From policy to market – New guidelines to assess farmers’ position in the food chain
New guidance for Managing Authorities and evaluators in assessing how the CAP Strategic Plan contributes to improving farmers' position in the agri-food value chain.
Farmers across the European Union continue to face structural disadvantages within the agri-food value chain: fragmented production, concentrated downstream markets and limited bargaining power make it difficult for many to capture a fair share of the value of their work.
The CAP of the current programming period directly addresses this challenge through Specific Objective 3 (SO3), which aims to improve farmers’ position in the value chain by fostering “integration of farmers within the food chain and participating in quality schemes and organic production to increase added value”.
Yet, evaluating the CAP achievements in this regard is far from straightforward. The relevant interventions of the CAP Strategic Plan (CSP), namely sectoral support, cooperation measures and on-farm investments, together with the provisions of the Common Market Organisation (CMO), foster various initiatives at different stages of the supply chain, with an impact on farmers’ position that is difficult to measure.
In the previous programming period, sectoral support was provided through the CMO Regulation before being integrated into the CSPs. Over time, the CMO has set rules to protect farmers and support their collective organisation, creating a favourable environment. This highlights the need to assess the overall CAP impact by considering interactions between the CSP and the CMO. The guidelines support Managing Authorities and evaluators in assessing this joint effectiveness.
To help to measure this overall CAP impact, the EU CAP Network, supported by the European Evaluation Helpdesk for the CAP, has developed dedicated guidelines. The evaluation expertise was provided by a Thematic Working Group composed of evaluation experts, evaluation stakeholders from the Member States and DG AGRI.
The guidelines aim to establish a methodological reference point, which can be adapted to the diversity of value chains and national contexts. For this purpose, the guidance is structured along several analytical dimensions derived from the CAP intervention logic.
Analytical framework for assessing the effectiveness of the CAP in relation to SO3
-
Analytical framework for assessing the effectiveness of the CAP in relation to SO3
This figure presents an analytical framework for assessing how the CAP contributes to SO3 by improving farmers’ position in the food supply chain.
The framework shows that farmers can strengthen their position through two main types of action. First, they can take up activities directly available to them, including cooperation through producer organisations or other farmers’ organisations, product differentiation through quality schemes and organic production, and the development of short supply chains. These activities are supported by CSP interventions such as cooperation, investment support, LEADER, environmental and climate schemes or eco-schemes, and sectoral support for the wine sector. They are also supported by CMO provisions such as recognition of producer organisations and protection of geographical indications.
Second, farmers can become more integrated in the value chain. This includes concentrating supply, receiving supportive services, participating in additional stages of the value chain, and improving contractual relationships with other actors in the supply chain. This stage is supported by CSP interventions targeted at producer organisations and producer groups, as well as knowledge and advisory services. It is also supported by CMO provisions such as derogations for farmers and their associations, written contracts, value-sharing clauses, and market observatories.
Together, these activities and forms of support are expected to improve farmers’ bargaining power and reduce production costs. The intended overall impact is improved economic performance, measured through gross value added.
As synthesised in the diagram above, the guidelines recommend first examining the activities supported at farm level (e.g. participation in producers’ organisations, development of quality schemes and/or short supply chains) and then assessing how these generate structural changes along the value chain that further integrate farmers.
For each dimension of analysis, a set of evaluation questions and factors of success is proposed, allowing evaluators to tailor the evaluation framework to their CSP.
The guidelines suggest a mixed-methods approach and provide step-by-step guidance for each method: trend analysis, econometric approaches (propensity score matching and difference-in-differences), stakeholder consultations and case-study analysis. In addition, experts have developed ready-to-use templates for interviews, surveys and case studies, provided in the guidelines, which can be further adapted by Managing Authorities and evaluators willing to engage in SO3 assessment.
Assessing the internal coherence
To complement the analysis of the overall CAP impact on SO3, the guidelines recommend assessing the internal coherence between CSP interventions and CMO provisions. This assessment helps explain why observed results have or have not materialised, moving beyond a description of policy outputs to identify synergies and gaps. The methodology presented in the guidelines is further complemented by a dedicated evaluation learning portal that guides evaluators through a three-phase process to assess interactions among CAP instruments, supported by a practical screening matrix.
Supporting Managing Authorities
The guidelines can help Managing Authorities structure the evaluation of the CAP's impact on farmers' positions and provide inspiration for drafting the terms of reference. The document helps clarify help clarifying the scope of an SO3 evaluation, taking into consideration the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1475, which sets out the key evaluation elements and factors of success (FoS) recommended for SO3: an increasing share of marketed production by quality schemes and producers organisations, which translates into an increasing gross added value for farmers.
The guidelines distinguish between two analytical scopes for assessing SO3:
- The first derives from the Commission Implementation Regulation (EU) 2022/1475, focusing on the CSP contribution to farmers' participation in producer organisations and quality schemes, and subsequent changes in their added value.
- The second goes further by incorporating additional dimensions – such as development of short value chains, supply concentration, contractual relationships, or vertical integration – and by including the contribution of CMO provisions alongside CSP interventions.
Managing authorities will naturally calibrate the scope of their evaluation to their national context, evaluation needs and the available resources. The guidelines also map the intervention logic of the CAP in relation to SO3 – from CSP interventions to CMO provisions, e.g. on PO recognition, geographical indications, and written contracts – giving Managing authorities a possible structured basis for deciding which instruments to include in the evaluation scope.
Guidance for evaluators
Changes in farmers' position are inherently difficult to observe and quantify. Data on price transmission, profit margins, and contractual terms are often fragmented or unavailable at national level. Moreover, when quantified, changes are difficult to attribute to a specific policy action.
To address these challenges, the guidelines map relevant Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (PMEF) output, result and impact indicators for SO3, including Impact Indicator I.8 on value added for primary producers. They also point to complementary information sources – FADN/FSDN farm-level data, DME sectoral notifications, national PO registers and stakeholder consultation.
For attributing CAP effects, the guidelines offer practical guidance on defining a baseline scenario, comparing observed outcomes with counterfactual trends, and triangulating evidence from various methods and sources (such as trend analysis, econometric approaches, stakeholder consultations and case study analysis). Concrete examples illustrate how to interpret apparently contradictory findings from different methods – an essential skill when working with incomplete data.
Finally, the guidelines highlight how to move from the collected evidence to a coherent narrative that clearly identifies the role of the CAP and focuses on policy lessons. They also provide practical guidance on formulating clear, actionable recommendations to enhance the CSP contribution to SO3.