The new Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) proposal includes few improvements compared to previous programming periods which may reinforce future evaluation, but we can also observe elements that may weaken the assessment, with the risk of repeating past failures. The objective of this essay is to analyse the new framework proposed for evaluation in the future CAP and to promote a collective discussion on how to make evaluations more usable, useful and reliable for users and practitioners. The first part of the paper analyses the main elements of evaluation during the different rural development programming cycles. A second part is dedicated to an examination of the current programming period (2014–2020) and the implications of the introduction of the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF) and the evaluation plan. In a third part, we critically discuss the proposals for the next programming period and we offer some concluding reflections and two main open questions. From the analyses carried out, many elements emerge to encourage discussion on the role that evaluation has played and can play and the critical points to face. The experiences in rural development policies have introduced important changes in theoretical and implementation terms. In particular, they helped to build evaluation capacity and enabled the involvement of the civil society. However, it is also clear that the European Commission (EC) designed path has often led to an increase in rigidity and orthodoxy towards common frameworks compliance.

Short food supply chains (SFSCs) are one of the most direct approaches to more directly connecting consumers with producers. The scaling-up of SFSCs is often challenged by critical issues which can be overcome with identification of the most sustainable, replicable schemes. This paper presents the results of a participatory analysis conducted within the agroBRIDGES H2020 project, with the aim of defining a list of economic, social, and environmental attributes and indicators to assess the sustainability of SFSCs and set up a decision-making tool to support producers in self-assessing their sustainability level and choosing the most appropriate business model (BM) from those identified within the project. The proposed framework was based on a literature review and validated using co-creation exercises (Delphi rounds and focus groups) with relevant European stakeholders. A final set of 47 indicators was identified, and their potential for use in assessing the sustainability level of various BMs was also validated. Early results highlighted three main issues: indicator calculation feasibility, business model categorization, and the simplicity of the framework for sustainability self-assessment. Some recommendations are made, including the importance of using a participatory process in building an evaluation framework on SFSC sustainability and the necessity of its adaptation to territorial contexts and needs.

The process to define the 2023–2027 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is underway. The implementation model governing the process requires each EU Member State to design a National Strategic Plan to deliver operational actions exploiting the synergies under the two pillars of the policy. Each Plan must be built from an evidence-based needs assessment that undergoes rigorous prioritisation and planning to create comprehensive, integrated, and achievable interventions. In Italy, the success of this planning process requires all interested stakeholders to generate options for the regional authorities who plan, manage, and legislate agricultural activities. This research proposes a decision-making technique, based on the cumulative voting approach, that can be used effectively when multiple persons from different backgrounds and perspectives are engaged in problem-solving and needs prioritisation. The results indicate that the model can be applied both theoretically and practically to prioritise Strategic Plan needs that involve national and regional authorities. Validation of the model allows it to be used in the next consultative processes and for expansion to socioeconomic stakeholders.

The new CAP implementation model requires each Member State to design a CAP Strategic Plan (CSP) to deliver operational actions under the two CAP pillars. Each CSP must be built from an evidence-based needs assessment that undergoes rigorous prioritisation to plan comprehensive and achievable interventions. In Italy, the institutional context requires all the Regions and Autonomous Provinces to express their preferences and to discuss the CSP collectively, both as regards identifying territorial needs and their prioritisation. In this framework, it became pertinent to introduce a specific instrument to facilitate participation in this process. The Italian Ministry, in collaboration with the National Rural Network, developed a participatory route to assess the prioritisation of the identified needs, to support the decision-making process in CSP drafting process. The process is primarily based on a voting aggregation technique called the Constrained Cumulative Voting method. The process identified makes it possible, on the one hand, to formulate a shared consensus on the level of importance of each need; on the other one, via the definition of natural breaks, to determine homogeneous groups of needs by importance of intervention. This process is in line with the European Commission’s legislative proposals requiring a sound and well-founded logic of intervention.

This study examines the impact of the Rural Development Program (RDP) on reducing income disparities between farms in mountainous and non-mountainous areas in Piedmont, Italy. Using Farm Accounting Data Network data from 2012–2022, the analysis focuses on cattle, sheep and goats, and fruit farms, with 525 farms (3,171 observations; 36% in mountainous areas). A pooled multivariate regression assesses income disparities excluding RDP support, RDP’s effectiveness in mitigating gaps, and the role of compensatory allowance. The findings indicate that significant income disparities are primarily observed in small farms specialized in cattle and sheep and goats, with mountain farms facing a net shortfall of €1,319 and €2,384 per hectare, respectively. While compensatory allowance support helps reduce this gap – by 8.93% for cattle farms and 5.28% for sheep and goat farms – a substantial disparity remains. Bridging the gap entirely would require doubling compensatory payments to €340 per hectare, though alternative strategies are discussed.