The 2023-2027 CAP Strategic Plan of Cyprus, AKIS assessment

This report assesses Cyprus’ existing AKIS and a complementary technical support report.

A six-phase methodology is applied: planning (actor and data identification), preparation (scope, objectives, evaluation framework), structuring (methods, tools and desk research), observation (desk analysis and interviews), analysis (evidence synthesis), and interpretation (conclusions). Evidence draws on SWOT analysis, research literature review, and fieldwork.

The report assesses the AKIS approach as reflected in relevant interventions under the 202302027 CAP Strategic Plan. Given the limited implementation of the interventions, the analysis and conclusions draw primarily on evidence from the 2014-2022 Rural Development Programme (RDP) (Particularly Measure 1 (knowledge transfer and information actions) and Measure 16 (cooperation)). The evaluation questions examine the extent to which the AKIS approach contributes to the modernisation of agriculture and rural areas, the achievement of CAP specific objectives, complementarity with other policies, and the development of a sufficiently structured and functional knowledge and innovation system for Cyprus.

The report estimates planned Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (PMEF) indicators because no CSP projects had yet been implemented. This includes European Innovation Partnership Operational Group (EIP OG) projects (O.1), training, advice and awareness actions (O.33), knowledge and innovation beneficiaries (R.1), environmental and climate knowledge support (R.28), and digital farming support (R.3). The strongest positive evidence concerns training under the 2014-2022 period, where 2 774 people were trained under Measure 1.1, representing about 8% of farm holders, with full coverage of all first-installation farmers, and 1 347 trainees under 40. However, the contribution to climate, environmental, conditionality, digitalisation and broader farm management objectives was more limited, with training focused on production practices and legal obligations and with gaps in agro-environmental interventions, agro-ecology, integrated pest management, smart farming and business skills.

Digital investments and smart farming training are foreseen, but implementation remains limited due to weak practical knowledge in public administration and on farms, as well as structural constraints associated with small farm sizes. Knowledge flows have mainly advanced through education and initial research (farmer links via AKIS and the National Rural Network), while the transfer of knowledge from research to farmers and advisers remains weak. This is reflected in limited farmer participation in conferences, the absence of a central database of project results, and underdeveloped dissemination channels. Advisory-based flows and research–practice linkages are further constrained by limited staffing, the absence of a coordinating body and research policy, and the still very limited contribution of EIP/innovation networks due to the low number of completed operational group projects.

Recommendations include reinforcing staffing capacity for provincial agricultural consultants and separating advisory from damage‑assessment roles; expanding intervention 7.1 (training) to entrepreneurship, rural economics, processing/marketing and environmental/resource-management themes; activating the agricultural research council with stakeholder involvement and a medium-term strategy; strengthening training-of-trainers via interventions 7.1 and 7.2 (visits abroad); reassessing unit costs for intervention 7.2; and reassessing and better specifying intervention 7.1B (education (infrastructure)) targets; improving dissemination of research results; assessing the economic impact of advisory services; and organising structured workshops to identify innovation needs.