Scottish Rural Development Programme 2014-2020: Evaluation of Capital Grant Schemes – Main Report

7. Grant Recipient Feedback

Introduction

This chapter provides:

• a summary of the main messages from the grant recipient online survey undertaken to capture the views and experiences of farmers and crofters supported by the capital grant schemes - frequency tables and more open-ended question analysis are presented in Annex B.
• six case study write-ups based on telephone and MS Teams calls with grant recipients across the three schemes.

The study method and approach to undertaking the online survey and case studies is set out in Chapter 2.

Summary of grant recipient survey findings

Profile of survey respondents

The online survey of grant recipients received 199 valid responses, see Table 7.1. Based on the number of emails delivered to grant recipients this represents a good response rate of 15%, see Table 7.2, over.

The vast majority of survey responses were from crofters who received a grant(s) from CAGS – it is also the largest of the three capital grant schemes in terms of budget allocation and volume of applications received and approved, see Table 7.1.

Table 7.1: Which of the following schemes did you receive a grant or grants from between 2014 and 2024?

Scheme	Number	Percentage
CAGS	165	83%
NECGS	32	16%
SFGS	15	8%

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.

Where farmers and crofters reported that they received a grant from more than one scheme, they were asked which capital grant scheme they would like to answer the remainder of the survey questions on – most also indicated CAGS (81%), see Table 7.2.

Table 7.2: Survey responses by grant scheme

Scheme	Survey emails issued and delivered	Survey responses received - scheme selected to provide feedback on	Survey responses received as percentage of estimated unique farmers and crofters supported by scheme*	Survey responses received as percentage of survey emails issued and delivered
CAGS	1,036	162	7%	16%
NECGS	241	23	3%	10%
SFGS	42	14	15%	33%
Total	1,319*	199	6%	15%

Note: * SG estimates of unique applicants per scheme – some data is not held electronically so estimation is based on incomplete figures and is SG best estimate based on readily available data.

Note:* The difference between the 1,319 reported in Table 9.2 and earlier reference to 1,295 in Chapter 1 is that there were some farmers and crofters who received multiple grants from different schemes (24) in the contract details provided by SG. The response rate against the lower figure is also 15%.

About the grant recipient

Points to note about farmers and crofters who responded to the grant recipient survey include that:

• the vast majority were not new to farming or crofting (86%) – that is, most farmers and crofters took on the holding from their family, previously worked in the industry and then took on a farm or croft or had undertaken a farming qualification.
• the main reasons for deciding to enter the farming or crofting industry were reported by farmers and crofters as: an interest in agriculture, farming and/or crofting (84%); enjoy working outside (74%); and family tradition (67%).
• a sizeable proportion of farmers and crofters who responded to the survey have other forms or part-time or full-time employment (59%) in addition to the farm or croft.
• the most common survey responses were from crofters who were either a tenant of a registered croft (38%) or an owner occupier of a registered croft at the time of applying for their most recent grant funding (34%).
• 35% of farmers and crofters were under the age of 41 year when they applied for the grant – that is, a ‘young farmer’.
• 38% were a ‘new entrant’ at the time of submitting their first grant application - that is, a farmer or crofter who was head of an agricultural business for up to five years before the application for support – 87% of new entrants had been head of the holding for less than two years at the time of the application.
• 68% of farmers and crofters who completed the survey or who were the applicant were male.
• a majority of farmers and crofters (64%) said that there is a female with a controlling interest/right in the decision-making of the business.
• almost all farmers and crofters were from a White ethnic group (99%), predominantly White Scottish.
• a vast majority of farmers and crofters (83%) reported that they did not have any physical or mental health conditions or illnesses lasting or expected to last 12 months or more.

About the farm or croft

Points to note from survey responses about the farm or croft include that:

• almost all farmers and crofters said that their farm/croft was in a LFA (97%) – and the vast majority were located in the H&I (89%).
• responses were received from farmers and crofters with smaller (less than 30 hectares – 69%) and large crofts or individual farm holdings alike (excluding any common grazing share) (31% - over 30 hectares).
• lamb/sheep was by far the main land use followed by beef.

How farmers and crofters heard about the grant schemes

Farmers and crofters first became aware of the capital grant schemes in a range of ways. The main ways reported were that the farmer and crofter:

• had an existing relationship with the local area office (42%).
• heard about the grant funding from other crofters or farmers (16%).
• heard about the grant funding from family and/or friends (16%).

Views on the application process

A majority of farmers or crofters (68%) completed the application themselves or with help from family or friends or with support from the local area office or another organisation (free of charge). The remainder of farmers and crofters (32%) reported that they either paid SAC Consulting or another agent or organisation to do the application for them.

Farmers and crofters were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with various statements about the application process.

Aspects of the process which were rated most highly (that is, a higher proportion of respondents selected either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement) by farmers and crofters include:

• my local RPID office staff team are helpful and responsive (76%).
• my local RPID office staff team are knowledgeable and experienced (76%).
• the eligibility criteria for accessing grant funding was appropriate (63%).

Only around half of farmers and crofters agreed or strongly agreed that:

• the grant scheme was sufficiently marketed and promoted.
• guidance document was clear and easy to understand.
• the application form was easy to complete.
• providing supporting documents/evidence (for example, quotations) was easy.
• the application process was straightforward and easy to understand.
• timescales from application submission to approval were reasonable.

Almost 60% of farmers and crofters disagreed or strongly disagreed that it was easy to source the funding upfront to pay for the capital item before the grant could be claimed.

Qualitative feedback from farmers and crofters highlights aspects of the application process they considered worked well, including:

• good working relationships with RPID area office staff – staff were considered friendly, knowledgeable, supportive, and provided practical help to farmers and crofters (for example, help to navigate the application process, identify potential contractors, and with the claims process).
• the paid support provided by agents and other to help farmers and crofters with applications - they did the heavy lifting which made the application process easier and less burdensome for farmers and crofters. Some noted that they would have struggled to complete the paperwork without this support.
• 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, and some commented that applications were processed efficiently.

Qualitative feedback from farmers and crofters also highlighted various aspects of the application process that they felt worked less well, including:

• securing two or three quotes can be particularly challenging for farmers and crofters in rural and remote areas – it was suggested that SG could explore the possibility of introducing standard costs for some capital improvements and establish an approved framework of registered suppliers to help speed up the process.
• the time taken to process applications from submission to receiving a formal decision can be lengthy and slow – this had a knock-on effect on the cost of materials, equipment, works, etc, or meant the short window for undertaking certain project activities was missed (seasonality).
• the maximum grant award size does not reflect the actual cost of materials, etc due to inflationary increases, and could be increased accordingly, where appropriate.
• the application process itself – these farmers and crofters said that paperwork, forms, and guidance were complicated, difficult to understand, and burdensome, with some indicating that they sourced external agent support as a result. It was suggested that forms could be simplified in some way, and that there was scope to strip out any repetitive questions.

The claims process

Similarly, farmers and crofters were then asked whether they agreed or disagreed with statements about the claims and grant payment process. Key findings include that:

• satisfaction with various aspects of the claims process ranged from a low of 56% for time taken to receive grant payments from claim submission, to a high of 61% for payment in full on completion of the project (that is, not a staged approach to grant payment).
• the highest level of dissatisfaction was expressed for the time taken to receive payment (27%).

Qualitative feedback from farmers and crofters highlighted various challenges with the claims process, including that:

• 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 can also cause 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 project before the grant is paid can be very challenging. Some farmers and crofters mentioned the need to secure bridging finance, including bank loans, and that staged payments could help overcome this challenge.
• there can be challenges in completing some project types within one financial year – the timeframe was felt to be restrictive for certain projects.

About the project or projects supported by the grant scheme

Farmers and crofters sought capital grant funding from the schemes for a variety of reasons, most commonly to:

• preserve and improve the natural environment, hygiene conditions and animal welfare standards (71%).
• improve quality (68%), see Table 7.3.

Table 7.3: Which of these grant scheme objectives did your project or projects seek to address?

Objective	Number	Percentage
To preserve and improve the natural environment, hygiene conditions and animal welfare standards	130	71%
To improve quality	124	68%
To reduce production costs	102	56%
To improve and redeploy production	77	42%
To promote the diversification of farm activities	31	17%

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.

The grant(s) was used to support a range of project activities, with the top three responses selected by famers and crofters including:

• fences, hedges, walls, gates, stock grids or shelter belts (57%).
• erection or improvement of agricultural buildings (40%).
• provision or improvement of equipment for the handling and treatment of livestock (31%).

Project delivery

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.

Qualitative feedback from farmers and crofters was that the capital grant funding helped with the costs of a range of project expenses, including, materials, equipment, labour costs, and machinery hire – in line with scheme eligibility criteria.

Further, much of the project 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.

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 relatively quickly and easily.

On the other hand, a review of the qualitative feedback provided by other farmers and crofters highlights several issues and challenges in project delivery.

The main challenge for these farmers and crofters was finding suitable/appropriate contractors to provide quotes and/or to deliver the project/works. Various issues were raised in the survey responses including that:

• the volume and type of contractor is much 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 it can be difficult for contractors to commit to undertaking the work in a specific timeframe (some contractors have long waiting lists).
• there is a perception that 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 project timescales, with some farmers and crofters subsequently undertaking elements of the project/works themselves.

Farmers and crofters highlighted other project delivery issues and challenges which were out with their control, including:

• the COVID-19 pandemic – the various lockdowns and restrictions resulted in delays to project delivery, for example: delays in the procurement of capital contracts; delays in finding contractors, materials, and equipment; restrictions for on-site visits; and delays in starting and completing works.
• poor weather – led to delays in projects/works, disrupted delivery and often extended project delivery timescales.
• supply chain issues.
• increase in project costs (for example, increase in cost of materials, equipment) from application stage to when confirmation of application approval was received by farmers and crofters. The grant therefore became a smaller percentage of the total project cost, and a perception that some contractors may be more likely to increase their costs when they know a project 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.

Benefits

All farmers and crofters except one who answered the question on benefits (99%) reported at least one benefit achieved as a direct result of the grant support.

By far the main benefit reported was improved stock control (83%), see Table 7.4. This was followed by improved hygiene conditions and animal welfare standards, and improved grassland management.

Table 7.4: Which of the following benefits have you got as a direct result of your grant support? (top six responses selected only)

Benefit	Number	Percentage
Improved stock control	156	83%
Improved hygiene conditions and animal welfare standards	105	56%
Improved grassland management	97	52%
Reduced production costs	83	44%
Improved quality of production	83	44%
Supported and improved wintering of livestock	77	41%

N=187 who reported at least one benefit.

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

Outcomes

Almost all farmers and crofters (95%) who answered the question on business outcomes reported the achievement of at least one outcome as a direct result of the grant support.

The main outcomes selected by farmers and crofters from a pre-defined list are outlined in Table 7.5, over.

Table 7.5: What business outcomes have you achieved as a direct result of the grant support? (top six responses selected)

Business outcome	Number	Percentage
Reduced livestock mortality	89	53%
Extended grazing periods	84	50%
Reduced labour input	80	48%
Increased value per head	65	39%
Reduction in production costs	65	39%
Increased value per hectare	52	31%

N=168 who reported at least one outcome.

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

Additionality

Additionality was high – 81% of farmers and crofters who reported outcomes said that none or less than half of outcomes would have happened if they did not get the capital grant funding, Table 7.6. Timing and scale additionality were most commonly reported by farmers and crofters.

Table 7.6: What amount of your outcomes would have happened if you did not get the capital grant scheme funding?

Amount of outcomes without funding	Total (n=174)	CAGS (n=141)	NEGCS (n=21)	SFGS (n=12)
None of the outcomes	47%	49%	38%	42%
Less than half of the outcomes	34%	33%	38%	42%
Half of the outcomes	6%	4%	14%	17%
More than half of the outcomes	5%	5%	5%	0%
All of the outcomes	7%	9%	5%	0%

Future grant support

A vast majority of farmers and crofters identified a current and/or future need for support, primarily monetary support (see Table 7.7).

Table 7.7: Do you have a current and/or future need for support?

Support need	Number	Percentage
Yes, monetary support (for example, grant, loans)	144	80%
Don’t know / unsure	22	12%
Yes, non-monetary support	14	8%
No	10	6%

N=179

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

Farmers and crofters said that they require continued monetary support for largely similar things that the capital grant schemes funded. This suggests that the grant schemes have broadly funded the right types of project activity – and that there is still a requirement for similar support.

Farmers and crofters also identified types of support that align to revenue funding.

The survey findings highlight that monetary support is needed by farmers and crofters for a wide range of project activities, including:

• fencing – upkeep and replacement.
• sheds and barns – replacement, repairs, extensions, flooring.
• general infrastructure improvements, including groundworks.
• equipment, machinery, and technology – livestock handling, hardstandings.
• grass reseeding, ditching, improving soil structure, bracken control, hedging, tree planting – help to maintain the land.
• drainage – maintenance and improvements.
• animal welfare improvements and crop management.
• road access improvements
• biosecurity and biodiversity projects.
• slurry storage tanks.
• animal feed.
• activity that supports food security.
• succession planning.
• diversification projects.
• renewable energy projects.
• training.

Wider comments raised in the survey responses relate to the range of challenges farmers and crofters face from price and inflationary pressures – and the importance of continued financial support (grant funding and low/no interest loans were explicitly mentioned) for the agricultural sector and wider supply chain.

Where farmers and crofters said they need non-monetary support, this included for example support such as:

• advice and guidance, including on current methods of improvement and production, livestock treatment and management, crofting issues, form filling.
• help with route to market.
• training, events, and webinars – for example on modern/regenerative farming practices, animal health and welfare, supply chain support, etc – knowledge and skills development and sharing of experiences.
• recruitment support, sourcing labour.
• climate friendly production.
• clear and timely information on new support systems, subsidies, etc.

Online application process

A majority of farmers and crofters (61%) said that an online application process for future grant schemes would not make it difficult or prevent them from applying – however, a sizeable proportion either answered ‘don’t know’ or ‘yes, definitely’, see Table 7.8.

Table 7.8: Would an online application process for future grant schemes make it difficult or prevent you from applying?

Response option	Number	Percentage
No	111	61%
Not sure	49	27%
Yes, definitely	19	12%

N=179

Farmers and crofters who indicated that an online application process for future grant schemes would not make it difficult or prevent them from applying said that:

• an online system is a sensible approach – as most things are done online nowadays – but they also said that it would be important for SG to recognise that some farmers and crofters do not have good digital skills/less computer literate and might find an online application process difficult. A suggestion made includes having paper and online options.
• an online system would be beneficial – for example, it would: make applying for grant funding easier and less time consuming; help applicants keep track of submitted applications; and speed up the application, assessment, and claims process.
• an online application process would be better for the environment – for example, printing less paper.
• some farmers and crofters use external agents, and so changing the application process would make no difference to them personally.

Farmers and crofters who indicated that an online application process for future grant schemes would make it difficult or prevent them from applying raised various issues including that:

• some population groups may lack digital skills, are not tech savvy, or may find online forms complicated or difficult to read and would need help and support – for example older people, disabled people. They added that it would be important to ensure the target audience for grant funding are not unintentionally excluded.
• poor, slow, or unreliable internet connectivity could make completing an online application form difficult for some farmers and crofters in certain parts of the country.
• farmers and crofters value speaking with staff in local RPID offices, including in-person support and advice – they added that it is often easier to speak with someone directly to ask queries or for points of clarification.
• not all farmers and crofters have access to a computer, and wider concerns were raised on data loss and cyber security.
• it would depend on the quality of the online application design and process – for example: functionality and intuitiveness of the online process; ability to see the whole form from beginning to end; ability to understand and fill in forms correctly; ability to start, save, and come back to finish it; ease of correcting mistakes; ability to upload all necessary documents; and ease of keeping track of submitted applications’ progress.
• some would like to have the option of how to apply for grant funding.

Farmers and crofters who indicated that they are not sure whether an online application process for future grant schemes would make it difficult or prevent them from applying raised similar issues to those described – that is, they highlighted the potential advantages and disadvantages of moving to an online application process.

Wider points raised by farmers and crofters echoed earlier feedback around the need for any future application process (online and/or paper-based) to be

refreshed, streamlined, and simplified to ensure it is accessible to crofters and small farmers, including those who cannot afford to pay for professional support from agents.

Case studies

Six case study interviews (conducted over the phone and Microsoft Teams) were undertaken with grant recipients. A mix of case studies were undertaken, including by:

• capital grant scheme.
• geography.
• applicant type.
• project type.

The purpose of the case studies were to:

• find about a bit more about the grant recipient.
• why the farmer or crofter needed grant funding.
• explore how the grant funding had been used.
• the impact the grant funding (and project) had for the farmer or crofter.
• seek views on future grant (and other) support.

Case study 1 – NECGS

Background

When a young sheep and beef farmer recently took on the tenancy of a hill farm in a LFA, he quickly realised that not having any suitable enclosures or fencing to manage his stock was a huge barrier to his productivity, profitability, and welfare of his sheep. While he did come from a farming family this was his first time as the tenant farmer running a farm on his own. The hill farm which covers approximately 515 hectares was in desperate need of fencing and enclosures to increase its output and the quality of its output. The farmer applied to the NECGS for help to address this issue. Appropriate fencing and enclosures to help make the farm more manageable as working on a hill farm with no enclosures can be “very time consuming and ineffective” – “what we were doing before the fencing was hard.”

How did the grant benefit this farmer

The project helped to reduce the cost associated with sheep management. It made life easier for the farmer and his wife who also works on the farm. It reduced labour costs at lambing time especially as they could keep lambs in the enclosures. In his first year or so of farming this previously took much longer. The project also helped to improve lamb survival rates by making the monitoring of lambs and ewes considerably easier – this also increased the farmer’s profitability. The hill was in poor condition grazing wise and the ability to create enclosures for sheep management improved the condition of the land/hill, improved grazing, and ultimately helped the farmer to improve the quality of his stock.

How did the farmer find the application process

The farmer paid for help from SAC Consulting on the paperwork side of the application process. He had initially looked at the forms and thought it was too much to try and do on his own. The farmer was in no doubt the external support helped massively – he was not sure he would have managed the application by himself. The advice and support was considered value for money and also saved the farmer time and stress.

What worked well for this farmer

The support the farmer received from SAC Consulting made the application process easier/straightforward. Further, while stock fencing has a limited life span it will be there for a long time to come – and it will be easier to maintain in future.

Thoughts on future support

“Keep the scheme and its objectives as they are. Hill farming is not successful without support. We need to farm on hills – as Scotland is full of them – if we are to make best use of our land for food production. Grants help you get to the next step up the ladder. The price of fencing and sheds is significant – trying to undertake these projects can be hard without grant support. We would be standing still. It also helps to retain money in the local economy as we use local suppliers”.

Case study 2 – NECGS

Background

A young farmer with 20 years’ experience in engineering took over a farm in decline from his parents and siblings after his father experienced poor health. The farm is a mixed organic farm with crop, beef and sheep and runs to approximately 180 hectares. The young farmer had to raise a substantial amount of money to buy his parents and siblings out of the business and would have found this difficult had he not had a good job previously.

How did the grant benefit this farmer

The farmer received grant funding from NECGS to buy: a squeeze crate for handling cattle safely; a weighing crate for the sheep; and lime to be reapplied on acidic soil to help the farmer maintain good soil health on the farm.

The farmer explained that “good animals or crop production all come back to soil and require a pH of 6.5... if you are you on an acidic soil, you are wasting your inputs on that soil until you get your pH level up. To get grant funding to spend on products such as lime was very much welcomed.”

His parents had wild cattle on the farm, and when he took over the farm the old crush was considered dangerous – his neighbouring farmers advised that he would be best purchasing a squeeze crush. With hindsight he felt that the squeeze crush purchased was very expensive and “no better than a basic crush”. He felt the grant scheme allowed him to buy the most expensive machinery without really understanding his needs – it has, however, made the job at hand safer and less stressful for animals and workers.

On the other hand, the farmer said that the sheep crate for weighing sheep has been a “fantastic tool” and has been value for money. It has allowed the farmer to record sheep weight every time his stock are inside, as well as track change/ progress and improve animal welfare by making informed decisions in real time. The digital interface that came with the weighing crate enables the farmer to record weight, by ear tag number and date so that the next time he weighs the sheep it tells the farmer the weight and growth rate and what the change has been.

Did the purchases supported by the grants change any of your behaviours or practices/ method of production

“Yes. It changed the way we work using medicines” the farmer explained. “We only administer medication based on the data/intelligence from the kit. The weighing crate and digital interface not only saves time and cost for me as a farmer it also helps to ensure the responsible use of medicines. There is probably lots more we could do with the tool if we knew how to use the software.”

How did the farmer find the application process

The farmer explained that he did the application form himself – but that it was “pretty complex and time consuming” – as a busy farmer he always needs to weigh up the costs involved in writing grant funding applications. He added that it can be stressful looking for and applying for grants from different sources, and that timescales for submitting grant applications can feel tight and rushed at times.

The farmer mentioned that an issue he encountered was a change in prices for certain items to be purchased from when he submitted the applications to when he received approval from SG to proceed – in part due to demand for certain equipment and machinery. There was then a longer lead-in time to receive the items as a result.

He also felt that as the farmer he knows the exact piece of equipment he needs (brand, size, type) for his specific purposes and land, etc. and that it is not always the cheapest or the most expensive bit of kit he needs. He explained that he was required to submit three quotes and that RPID decided which quote (equipment) to approve – this can mean the farmer does not always get the kit he wants or the kit that suits his exact purposes and land. He felt there could be more transparency in the decision-making process for RPID choosing a particular model/supplier over others – and suggested that asking the farmer to provide a justification for his choice of kit in the application form, based on research, could suffice as farmers contribute towards to the total project cost.

What worked well for this farmer

Grant funding for the various products and equipment was essential and helped the farmer get firmly established as he had only recently taken over his parent’s farm. The equipment purchased has saved him time, increased welfare standards and increased safety for workers.

Thoughts on future support

“We are an organic farm and SG wish to double the area managed organically. There is a major barrier to this because there are no organic abattoirs in Scotland. Whole killing of beef is done outside of Scotland – this has big cost implications for farmers”.

The farmer feels that “good produce is leaving the country, and we are feeding low quality imports to our children”. He believes the drive to encourage farmers to diversify to be sustainable has resulted in “farmers doing less and less farming – we need farmers to farm and produce food”. He feels more action is also needed to prevent farming skillsets being lost. Without further action and support to increase salaries and support business start-ups the farmer said that new entrants into “farming will decline rapidly.”

Case Study 3 – SFGS

Background

A female farmer (and her daughter) who had no prior background or experience in farming apart from holiday work when she was younger took on the ownership of a small farm in Ayrshire. The mother and daughter partnership own a sheep farm in a LFA on approximately 38 acres of land. The farmer’s husband works in the merchant navy and is away at sea for long periods of time, so the farm is very much managed by the owner and her daughter. The daughter also has a full-time job – so she helps out on the farm when she can after work, at weekends and during holiday periods. They have invested in a special breed of sheep not native to Scotland which produce good lambs weight wise and the ewes are doing very well on wet pastures.

How did the grant benefit this farmer

The grant was used by the farmer to erect a shed to help improve sheep management. “We set up a modern sheep system to run by myself during the day” – as the farmer works on her own most of the time but also to help save time and money. A 120x60 shed was built and the farmer received the maximum grant award of £25,000 and the total project cost was £175,000. “The grant award was a significant contribution and allowed us to put up a larger shed to future proof our operation and to increase stock size – it meant I could implement a sheep management system at lambing season that I could cope with on my own.”

This farmer designed what was best for her and a system that “did not require a high employee count”. She went on to explain that it was a more efficient system that reduced the need for bedding as they put sheep slats down thus reducing bedding costs. “At lambing time when the lamb gets to two weeks or so we put the mummy back on the slats and we lead it out of the gate. I am quite innovative in my ideas. The lambs are on bigger straw pen and heat lamps etc as normal but have access to go on the slats to get fed from mum. Ewes are quite content with that. Lambs like to run about on them. Welfare standards have also improved as we have fewer foot problems on the slats and my lambing system works well”.

Did the purchases supported by the grants change any of your behaviours or practices/ method of production

The farmer said she had changed her farming practices for the better. “The ewes enjoy being back on the slats and the lambs come and go for milk which frees up pens”. She said there were less foot problems in the sheep too. “I had tried straw and even shavings, but we got a lot of foot problems. This new system with the slats and the open pens for lambs to come and go and play has reduced this”.

How did the farmer find the application process

The farmer paid SAC Consulting to do the grant application form for her. “We needed the SAC help. It was essential. They are a very good advisory service – they have the knowledge and speciality. It cost us around £300/£400 so it was good value for money and took the headache away from doing the paperwork myself”.

What worked well for this farmer

The contribution towards the shed enabled this farmer to modernise its sheep management system – this fundamentally helped to save the farmer time, cost, and labour input required. The shed size has future proofed her operation allowing the farmer and her daughter to scale up the business – increase livestock volume and variety. The shed has improved welfare standards for the sheep and worker safety.

What could have been better

It was challenging for the farmer not to receive grant payment until after the final inspection visit – “You need to have an overdraft facility or loan to cover the total project cost upfront. Money was a bit slow to come through. The inspectors were good and constructive – they knew the grant made a smaller contribution towards the total cost of the build. I had all the information they needed ready, so I think that helped speed up the process”.

Thoughts on future support

The farmer believes that small farms can often be at a slight disadvantage – she feels that bigger farms typically get access to more and a wider range of grant schemes. She added that there is not the same kind of grant support available for small farms, and that this type of support is critical to help ensure the future resilience of small farms in rural Scotland.

She explained that small farms need more help and support due to their scale – especially those setting up a new small farm and for first generation farmers. The farmer added that it can be hard to become established as a small farmer without grant support.

The funding from the SFGS was a great help to the farmer – she would like to see capital grant schemes continue to be available to small farmers for a wider variety of relevant kit and equipment. For example, capital grant funding to help small farms modernise their farms and to purchase fit for purpose livestock systems (tilt crates for sheep feet).

The farmer said that internet connectivity can be a problem in some rural and remote areas of Scotland – getting small farm businesses online can therefore be challenging. She added that more action was needed to ensure remote and rural parts of Scotland are further supported to access a substantially improved broadband connection.

Case study 4 – SFGS

Background

A farmer in West Central Scotland recently re-acquired land (approximately four acres) adjacent to their farm which had previously been owned by the farmer but had been sold off to the Forestry Commission several years ago. The farmer was looking to expand their available grazing area for their sheep and pigs. The new areas of land purchased needed fenced before they could be used, and so the farmer applied to the SFGS for grant support with the works.

How did the grant benefit this farmer

The farmer received around £6,000 in capital grant funding – equating to around 60% of the total project cost for fencing the field. The grant funding and project has opened up various opportunities for the farmer – it allowed her to keep a larger number of sheep and gave fields more time to recover from grazing. This then helped ensure the grazing land available was of a higher quality.

How did they find the application process

The farmer found the application process challenging in places – the requirement to secure three quotes for the work were difficult to source. Further, she explained that the fluctuating cost of timber at that time meant that long delays in receiving formal approval of grant award resulted in quotes becoming invalid. She said that it took between six to eight months for her grant funding application to be approved. While she recognised the time pressures on area office staff, delays in assessing and approving grant applications has various knock-on impacts for farmers – it creates additional work (sourcing new quotes) and delays project start/completion dates.

What worked well for this farmer

The farmer reported that the grant funding was very important for her small farm and that the SFGS supported the right types of capital project/work much needed by small farms. Without the grant funding the farmer would have delayed other farm improvements.

Thoughts on future support

The farmer felt that the SFGS worked well generally and funded the right kinds of things for small farms. She felt that small tweaks could help improve future support – for example, establishing an advice helpline for access to information, advice, and guidance. She said that farmers with large farms use SAC Consulting for this type of support but that it is not necessarily affordable for farmers running small farms.

She also suggested that quotes for projects/work could possibly be tied to inflation to ensure farmers do not need to source updated or alternative quotes should there be any undue delays in receiving formal grant award approval.

Case study 5 – CAGS

Background

A community of crofters based in a remote part of the Western Highlands were interested to explore ways to get access to the shared use of a bull for breeding with their cattle. Previously each crofter rented a bull for a period of six weeks – the crofters did not have a suitable separate field to keep their own bull (outside the breeding period). The crofters acquired an unfenced parcel of land that they could use to house a communal bull. As a common grazings committee the crofters applied for grant funding of £15,000 from CAGS (around 90% of the total project cost) to build a fence around the field. The funding enabled the crofters to buy and safely and securely house a communal bull that each crofter could then use for breeding with their cattle.

How did the grant benefit the crofters

The project gave the crofters much need flexibility. Previously they had a short window of opportunity – around six-weeks to make use of a rented bull – this often felt rushed and at times did not allow sufficient time for successful breeding. This has increased productivity as the crofters can use the communal bull more often and for a longer period – they can have a near 100% rate of pregnancy (that is, more efficient breeding. This in turn has increased income generation potential for the crofters. As a remote and rural part of Scotland this type of project can make a significant difference to the local economy which still relies fairly heavily on farming and crofting. The crofters have also noticed that their cows are calmer and generally better behaved as a result of using a familiar bull.

How did they find the application process

The crofter who completed the CAGS application form found the whole process very straightforward – he was also impressed at the speed in which the common grazings committee received confirmation that the grant funding would be paid by SG (within one month). He mentioned that the group of crofters have a great deal of experience of applying for this type of grant funding – over the years the CAGS process has become more straightforward as their familiarity and experience of the scheme and other grant funding sources has developed.

What worked well for this crofter

The crofter welcomes the availability of the CAGS – the scheme provides good, fair, and much needed support for crofters – it funds the right types of projects and he hopes the scheme continues for years to come.

Thoughts on future support

The CAGS process could be improved by allowing staged grant payments, including a proportion upfront, rather than payment of the grant in full on project completion. The crofters were in a fortunate position – they were able to borrow the money from a community resource. He acknowledged that this may not the case for all crofters – there may be a missed opportunity here – as some good and much needed projects may not go ahead as a result.

Case study 6 – CAGS

Background

A crofter located on the Western Isles wanted to fence two sides of a six-hectare field and build a shed for storing machinery as well as for housing his stock during the lambing and calving season. He received the maximum individual award of £25,000 through CAGS.

How did the grant benefit this crofter

The fencing and shed have had huge benefits for the crofter. He is now able to segregate his stock much more easily, with various areas of his land now securely fenced and stock separated from one another. The crofter has started to grow crops on other parts of the land – he now has the confidence that his livestock are securely segregated and cannot enter the field and damage or eat his crops.

The crofter now carries out lambing and calving in the new shed and this provides a much safer, drier, and better environment for the animals to give birth. “I don’t know how we previously operated without the shed – it has become so important to us and beneficial”.

The crofter can also store his machinery and equipment in the shed – he said this has improved the longevity of the machinery and equipment as it is now protected from the outside elements. Less maintenance/servicing is also required as a result. It has also helped to boost farm productivity and reduced the required ‘man hours’. Farm machinery and equipment now needs replaced less often which provides wider environmental benefits arising from less disposal of old equipment to landfill.

How did the crofter find the application process

The crofter found the application process straightforward, and he was able to secure quotes fairly easily to ensure value for money. The approval process was also quick.

Thoughts on future support

The crofter said that CAGS is a fantastic scheme for crofters, and he is glad that grant funding for capital projects is available.

He said that the cost of materials, transportation, etc can be higher in geographic areas such as the Western Isles – the cost of doing business is greater compared to mainland Scotland. As an example he said that fencing can maybe cost £5-6 per metre on the Western Isles compared to closer to £3 per metre on the mainland. An increased grant intervention rate that takes this into account for island communities would be welcomed although he acknowledged that this may not be feasible.

He felt that it was timely for SG to consider the maximum individual award size of £25,000 for CAGS – it has been standstill for many years and could be increased in line with inflation and cost of living pressures.