Lessons learned from a pilot evaluation of green architecture in Cyprus

The evaluation, which ran from November 2024 to March 2025, enabled early corrections in the design of the green architecture of the CAP Strategic Plan and in the interplay of interventions. We asked Savvas Maliotis, co-author and coordinator of the assessment, to highlight the challenges and lessons to be shared.

What have been the main challenges?

We could not conduct a full-scale evaluation, so we investigated whether the green architecture's structure, in terms of coherence and relevance, was appropriate. We also had to investigate the balance between the different interventions in terms of the indicators, especially output indicators, not only in terms of what was achieved and reported in the 2024 progress report, but also in terms of what was planned at least for the next year, taking into consideration the changing environmental conditions as well as the mix of green architecture instruments among SO4 (Specific Obective), SO5 and SO6.

What did you find out and what surprised you?

A positive surprise was the focus on soil under SO5.  We made some suggestions to improve the quality of the compost being used to increase soil organic matter. This intervention is very important in Cyprus for improving the country's poor soils.

Another positive effect was the high response to organic farming since the very first year. An 88% increase in budget and a 43% increase in the output indicator were recorded. That was a valuable finding on the positive side, providing a strong basis for the green architecture structure.

On the negative side, we noted that SO4 was less addressed, but that depended also on the investment interventions that were not initiated at the time. Also, the issue of water availability for irrigation was not addressed at the time of the evaluation, so we warned the managing authority that the green architecture would not work well if water management interventions were not initiated on time.

In general, in terms of the green architecture, we had SO5 and SO6 well managed, but at the time, SO4 was lagging. An initial set of conclusions on the achievements of the interventions for Specific Objectives served as a bridge between the design of the CAP Strategic Plan and the implementation during the first year.

What are the lessons learned?

One lesson learned was that the green architecture, as a concept of interplay between instruments, was not adequately understood by stakeholders, especially by beneficiaries. They worked with the instruments, but they could not really understand the interplay between them and how we move from regulations to eco-schemes and to agro-environmental measures. There is therefore an important awareness-raising need to understand the concept of green architecture, which goes well beyond Specific objectives. It is important to evaluate the whole green architecture and not just Specific objective interventions.

The second lesson was the need to encourage policymakers to promote external coherence, especially with other European programmes. We highlighted the weak correlation between the CAP Strategic Plan and other European programmes, indicating that most environmental measures in Cyprus are supported by the CAP and less by other EU funds.

Finally, we need to consider the characteristics of the territory. Climate change affects some regions more acutely. But because Cyprus is a small country, such territorial variations are not taken into account when designing interventions. It is difficult to suggest that interventions become area-specific since the country is small and it would not be economically feasible. However, a key message for other Member States is to target interventions related to the green architecture to area-specific environmental problems.