outcomes include the following, sometimes interlinked elements. 

70 

 
  Trained and advised farmers are aware of basic standards of EU agriculture (environment, 
climate  change,  good  agricultural  and  environmental  condition  of  land,  public  health, 
animal  health,  plant  health  and  animal  welfare  etc.).  Farmers/foresters  are  adequately 
skilled; some are involved in ongoing learning network or communities of practice. They 
perceive the usefulness and benefits of advice and/or knowledge transfer. Consequently, 
they implement changes from knowledge exchange and advice. The knowledge exchange 
and advice result in increased confidence and self-assurance of farmers/foresters. 

  The Operational Groups and their projects should increase the capacity of farmers and 
foresters in particular, to develop innovation and exchange knowledge and information, 
including  dissemination  of  results.  Information  flows  between  practice  and  research 
should be facilitated and innovative solutions found for challenges in the agricultural and 
forestry sector. Collaboration between farmers, foresters, advisors, research, consumers 
etc. is enhanced in order to co-create knowledge and disseminate results. Results from 
innovation projects are more easily understood and applied, with some farmers adopting 
research  results.  In  the  wine  sector,  increased  marketability  and  competitiveness  of 
grapevine products is expected. 

All  these  outcomes  contribute  to  the  Rural  Development  crosscutting  objective  of  fostering 
knowledge  transfer  and  innovation  in  agriculture,  forestry  and  rural  areas.  These  in  turn 
contribute  to  the  CAP  Pillar  I  (Income  support  and  market  measures)  and  Pillar  II  (Rural 
development) objectives with: 

  enhanced competitiveness of farmers and forest holders and persons engaged in the food 

sector (recital 12 of Regulation (EU) No1305/2013); 

  enhanced resource efficiency (recital 12); 

 

 

 

improved  environmental  performance  (recital  12)  including  sustainable  management 
(recital 13);  

improved overall performance of farm holdings (recital 13); and 

increased capacity for action and empowerment  through  capacity building  for farmers 
and other economically marginal groups. 

They contribute to the impacts resumed in CAP Pillar I (Income support and market measures) 
and Pillar II (Rural development) specific objectives, gathered in four main themes: 

  maintain  agricultural  diversity:  direct  payment  as  well  as  advice  and  information 
activities and cooperation create a conducive environment for development/ maintenance 
of diversified and innovative value chains; 

  economic performance of agriculture and forestry, which encompasses the priorities P2 

(competitiveness) and P3 (food chain organisation) of the CAP Pillar 2; 

  ecological  performance  of  agriculture  and  forestry,  including  the  two  CAP  Pillar  2 
Priorities:  ecosystems’  preservation  (P4)  and  resource  efficiency  and  climate  change 
mitigation (P5); 

  Economic and human development in rural areas (P6 of CAP Pillar 2), through capacity 
building, networking and cooperation improving entrepreneurial opportunities and social 
inclusion. 

71 

 
 
 
 
Annex 6: Share in total Rural Development Programmes spending 

The Figures below shows the implementation progress of each of the three measures (M1, M2 
and M16) at the end of 2018. 

Figure 23. Share of rural development M1 in total Rural Development Programmes spending for 2014-
2020 (in total expenditure: EU and National) 

4,0%

3,5%

3,0%

2,5%

2,0%

1,5%

1,0%

0,5%

0,0%

Total Amount Planned in %

Total eligible cost decided in%

Total eligible spending in%

Source: ADE based on ESI Funds database. 

72 

 
 
 
 
Figure 24. Share of rural development M2 in total Rural Development Programmes spending for 2014-
2020 (in total expenditure: EU and National) 

2,5%

2,0%

1,5%

1,0%

0,5%

0,0%

T
A

E
B

G
B

Y
C

Z
C

E
D

K
D

E
E

S
E

I
F

R
F

R
G

R
H

U
H

E
I

T
I

T
L

U
L

V
L

T
M

L
N

L
P

T
P

O
R

E
S

I
S

K
S

K
U

8
2
U
E

Total Amount Planned

Total eligible cost decided

Total eligible spending

Source: ADE based on ESI Funds database. 

Figure 25. Share of rural development M16 in total Rural Development Programmes spending for 2014-
2020 (in total expenditure: EU and National) 

7,0%

6,0%

5,0%

4,0%

3,0%

2,0%

1,0%

0,0%

T
A

E
B

G
B

Y
C

Z
C

E
D

K
D

E
E

S
E

I
F

R
F

R
G

R
H

U
H

E
I

T
I

T
L

U
L

V
L

T
M

L
N

L
P

T
P

O
R

E
S

I
S

K
S

K
U

8
2
U
E

Total Amount Planned in % Total eligible cost decided in% Total eligible spending in%

Source: ADE based on ESI Funds database. 

73