Measuring what matters – Approaches to netting out CAP impacts

Organised by the EU CAP Network with the support of the European Evaluation Helpdesk for the CAP, this Good Practice Workshop focused on building capacity, sharing practical experiences, and fostering collaboration among evaluation stakeholders to address methodological and practical challenges encountered when evaluating the net effects of CAP interventions.

The Workshop opened with an exploration of the rationale for netting out CAP impacts, emphasising the need for distinguishing policy-driven effects from broader economic or environmental trends. This is essential for demonstrating the true value and cost-effectiveness of CAP interventions, as required by EU regulations.

The Workshop underscored that robust methodologies and high-quality data are fundamental to reliable evaluation, with counterfactual and econometric techniques such as propensity score matching, difference-in-differences, and dose–response functions highlighted as key tools.

Simone Severini from the University of Tuscia (Italy) delivered two key contributions. His first presentation focused on the use of counterfactual impact evaluation to isolate the effects of CAP interventions, highlighting the importance of causality, data quality, and context-driven method selection. His second presentation focused on measuring farm income variability and the stabilising role of CAP support, discussing the merits and limitations of various analytical methods.

Carl Strömberg from the Swedish Board of Agriculture gave a presentation on the application of dose–response approaches to evaluate the effects of different levels of support on farm income, using Swedish information from the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN). The presented findings indicated that moderate levels of support produced the strongest income gains, while both low and high intensities had limited or even negative effects.

Philipp Mennig from the Technical University of Munich (Germany) shared a case study on water quality in Bavaria, combining propensity score matching and difference-in-differences methods to assess the impact of agri-environment-climate measures on reducing the gross nitrogen balance.

Luigi Biagini, also from the University of Tuscia (Italy), discussed the measurement and evaluation of the distribution of CAP support, introducing inequality metrics such as the Gini Index and quantile ratios, and presenting evidence from Italy on the effects of recent CAP reforms.

Finally, Alice Devot from the European Evaluation Helpdesk for the CAP provided an overview of technical guidance and resources for netting out CAP impact indicators, available on the EU CAP Network website.

Participants noted that the selection of methods should be driven by clear evaluation questions and objectives, rather than by the availability of data alone. Combining multiple methodological approaches can enhance robustness but also demands greater resources and technical expertise.

During the Workshop, several recurring challenges were identified:  methodological issues, particularly the difficulty of establishing causality and the absence of control groups for direct payments; data availability and quality, including interoperability and timeliness; limited evaluation capacity and technical expertise (in some Member States); and communication challenges in translating technical findings for policymakers and the public.

When discussing possible solutions, participants suggested the use of alternative methods where control groups are not feasible, the use of triangulation by combining quantitative and qualitative approaches, encouraging timely data provision and increased flexibility for Member States to adapt methods to local contexts.

The importance of collaboration, capacity building, and shared learning was stressed as a means to strengthen evaluation practices and improve the comparability and quality of CAP impact assessments across Member States. Effective communication of evaluation findings was also identified as crucial for supporting evidence-based policymaking.