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.

Summary Thirty years after their conception and adoption, European rural development policies are about to enter a new programming period, splitting away from the cohesion funds and showing, for the first time since the implementation of agricultural policies, real integration with the so‐called first Pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The proposal for the new CAP from 2023–2027 includes some improvements through a new delivery model and organisational approach, which may reinforce future evaluations. As to overseeing the implementation of the CAP, the Commission proposed to move from a compliance‐based to a performance‐based approach. Nevertheless, we can highlight some elements that may weaken evaluation processes, with the risk of repeating past failures, as is the case in the current CAP programming period from 2014–2020. This article analyses the new framework proposed for the evaluation of the future CAP and is intended to promote a discussion on how to make evaluations more usable, useful and reliable for their users and evaluation practitioners. The analysis concerns only the rules for evaluation and does not discuss other specific monitoring, performance framework and control requirements, which are interrelated with evaluation.