At the end of the day it comes down to raw politics

Here are some extracts from the conclusions to an important post by Professor Alan Matthews on changes in CAP governance based on a recent conference presentation.   I certainly agree with his observation that these issues are ultimately political rather than technical but with such a complex policy one has to grasp the technicalities which he helps us to do.   His full analysis is here: https://capreform.eu/strategic-planning-in-the-new-cap/

The proposed NPRR and Performance Regulations represent a structural shift in CAP governance. By embedding agriculture within a horizontal EU performance framework, it moves oversight from predominantly ex post checks to a model combining ex ante compliance verification with real-time monitoring. This will require significant adaptation by Member States and CAP actors but offers the potential for earlier intervention, greater transparency, and stronger alignment with EU-wide objectives.

The fundamental question is whether the proposed changes make genuine strategic planning in the CAP more likely or not. Good strategic planning in the EU budget context requires that objectives are specific and clearly defined, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART). It also requires that interventions are logically linked to these objectives through a coherent theory of change. Resources should be allocated in ways that reflect political priorities and trade-offs rather than institutional inertia.

Monitoring and evaluation should provide timely and credible evidence both for accountability and for course correction, while the system as a whole should allow learning and adaptation. Strategic planning is about much more than indicator reporting: it aligns objectives, resources, and accountability mechanisms.

Several limitations in the Commission proposal might be highlighted. I am not convinced that linking output and result indicators to intervention fields rather than specific objectives is a positive step. The CAP alone (including forestry) has 40 different intervention fields, and there are hundreds specified in Annex 1. This proliferation in the number of intervention fields is hardly conductive to making reasoned choices between strategic priorities. There is a danger of formalism, where indicator compliance substitutes for genuine strategic steering.

Ultimately, we must recognise that agricultural policy can never be reduced to solely technical considerations and trade-offs. Strategic planning will always be subject to political dictates. But a question for debate could be whether the proposed strategic planning framework for the CAP does as much as it could to align the incentives of Member States with the needs of the Union as a whole.