Process evaluation of Sweden’s 2023-2027 CAP Strategic Plan: design of support schemes

The report is the second part of a more comprehensive process-oriented evaluation structured in three studies related to the Swedish 2023-2027 CSP. The evaluation, which covers 2023-2024, aims to identify areas of implementation that are working well and areas where responsible authorities can improve to best use resources and achieve results and objectives. The report meets EU requirements for evaluating the CSP and takes into account the evaluation criteria of relevance and effectiveness.

The report is based on document analysis, monitoring data, surveys and qualitative interviews to authorities. In order to analyse the information and come to conclusions in a systematic and clear way, the evaluators worked on the basis of the so-called pyramid principle. The evaluation is based on a number of evaluation criteria with associated assessment criteria and evaluation questions developed by the Swedish Board of Agriculture. The evaluation questions are formulated to evaluate the design and contribution of the support scheme to the specific objective(s) that the specific support scheme is expected to contribute. The evaluation framework clearly links the evaluation questions to the criteria and the methods used.

Limitations reported are mainly related to the representativeness of a wide range of perspectives and experiences. The results have also been based on document studies and data. This has contributed to a strengthened validity. However, one needs to be aware that the administrators' perspective may not fully reflect the farmers' own experiences and opinions.

The following main findings can be highlighted. First, the farmers operate in a traditional sector. They are under financial pressure with a heavy workload and administrative burden. This makes it challenging for an agriculture business to become more innovative and sustainable. To make this transition, better financial conditions and incentives are required. The types of support that have been evaluated place a lot of demands on the farmers. The evaluation sees a risk that the farmers’ interest in applying for some of the support schemes will be lower than expected and the set targets will not be met. It is difficult and demanding to apply for the types of support that have been evaluated. The documents and the guidelines that are part of the application process are complex and difficult to understand. In this period, the EU has a greater focus on the results rather than compliance. This new focus is not clear to the applicant and many applicants do not see the relevance of the documents and level of detail required in the application.

For several types of support, there is a lack of targeted information about what the support entails and what benefits it can bring. The evaluator sees information about the types of support on the Swedish Board of Agriculture’s website. However, several county administrative boards express that the applicants need to get information about the support schemes relevant to their specific situation and geographical context. The support schemes are designed and managed in a way that they can contribute to the specific objectives of the CSP. However, the evaluator sees that more in-depth analyses are needed to investigate conflicts and synergies and evaluate alternatives to meet the objectives.

At the same time, it is important that goal conflicts are minimised as much as possible and that the support schemes do not counteract each other. In order to increase the potential of the support schemes, they need to meet the farmers’ current needs. Several of the evaluated support schemes are below the forecasted demand. For many farmers, the current focus is to make ends meet. Farmers may consider it unrealistic to make large investments to contribute to increased climate benefits if work input and costs exceed the financial support they can receive. There is a clear dependence on consultants for applying for support, especially for project and investment support, but also for several support schemes for farmers within the IACS (Integrated Administration and Control System). Hiring a consultant can inhibit the applicant's own understanding of the support schemes and to independently make decisions and build skills to develop sustainable businesses. Reducing reliance on consultants could result in strengthened knowledge transfer to farmers. This has the potential to be an important factor in promoting a more diversified and knowledge-driven agricultural sector.