Scottish Rural Development Programme 2014-2020: ex-post evaluation - annex A scheme summary report

4. Crofting Agricultural Grants Scheme

Scheme description

The Crofting Agricultural Grants Scheme (CAGS) long predates the SRDP 2014-2020. Under the SRDP 2014-2020, the scheme opened in 2014-2015 and invited applications from tenant and owner-occupier crofters based in the Highlands and Islands.

The scheme, which is administered by the SG RPID, provided capital grants to crofters towards the costs of a range of agricultural operations to allow them to improve their crofts and encourage business sustainability. For example, for the construction or improvement of agricultural buildings, fencing, drainage, and for the establishment of Common Grazings Committees.

Public expenditure

The CAGS was programmed to contribute to Priority 2 (Enhancing farm viability and competitiveness of all types of agriculture in all regions and promoting innovative farm technologies and the sustainable management of forests), and to FA 2A.

A summary of the public expenditure achieved by the CAGS under the SRDP 2014-2020 is provided in Table 4.1. Under the SRDP 2014-2020 the CAGS made co-financed payments to beneficiaries up to and including 2023.

Source: Scottish Government, Annual Implementation Report 2023.

The CAGS also contributed to Priority 1 (Fostering knowledge transfer and innovation in agriculture, forestry and rural areas), and to FA 1A (Fostering innovation, cooperation, and the development of the knowledge base in rural areas), and FA 1B (Strengthening the links between agriculture, food production and forestry and research and innovation).

Performance indicators

A summary of the outcomes achieved by the CAGS by the end of the Programme is provided in Table 4.2.

Source: Scottish Government, Annual Implementation Report 2023.

Scheme evaluation

The CAGS was subject to a joint independent evaluation alongside the New Entrants Capital Grant Scheme (NECGS) and Small Farms Grant Scheme (SFGS) given the similarities of the capital grant schemes. The aim of the evaluation was to examine the impact of the three capital grant schemes, including reflections on lessons learned, and at a minimum address the EC Reporting Requirement to achieve change in agricultural output. The Evaluation of Capital Grant Schemes was undertaken by EKOS Ltd and published by SG in August 2024.

What worked well and/or less well

The aspects of CAGS which worked well and less well are generally captured under lessons learned (see page below).

A specific point on what worked less well, not covered below, related to demand for support among crofters for the establishment of Common Grazings Committees – this was limited. The CAGS supported fewer cooperation activities for the establishment of Common Grazings Committees under Measure 16 than anticipated at the outset (one cooperation project was supported).

The SG confirmed that a total of 534 applications were approved which involved groups of crofters, largely focussed on support for common grazings (for example, the provision of fences to help ensure each crofter’s stock is kept separate for grazing and to improve stock control) and for sheep stock clubs (to support sheep management). This represents 11.7% of the 4,571 applications approved.

Lessons learned

It should be noted that the lessons learned also relate to the two other schemes subject to the capital grants evaluation and for brevity have not been repeated elsewhere in this document.

The main lessons learned include that:

• the provision of capital grants is an appropriate mechanism to support farmers and crofters to support modernisation, increase business viability, and support the retention of employment in rural areas.
• RPID area staff are a valued and knowledgeable asset – they provide much needed information, support and practical help and guidance to applicants and grant recipients. It is important that they are resourced appropriately to continue to provide this service.
• the eligible project activity remains appropriate – the grant schemes have supported the type of projects that farmers and crofters needed (and continue to need) capital funding for.
• the maximum individual award size of £25,000 has been at this level for some time – there should be flexibility and discretion to make larger awards for some capital projects where the cost of inflation has made items more expensive.
• securing two or three quotes (depending on total project cost) continues to be particularly challenging for farmers and crofters in rural and remote areas – SG should continue with its efforts to introduce standard costs for some capital improvements, and to undertake regular reviews of standard costs to ensure they remain relevant and appropriate.
• SG should undertake further messaging and communication with farmers and crofters to increase awareness among grant recipients that they can submit interim claims for grant funding – this would help to ease some (but not all) of the cash-flow pressures experienced by some grant recipients.
• it is important to ensure that eligibility criteria of any new grant support schemes (or refreshed criteria for CAGS) as well as any move to an online application process do not unintentionally exclude the intended target audience.
• it will be vitally important to include and involve farmers and crofters in the design and testing of any new online application process to ensure it is easy to use, navigate and is fit for purpose.
• there should be clear and timely messaging and communication from SG about any upcoming changes to the application process and an appropriate lead-in time for the transition – there may require to be training and/or practical help and support available for some farmers and crofters.
• some farmers and crofters find the application process complicated, and some require paying an agent to do it (which may disadvantage those who cannot afford to do so) – the move to an online application process presents an opportunity to review the application form, questions, and requirements and to explore opportunities to streamline and simplify this where appropriate.
• the provision of existing data from SG on the grant schemes to inform the evaluation was not always readily available and there were many data gaps – the move to an online system should help improve data quality and completeness.
• post project monitoring is limited with the exception of financial information and inspections (a minimum of 5% of claims) – there is scope to improve monitoring to better capture evidence on activities, outputs, and any short-term outcomes.

Current status of the scheme

The CAGS continues to invite new applications and is now solely funded by SG through the SRDP domestic programme 2021-2024.