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

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.

Is Environmental Sustainability Also “Economically Efficient”? The Case of the “SOStain” Certification for Sicilian Sparkling Wines

“…The processes' sustainability and the supply chain's competitiveness will be the central dimensions of the new CAP. In doing so, the previous trade-off approach will be interconnected with a new innovative approach that is both cultural and operational [10,11]. However, the new CAP's objectives have some critical elements that may compromise the competitiveness of small wine producers in the EU, especially in some regions that are still less technologically and economically advanced [12].…”

“…This study addresses the call for initial research about the effects of the regulatory and support measures of the new CAP [10][11][12]23]. This study focuses on wine producers in the region of Sicily, which has the largest number of wine-growing hectares in Italy and is number one in wine production, although it is an EU-convergence objective region.…”

“…Additionally, respondents were asked to give a score to some questions related to the SOStain certification. Specifically, basing on the 10 disciplinary requirements to be respected, according to the SOStain Specifications, [(1)Vineyard Management with eco-sustainable methods, (2) No Chemical Herbicides (prohibition of chemical herbicides), ( 3) Biodiversity (companies with an area > 15 hectares must maintain as natural areas at least 5% of the surface area of the company), ( 4) Use Of Eco-Friendly Materials In The Vineyard (no non-recyclable or non-biodegradable materials are used in the realization of new vineyards), (5) Local Raw Materials (100% of any grapes and wines purchased must be of regional origin), ( 6) Use of the VIVA Indicators (companies are required to calculate, at the company level, the indices of the VIVA program (air, water, vineyard) and to respect the "territory" indicator), (7) Energy Efficient Technologies (for winemaking, only production processes with an energy consumption of less than 0.7 kWh/liter of wine are considered efficient), (8) Weight of bottles (the average weight of the still wine bottles used during the year must be less than or equal to 550 g/0.75 L), (9) Transparency in Communication (the companies adhering to the program are required to prepare a Sustainability Report before 31 March of each year), (10) Limiting the content of residues in wines (laboratory analyses must be carried out annually on a sample of at least 25% of the production commercialized to verify the absence of residues of agricultural chemical products in the wine)] [25] respondents were asked to give a score, using a 5-point Likert scale, to the variables shown in Table 2. The interview lineup and the questionnaire structure were designed by the research team basing on previous studies and existing literature [32,[34][35][36].…”

EU Rural Policy’s Capacity to Facilitate a Just Sustainability Transition of the Rural Areas

“…Moreover, the timeline of policy change, planning and evaluation do not synchronize in a way that evaluation outcomes can directly influence policy reform. Thus, the evaluation does not fulfil its role of catalyzing the learning processes and the planned shape of the evaluation of the rural policy within the CAP after 2022 shows that the evaluation process will not be improved [99].…”

Mapping Ecological Focus Areas within the EU CAP Controls Framework by Copernicus Sentinel-2 Data

“…Next, CAP 2023-2027 will include greening as a compulsory practice of conditionality [9,10] with no optional action from farmers. Greening contribution can be obtained if farmers provide evidence of the following three agricultural practices, which are considered environmentally and climate compliant: (a) crop diversification; (b) maintenance of permanent meadows and pastures; (c) existence of an Ecological Focus Area (EFA).…”