COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION of the 2007-2013 rural development programmes – synthesis
Date: 2022-06-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: EAFRD, EU aid, EU programme, aid to agriculture, common agricultural policy, competitiveness, operational programme, rural development, rural region, sustainable development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.6.2022  SWD(2022) 183 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION  of the 2007-2013 rural development programmes – synthesis {SWD(2022) 182 final}  
 
 
Context 

This  evaluation  provides  a  synthesis  of  the  findings  of  the  ex post  evaluations  of  the  rural 
development programmes carried out in 26 Member States1 as part of their implementation of the 
2007-2013 rural development policy. 

1. Effectiveness 

Although  it  was  difficult  to  establish  the  extent  to  which  positive  changes  in  the  various 
programme areas were due to the measures introduced, the evaluation found that the 2007-2013 
rural  development  programmes were  generally successful in  improving the  competitiveness of 
the  agricultural  and  forestry  sector  (rural  development  objective  1).  Investments  aiming  to 
improve  productivity,  efficiency  and  sustainability  were  key.  Generational-renewal  measures 
targeted the maintenance rather than the creation of farming jobs, particularly in marginal areas. 

On  the  environment  and  countryside  (objective  2),  Member  States/regions  reported  benefits 
from the rural development policy, suggesting that although natural resources deteriorated over 
the programming period, the deterioration would have been worse and land abandonment would 
have been higher without  the common agricultural  policy  (CAP). The measures had  a positive 
impact,  mainly  in  terms  of  protecting  natural  resources  and  landscape.  However,  the  positive 
impact in terms of climate change mitigation was a side effect of - rather than a result of - clear 
targeting.  

The programmes improved quality of life in rural areas and encouraged the diversification of 
the  rural  economy  (objective  3)  only  marginally.  Nevertheless,  a  recent  JRC  study  and  most 
ex post  evaluation  reports  found  that  the  CAP  contributed  to  creating  new  jobs  both  in  the 
primary sector and in the entire economy, particularly food and tourism. 

On  building  local  capacity  for  employment  and  diversification  (objective  4),  local  action 
groups2  contributed  to  the  objectives  under  the  local  development  strategies  and  the  rural 
development programmes only to a limited extent. However, the rural development programmes 
contributed moderately to building local  capacities for employment and diversification through 
LEADER. 

2. Efficiency 

It  was  difficult  to  provide  an  overall  judgement  on  the  costs  versus  the  benefits  of  EU-level 
action. This was mainly due to a lack of robust evidence, as the rural development programmes 
did not set sufficiently specific objectives and targets, or sufficiently reliable indicators. Member 

1 Croatia did not have an EAFRD financed rural development programme in 2007-2013. Bulgaria did not provide an 
evaluation during the preparation of the study. 
2 A Local Action Group (LAG) is a nonprofit, public and private organisation from rural villages having a broad 
representation from different socio-economic sectors. They deliver support to their respective rural areas especially 
through the implementation of small-scale projects. 

 
 
                                                           
States'  evaluations  highlighted  several  factors  that  limited  the  programmes'  efficiency,  namely: 
(i)  shortcomings  in  the  steering  structure  of  the  regulatory  framework,  including  the  changes 
resulting from the ‘health check’ reform, which led to higher costs due to increasing demands for 
documentation, data and reporting; and (ii) a higher level of controls. Other limitations stemmed 
from  the  design  of  the  programmes  and  measures,  as  well  as  insufficient  expenditure  on  some 
measures. 

3. Coherence 

Based  on  the  limited  evidence  available,  the  coherence  of  the  programmes  with  the  four  rural 
development  priorities  was  judged  as  small  or  moderate  in  most  ex post  evaluation  reports. 
Overall,  the  programmes  did  not  aim  for  synergies  between  the  various  EU  instruments  but 
rather  for  clear  demarcation,  coordination  mechanisms  and  avoidance  of  overlaps  between  the 
different funds. Only a few Member States opted for a more strategic and coordinated use of EU 
funds. 

4. Relevance 

Overall, the rural development programmes have moderately addressed the needs in the various 
programme areas. They were moderately relevant for the social needs, namely for basic services 
and  physical  infrastructures.  They  were  the  least  relevant  for  demographic  change.  On  the 
economic  needs,  the  programmes  were  moderately  relevant  for  value  chains,  added  value  and 
integration between sectors. Finally, on environmental needs, the programmes were moderately 
relevant  for  natural  resources,  sustainable  practices  and  biodiversity,  ecological  structures  and 
habitats. 

5. EU added value 

Although the question of EU added value was not sufficiently addressed in the ex post evaluation 
reports,  based  on  the  overall  judgements  on  the  other  evaluation  criteria,  the  evaluation 
concluded that EAFRD funding ensured EU added value to a moderate and variable extent.