How can we ensure that evaluation findings and recommendations are actually taken into account in the preparation of the CAP post-2027?
This was the focus of the Good Practice Workshop organised by the EU CAP Network/EU-CAP Evaluation Helpdesk in Helsinki, where the issue was discussed from various national perspectives.
The IfLS was represented in its role as evaluation service provider for the German CAP Strategic Plan 2023–2027.
As part of the current funding period, the IfLS, together with its consortium partners, is evaluating the areas of income support (Axis 1), promoting competitiveness (AO 2), strengthening farms (AO 3), supporting business start-ups and young farmers (AO 7) and rural development/LEADER added value (AO 8), as well as the cross-cutting objective (CCO; knowledge, innovation, digitalisation).
A key lesson from the workshop was that evaluations are particularly effective when they are not viewed as the conclusion of a policy cycle, but rather as a continuous process of learning and feedback. However, evidence must reach decision-makers at the right time.
Some of the examples presented included:
- Austria used a ‘Zero CAP Payments’ scenario to illustrate the potential effects that the abolition of CAP payments would have on agricultural production, factor income, land use and extensive grassland.
- Hungary demonstrated how evaluations can be systematically embedded throughout the entire CAP policy cycle, supporting both ongoing implementation and planning beyond 2027.
- Finland emphasised the growing importance of quantified findings, particularly regarding the impact of CAP measures on the environment and climate.
- Sweden presented procedures for tracking evaluation results and recommendations, which reveal whether and how evidence is actually incorporated into implementation and planning.
- Lithuania demonstrated how completed evaluations, stakeholder engagement and evidence-based analyses have supported the transition from the Rural Development Programme to the CAP Strategic Plan.
Our conclusion: evaluations are most effective when follow-ups are institutionally embedded and communication is tailored to the target audience. For the CAP after 2027, this means moving away from ‘evaluation as a reporting obligation’ towards ‘evaluation as a basis for learning, steering and better policy-making’.
Many thanks to all the speakers and participants for the valuable exchange and practical insights.
Contact persons at the IfLS: Jörg Schramek (schramek[at]ifls.de); Dr. Ulrich Gehrlein (gehrlein[at]ifls.de)
