IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i10p5528-d555269.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Evaluation Framework in the New CAP 2023–2027: A Reflection in the Light of Lessons Learned from Rural Development

Author

Listed:
  • Roberto Cagliero

    (Council for Agricultural Research and Economics, Research Centre for Agricultural Policies and Bioeconomy, 00198 Rome, Italy
    The authors contributed equally as co-first authors.)

  • Francesco Licciardo

    (Council for Agricultural Research and Economics, Research Centre for Agricultural Policies and Bioeconomy, 00198 Rome, Italy
    The authors contributed equally as co-first authors.)

  • Marzia Legnini

    (Free-Lance Consultant on M&E of EU-Funded Programmes, 66023 Francavilla al Mare, Italy)

Abstract

The new Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) proposal includes few improvements compared to previous programming periods which may reinforce future evaluation, but we can also observe elements that may weaken the assessment, with the risk of repeating past failures. The objective of this essay is to analyse the new framework proposed for evaluation in the future CAP and to promote a collective discussion on how to make evaluations more usable, useful and reliable for users and practitioners. The first part of the paper analyses the main elements of evaluation during the different rural development programming cycles. A second part is dedicated to an examination of the current programming period (2014–2020) and the implications of the introduction of the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF) and the evaluation plan. In a third part, we critically discuss the proposals for the next programming period and we offer some concluding reflections and two main open questions. From the analyses carried out, many elements emerge to encourage discussion on the role that evaluation has played and can play and the critical points to face. The experiences in rural development policies have introduced important changes in theoretical and implementation terms. In particular, they helped to build evaluation capacity and enabled the involvement of the civil society. However, it is also clear that the European Commission (EC) designed path has often led to an increase in rigidity and orthodoxy towards common frameworks compliance.

Suggested Citation

  • Roberto Cagliero & Francesco Licciardo & Marzia Legnini, 2021. "The Evaluation Framework in the New CAP 2023–2027: A Reflection in the Light of Lessons Learned from Rural Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-18, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:10:p:5528-:d:555269
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/10/5528/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/10/5528/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mantino, Francesco, 2010. "The reform of EU rural development policy and the challenges ahead," MPRA Paper 49294, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Sophie Thoyer & Raphaële Préget, 2019. "Enriching the CAP evaluation toolbox with experimental approaches: introduction to the special issue," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 347-366.
    3. Wieck, Christine & Hausmann, Isabell, 2019. "Indicators everywhere: The new accountability of agricultural policy?," 172nd EAAE Seminar, May 28-29, 2019, Brussels, Belgium 289722, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Jerzy Michalek, 2012. "Counterfactual impact evaluation of EU rural development programmes - Propensity Score Matching methodology applied to selected EU Member States. Volume 2: A regional approach," JRC Research Reports JRC72060, Joint Research Centre.
    5. Hervé Guyomard & Jean-Christophe Bureau & Vincent Chatellier & Cécile Détang-Dessendre & Pierre P. Dupraz & Florence Jacquet & Xavier Reboud & Vincent V. Requillart & Louis Georges Soler & Margot Tyse, 2020. "The Green Deal and the CAP: policy implications to adapt farming practices and to preserve the EU’s natural resources [Le pacte vert et la PAC: adapter les pratiques agricoles et préserver les res," Working Papers hal-03209246, HAL.
    6. Louhichi, Kamel & Ciaian, Pavel & Espinosa, Maria & Colen, Liesbeth & Perni, Angel & Paloma, Sergio, 2015. "The Impact of Crop Diversification Measure: EU-wide Evidence Based on IFM-CAP Model," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211542, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Gocht, Alexander & Britz, Wolfgang, 2011. "EU-wide farm type supply models in CAPRI--How to consistently disaggregate sector models into farm type models," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 146-167, January.
    8. Marko Lovec & Tanja Šumrada & Emil Erjavec, 2020. "New CAP Delivery Model, Old Issues," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 55(2), pages 112-119, March.
    9. Kim Pollermann & Francis Aubert & Marielle Berriet-Solliec & Catherine Laidin & Denis Lépicier & Hai Vu Pham & Petra Raue & Gitta Schnaut, 2020. "Leader as a European Policy for Rural Development in a Multilevel Governance Framework: A Comparison of the Implementation in France, Germany and Italy," Post-Print hal-02899395, HAL.
    10. Michel Petit, 2019. "Another Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy: What to Expect," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 18(1), pages 34-39, April.
    11. Dwyer, Janet & Clark, Mike & Kirwan, James & Kambites, Carol & Lewis, Nick & Molnarova, Anna & Thompson, Ken & Mantino, Francesco & Tarangioli, Serena & Monteleone, Alessandro & Bolli, Martina & Fagia, 2008. "Review of Rural Development Instruments: DG Agri project 2006-G4-10. Final Report," MPRA Paper 50290, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ramona Pîrvu & Laurențiu Dragomir & Bogdan Budică & Răducu-Ștefan Bratu & Sorin Dinulescu & Lili Țenea, 2022. "The Impact of RDP Measures on the Rural Development: The Case of Romania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-27, April.
    2. Barbara Wieliczko & Agnieszka Kurdyś-Kujawska & Zbigniew Floriańczyk, 2021. "EU Rural Policy’s Capacity to Facilitate a Just Sustainability Transition of the Rural Areas," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-23, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Roberto Cagliero & Marzia Legnini & Francesco Licciardo, 2021. "Evaluating the New Common Agricultural Policy: Improving the Rules," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 20(3), pages 27-33, December.
    2. Alexander Gocht & Pavel Ciaian & Maria Bielza & Jean-Michel Terres & Norbert Röder & Mihaly Himics & Guna Salputra, 2016. "Economic and environmental impacts of CAP greening: CAPRI simulation results," JRC Research Reports JRC102519, Joint Research Centre.
    3. Alexander Gocht & Pavel Ciaian & Maria Bielza & Jean-Michel Terres & Norbert Röder & Mihaly Himics & Guna Salputra, 2017. "EU-wide Economic and Environmental Impacts of CAP Greening with High Spatial and Farm-type Detail," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 651-681, September.
    4. Robert Finger & Nadja El Benni, 2021. "Farm income in European agriculture: new perspectives on measurement and implications for policy evaluation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(2), pages 253-265.
    5. Emil Erjavec & Ilona Rac, 2023. "Improving the Quality of CAP Strategic Planning through Enhancing the Role of Agricultural Economics," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 22(2), pages 71-76, August.
    6. Lillemets, Jüri & Fertő, Imre & Viira, Ants-Hannes, 2022. "The socioeconomic impacts of the CAP: Systematic literature review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    7. Louhichi, Kamel & Ciaian, Pavel & Espinosa, Maria & Colen, Liesbeth & Perni, Angel & Paloma, Sergio, 2015. "The Impact of Crop Diversification Measure: EU-wide Evidence Based on IFM-CAP Model," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211542, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Klaus Mittenzwei & Wolfgang Britz, 2018. "Analysing Farm‐specific Payments for Norway using the Agrispace Model," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(3), pages 777-793, September.
    9. Davide Dell’Unto & Gabriele Dono & Raffaele Cortignani, 2023. "Impacts of Environmental Targets on the Livestock Sector: An Assessment Tool Applied to Italy," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-15, March.
    10. Elena Toma & Paula Stoicea & Carina Dobre & Adina Iorga, 2023. "The Effect of Eco-Scheme Support on Romanian Farms—A Gini Index Decomposition by Income Source at Farm Level," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, August.
    11. Fresenbet Zeleke & Girma T. Kassie & Jema Haji & Belaineh Legesse, 2021. "Would Market Sheds Improve Market Participation and Earnings of Small Ruminant Keepers? Evidence from Ethiopia," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(2), pages 470-485, June.
    12. Rusu, Marioara, 2012. "Challenge Of Common Agricultural Policy For Rural Development In Romania," Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Institute of Agricultural Economics, vol. 9(2), pages 197-210.
    13. Jean-Marc Blazy & Julie Subervie & Jacky Paul & François Causeret & Loic Guinde & Sarah Moulla & Alban Thomas & Jorge Sierra, 2020. "Ex ante assessment of the cost-effectiveness of Agri-Environmental Schemes promoting compost use to sequester carbon in soils in Guadeloupe," CEE-M Working Papers hal-02748634, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    14. Viaggi, Davide & Raggi, Meri & Gomez y Paloma, Sergio, 2011. "Farm-household investment behaviour and the CAP decoupling: Methodological issues in assessing policy impacts," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 127-145, January.
    15. Fuhong Zhang & Apurbo Sarkar & Hongyu Wang, 2021. "Does Internet and Information Technology Help Farmers to Maximize Profit: A Cross-Sectional Study of Apple Farmers in Shandong, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, April.
    16. Alexandre Sauquet, 2021. "Ex-post analysis of the crop diversification policy ofthe CAP Greening in France," Working Papers hal-03455548, HAL.
    17. Elena Cervelli & Ester Scotto di Perta & Stefania Pindozzi, 2020. "Identification of Marginal Landscapes as Support for Sustainable Development: GIS-Based Analysis and Landscape Metrics Assessment in Southern Italy Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-25, July.
    18. Mittenzwei, Klaus & Britz, Wolfgang & Wieck, Christine, 2012. "Studying the effects of domestic support provisions on global agricultural trade: WTO and OECD policy indicators in the CAPRI model," Conference papers 332212, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    19. Kuhfuss, Laure & Préget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2022. "Enhancing spatial coordination in payment for ecosystem services schemes with non-pecuniary preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    20. Britz, Wolfgang & Ciaian, Pavel & Gocht, Alexander & Kanellopoulos, Argyris & Kremmydas, Dimitrios & Müller, Marc & Petsakos, Athanasios & Reidsma, Pytrik, 2021. "A design for a generic and modular bio-economic farm model," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:10:p:5528-:d:555269. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.