Scottish Rural Development Programme 2014-2020: Evaluation of Capital Grant Schemes: Annex B - Survey data

2. About the grant

N=199.

Multiple response question where respondents could select more than one option and all that applied. Percentages may total more than 100% as a result.

N=199.

Where data was provided by grant recipients on the year for which a grant or grants were received, this was not completely accurate. In part this may reflect the fact that grants were received some time ago, and many crofters also received multiple grants. Rather, we have presented data by value of grant award(s) where data was provided, Table 2.3. Data on grant award was patchy and some farmers and crofters may also have included an aggregated total if awarded more than one grant. The data shows that on average NECGS awards were larger in size than for the other two schemes – this matches analysis of the monitoring data provided by SG.

Numbers rounded.

N=182.

Multiple response question where respondents could select more than one option and all that applied. Percentages may total more than 100% as a result.

N=187.

* Establishment of a common grazing’s committee was only applicable to CAGS.

Multiple response question where respondents could select more than one option and all that applied. Percentages may total more than 100% as a result.

Question 5a) - Please provide more detail on what you purchased with your grant award(s)?

Question 5b) - Why did this solution meet your needs at that time (also consider the benefits you thought you would get)?

Not all grant recipients provided further detail on what they purchased with the capital grant awards. Some farmers and crofters, for example, simply put ‘fencing’, ‘new agricultural building’, or ‘improvement works’ – with qualitative feedback largely mirroring responses selected at Question 4.

Where more detail was provided by grant recipients, responses highlight that a mix of delivery methods were adopted for project delivery – in some cases:

• the farmer or crofter undertook the work and/or with help from family and friends.
• external contractors were procured by farmers and crofters to do the work.
• a hybrid of the two approaches was undertaken.

The grant funding helped farmers and crofters with the costs of a range of things – including, materials, equipment, labour costs, and machinery hire. Much of the activity was undertaken to:

• help make the farm and croft more efficient (time and cost) and productive.
• improve the quality and functionality of farm or croft buildings.
• better manage and improve animal welfare.

The survey feedback confirms that the grant funding supported farmers and crofters to be able to continue to operate their farm or croft more effectively, including those who also hold down other jobs/employment.

For CAGS in particular, crofters highlighted that they received multiple grants from this scheme and that this enabled them to take forward capital projects as part of a staged follow-on approach to delivery.

In terms of how the capital grant funding was used, why it was needed, and expected benefits, the following points were raised by farmers and crofters.

Farmers and crofters said that new hedging, fencing wire and posts and gates were essential, and that this helped them to replace old, dilapidated, neglected, or derelict provision. Funding was also used to create new fencing in previously unfenced areas to ensure fields were stock-proof. Farmers and crofters reported that this type of project activity helped to serve various purposes, including:

• maximising field space.
• giving stock shelter.
• keeping stock protected and segregated to improve welfare and feeding - better stock control/improved stock management.
• enabling increased stock levels.
• providing secure grazing.
• marking boundaries and perimeters between farms, including apportionment of share of Common Grazings.
• supporting improved grassland, reducing grazing pressure, expanded grass production, and rotational grazing (better rotational management of livestock).
• improving animal welfare through bracken control - reducing medicine used, for example, reducing their risk of tick related diseases.
• improving habitats for wildlife and enhanced bio-security.

Agricultural sheds also served a wide range of specific and general purposes. Survey feedback included that sheds provided much needed:

• shelter for animals and livestock, including young stock, stock in poor health, to quarantine new stock, and to provide shelter over the winter months - for some farmers and crofters this meant that cattle did not have to be housed elsewhere over the winter.
• indoor space to safely and securely store and protect other valuable and essential assets (equipment, machinery, tools, seed and feedstuff, hay, and straw) – for example, this helps farmers and crofters to: prolong the condition/life of machinery as it can be very expensive; minimise the risk of stock getting tangled up when grazing if machinery is left lying around; and improve the quality of fodder.
• indoor space for lambing which helps to reduce the number of lamb deaths due to poor outdoor lambing conditions.
• indoor space to undertake other tasks (for example, shearing) that are usually dependant on the weather – this provides a cleaner and easier working environment for handling and protects animals and farmers from extreme weather when there is any sort of handling to be done.
• functionality of indoor space – for example, holding areas to avoid wet and steep ground; storing bulk purchases (cheapest rate) of hay, straw, and feed; or producing and storing their own winter fodder from natural hay meadows rather than buying in large bales which can be expensive due to transport costs in rural and remote areas.

It was reported that the capital grant funding provided much needed financial resources to help farmers and crofters create modern, bigger, and fit-for-purchase sheds, including those with water and electricity connections.

It also supported them to bring derelict buildings back into productive use (renew rather than replace). Other farmers and crofters used the grant funding to upgrade and future proof existing sheds by, for example, doing roof replacements, putting in concrete floors, and installing gate systems. Grant support for agricultural sheds also supported better grazing management, effluent and manure control, and less feed waste.

Farmers and crofters said that land improvements undertaken improved and/or enhanced access roads or farm tracks. Easier access to fields and barns, including with, for example, feed trailers was said to be essential for efficient farm management.

Farmers and crofters reported that good access:

• helps facilitate the movement of machinery, livestock, and agricultural produce.
• makes it easier for them to look after animals and farms and crofts more generally.

Farmers and crofters also used the funding for creating hardstandings for livestock, access parking and groundworks in advance of new agricultural buildings. Farmers and crofters reported that firm bases created for feeding cattle:

• supports more comfortable feeding.
• provides clean safe areas to feed livestock.
• avoids damage to areas in fields during stock handling activities.

Grant funding helped to improve or renew field drainage, for example, farmers and crofters hired contractors to drain the land, create ditch networks, remove boggy areas, and instal culvert pipes. Farmers and crofters said that good field drainage is another important aspect of effective farm management, as this type of activity helps to:

• keep farms and crofts in good condition.
• minimises surface-water run-off and reduces flooding.
• improves soil structure to enable better yields.
• improves grassland for increased livestock production, creates grazable areas, increases grazable areas, and improves the quality of grazing.

Irrigation systems were installed to allow farmers and crofters to deliver the right amount of water to their crops – thereby helping to reduce water waste and improve the overall health of the crops.

Polytunnels, including Polycrubs, were erected by farmers and crofters for horticultural purposes – for example, to help extend the growing season and to support diversification (for example, horticulture) and income sources by selling produce at local markets and shops. Strong structures were erected by farmers and crofters to help withstand high wind speeds and harsh climates.

Farmers and crofters often used the grant funding to purchase a range of equipment to help improve livestock management and welfare. This included, for example, the purchase of: tag/electronic identification (EID) readers for data capture and tracking; Nofence cattle collars to help control herd on pasture, anytime from anywhere; shearing/clipping machinery and trailers; CCTV systems and security cameras; sheep and cattle (mobile) handling systems; weighing crates for livestock; feed trailers, bins, and troughs; creep feeding equipment for young stock; and rubber/comfort mats and mattresses.

Farmers and crofters reported that these types of activities make working with livestock easier for them, for example:

• improved handling systems support easier and safer handling – reduces time spend handling and reduces stress for animals and handlers.
• mobile handling systems mean that sheep travel less distance as farmers can move the system to different areas of the farm.
• weighing crates support more accurate feeding while creep feeding in young stock supports weight gain, better health and nutrition.
• pens and stalls keep stock secure, including sheep and lambs during lambing season.
• CCTV helps farmers and crofters monitor calving and lambing, and cameras provide increased security for farms and crofts more generally.
• rubber mats help to reduce lameness, improve cow comfort, and reduce bedding costs.
• feed bins help reduce costs as feed can be purchased and stored in bulk.
• feed trailers and troughs provide better feeding opportunities for livestock – increased animal welfare, feed hygiene and personal safety.

Other equipment purchased included systems to help manage slurry on farms – for example, air operated slurry systems which can provide a simple and cost-efficient aeration system designed to keep stored sludge in a semi-liquid, hence pumpable condition, regardless of how long it has been in storage.

The capital grant funding supported grassland management activity – for example, grass seed and reseed cultivations to rejuvenate grassland and maintain productive grassland on farms, as well as purchases of lime as a soil neutraliser and conditioner, and fertilisers in accordance with good agricultural practice. Drier fields can then support extended use for farmers and crofters. Improved grassland can also support reduced wintering costs of livestock and maximised outputs over the summer period.

Question 6 - Did you experience any issues or challenges in project delivery (for example, delays in finding contractors to do the work, etc.)?

Some farmers and crofters reported that they experienced no or few issues or challenges in project delivery. This was often the case for those farmers or crofters who undertook the project/works themselves, or where they managed to secure a contractor easily.

On the other hand, a review of the qualitative feedback provided by other farmers and crofters highlighted a range of issues and challenges in project delivery, as summarised below.

A key challenge for these farmers and crofters was finding suitable/appropriate contractors to provide quotes and/or to deliver the project/works. Issues raised include that:

• the volume and type of contractor is more limited in some geographic areas, for example, remote rural communities in Scotland – farmers and crofters often find that contractors can do some but not all of a specific job.
• contractors with a good reputation are often the busiest – it can be difficult for farmers and crofters to secure two or three quotes (takes a lot of time and effort) and difficult to get contractors to commit to undertaking the work in a specific timeframe (some contractors have long waiting lists).
• some contractors will only submit a quote if they think they will get the job.
• challenges in securing suitable contractors often has a knock-on impact on timescales, with some farmers and crofters subsequently undertaking the works themselves.

Other challenges raised related to contract management – for example, farmers and crofters said that they sometime have to continually ‘chase’ contractors to get the work completed.

Wider challenges for farmers and crofters which were out with their control includes:

• the COVID-19 pandemic - lockdowns and restrictions resulted in delays to project delivery, for example, delays in the procurement of capital contracts, delays in finding contractors and materials, restrictions for onsite visits, and in starting and completing works.
• poor weather – similarly, delayed projects/works, disrupted delivery, and extended project timescales.
• supply chain issues.
• changes in project costs (for example, materials, contractors) from application stage to when confirmation of application approval was received by farmers and crofters – rising costs meant that the cost of materials increased (grant became a smaller percentage of the total cost), and there is a perception that some contractors increase their costs when they know it is grant funded.
• delays resulting from equipment being in strong demand and out of stock for long periods of time.
• building standards process and securing planning approval.