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

4. Views on the application process and support received

N=190

Where support was provided by a national body, responses include NFU Scotland, Scottish Agricultural College (SAC consulting), and Scottish Crofting Federation.

‘Other’ includes: Agricultural agents, farm advisors, Rural Payments Agency, NC Rural Centre Leadership Alumni Network, and individual internet searches/search engines.

Base numbers ranged from 185 to 189. Percentages may total more than 100% due to rounding.

Question 13a - What worked well with the application process? (if applicable).

Farmers and crofters identified various aspects of the application (and claims) process which they considered worked well, and these can be categorised as follows:

• good working relationships with RPID staff – considered friendly, knowledgeable, supportive and provide practical help and support to farmers and crofters (for example, help to navigate the application process, help to identify potential contractors, support with the claims process). Further, there was said to be good communication with the local RPID office and clerks of works, regular contact, and staff are responsive to queries – farmers and crofters value speaking with area office staff as and when required in-person or on the telephone. Staff were said to be flexible in particular during the pandemic.
• the support provided to farmers and crofters by other external agents and agencies with the application process – they often do the heavy lifting and complete the applications forms. This made the application process easier and less burdensome for farmers and crofters as the external agency dealt with most of it. Some farmers and crofters note that they would have struggled to have completed all the necessary paperwork without external agent support (for example, use of jargon, not plain English, reference to friends giving up filling in applications).
• the application process itself – some farmers and crofters felt that it was a relatively easy, seamless, and straightforward process. They welcomed the ability to apply for grant funding on a rolling basis (that is, no fixed application deadlines), and some commented that applications and grant payment were processed efficiently.

Question 13b - What worked less well, and/or could have been improved or done differently? (if applicable).

Farmers and crofters also identified various aspects of the application (and claims) process which they considered worked less well. Some aspects identified as working less well mirror those identified as working well (Question 13a) – this highlights the subjective nature of the feedback based on farmers’ and crofters’ personal experience of applying for, and managing, the capital grant funding.

Aspects which worked less well were identified by farmers and crofters as:

• securing two or three quotes can be particularly challenging for those in remote rural areas - using a standard cost approach for some capital improvements could help speed up the process, including for small awards, and an approved framework of registered suppliers could also be helpful.
• the time taken to process applications from submission to receiving a formal decision can be lengthy and slow – and has a knock-on effect on the cost of materials, equipment, works, etc (‘quotes go out of date quickly’), or can mean the short window for undertaking certain activities are missed (seasonality). Further, the likelihood of getting a contractor and materials immediately on approval is unlikely.
• the maximum grant award size does not reflect the cost and inflationary increases (for example, cost of materials, contractors, etc) - similarly, CAGS recipients also expressed support for higher intervention rates for crofters (‘for most a way of life rather than their main source of income’).
• the application process itself – paperwork, forms and guidance are said to be complicated, difficult to understand, and burdensome for applicants, with some farmers and crofters indicating that they sourced external support (needs simplified in some way, strip out repetitive questions).There were also calls for a more proportionate process in line with grant award size, and a few respondents expressed support for an online application and claims process.
• it can be difficult for farmers and crofters to get all the funding in place to pay for the project upfront, in particular for new or small farm businesses with limited capital.
• the grant payment process also causes cash-flow issues as farmers and crofters have to pay for the project/works on completion prior to drawing down grant aid – finding the money to pay for and complete the work before the grant is paid can be very challenging (bridging finance, including securing bank loans). Staged payments could help with this.
• there can be challenges in completing the works within one financial year – it is restrictive for some activities.
• the length of time taken to receive local planning authority permission.
• for SFGS, the eligibility criteria (household income) acts as a barrier to accessing grant funding for many small farmers and smallholders.
• while RPID staff were largely praised for their help and support, some felt it was largely dependent on the individual.

Question 14 - Did you pay an agent or organisation to help you complete the application(s)?

Around one-third of respondents (32%) paid an agent or organisation to help them complete the application(s) - the remaining 68% of respondents did not pay an agent or organisation.

N=187.

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

Base numbers ranged from 185 to 187.

Percentages may total more than 100% due to rounding.

Question 15a - What worked well with the process? (if applicable)

Question 15b - Is there anything that could have been improved or done differently?

Based on a review of the qualitative feedback provided by farmers and crofters to Question 15a and Question 15b – no additional points are raised which are not already covered above at Question 13a and Question 13b.