Scottish Rural Development Programme 2014-2020: ex-post evaluation - main report

10. Focus Area 3B

Introduction

This chapter answers the evaluation question related to FA 3B.

CEQ 7: To what extent have RDP interventions supported farm risk prevention and management?

Contribution to FA 3B

Public expenditure

One SRDP 2014-2020 scheme was programmed to contribute to FA 3B, FAS.

Source: Scottish Government, Annual Implementation Report, 2023.

Measure 2 (Advisory services, farm management and farm relief services) is programmed under FA 3B, and points to note from the AIR 2023 include that:

• planned expenditure was just over €1.1 million and in line with this, the level of this expenditure has been relatively low compared to other measures under different FA.
• committed expenditure was €1.2 million and just over €1.0 million expenditure was realised, see Table 10.1.
• the level of commitments are higher than the overall Programme planned expenditure - it is likely that differences in the committed and realised expenditure figures will partially be as a result of multiple different exchange rates used when converting the committed and realised expenditure figures to Euros from Pounds Sterling. Further, commitments do not necessary translate to realised expenditure.

Performance indicators

A summary of the outcomes achieved under FA 3B is provided in Table 10.2.

Source: Scottish Government, Annual Implementation Report, 2023.

There are no target indicators or Programme specific target indicators for FA 3B.

There is one Programme specific output indicator relating to the number of beneficiaries advised by the FAS under Measure 2. Points to note from the data include that:

• while the FAS was launched in 2016, advice was not first delivered to beneficiaries until 2017.
• a total of 10,744 beneficiaries received support in the form of advice from FAS under Measure 2 – these are not unique beneficiaries as people could receive advice from the scheme on more than one occasion.
• the 10,744 is slightly below the planned output of advising 10,965 beneficiaries during the lifetime of the Programme (97.9% achieved).

Wider commentary at a scheme level

Farm Advisory Service

Only FAS was programmed under FA 3B – the scheme had a realised expenditure of circa €1 million.

The FAS aimed to address risk and risk management through several activities - mainly by providing examples of good practice and performance.

The scheme delivered one-to-many events that dealt with drought and flooding, and health and safety. Events covered a range of key risk areas such as disease control, manure management, slurry, maps for precision farming, minimising the risk of run off into surface and ground waters, crop health, animal health and climate change, as well as cross-compliance. These topics were addressed using a range of techniques including on-farm events, guidance notes, and advice through the telephone advice-line, website, podcasts, and FAS TV.

The FAS events (and specialist advice) also provided guidance on how to complete a risk assessment - this featured quite heavily to increase farmers knowledge and understanding of the relationship between managing risk and improved productivity.

According to SG officials, there was a requirement for pro-active advice and knowledge transfer in this area (not necessarily recognised by farmers) because of the perceived high volatility of Scottish agriculture.

The most common area was in market risk movement in terms of commodity prices, and the structuring of their business based on benchmarks to indicate areas of excessive costs or poor technical performance.

According to the FAS One-to-Many evaluation, the scheme delivered various interventions targeted at “managing risk including grassland management to ensure adequate forage supplies, enterprise mix changes to improve profitability, management practice changes to ensure efficient use of fertilisers, and integrated pest management measures undertaken to improve crop health and technical performance of the crop gross margins by reducing variable costs to acceptable levels”.

The scheme evaluation also found that benefits to farmers taking action to manage risk were primarily driven by a motivation to increase financial viability and economic performance, and that the likelihood of the adoption of such practices was markedly increased. Demonstrating how action in this area could support improved financial performance became key to encouraging greater uptake of training and participation at events.

Risk management advice was also provided through the FAS one-to-one advice service – this involved the development of a holistic land management plan for the business, including risk management. The FAS one-to-one advice evaluation noted that a monitoring system was put in place to gather information from farmers on their intentions after seeking FAS advice. Where appropriate this included intentions to support risk management, however, the information was not collated. The evaluation followed up by telephone interview to explore what actual impacts had occurred – however, this evidence will only be available at some time in the future as there is a natural lag between action and impact.

EKOS conclusions and recommendations

The FAS was the only SRDP 2014-2020 scheme programmed under FA 3B and there was a realised expenditure of circa €1 million.

Under Measure 2, FAS trained over 400 advisors and 10,744 beneficiaries received advice (albeit this does not represent unique individuals). A strong achievement was made against the Programme specific output indicator relating to the number of beneficiaries receiving advice (97.9%).

The SG decided not to implement measures under the risk management tool kit (Articles 36 to 39). SRDP interventions, predominantly through FAS but also through the KTIF but to a far lesser extent (allocated to other FAs) have, however, supported farm risk prevention and management through the provision of relevant training and advice. The extent of the impact is not currently measured and no follow-up on advice involving risk management was undertaken.

Farming advice may play a key role in supporting farmers to take advantage of the opportunities facing the Scottish agricultural sector, as well as addressing the challenges. A breakdown of the proportion of training and advice activities related to risk management was, however, not available.

Both FAS evaluations found that the services were delivered effectively by the service providers based on the specification they had been given. During this time, there was an increase in the use of the FAS service. The high incidence of stated 'intention to change' by FAS event participants and the activity taken in response to advice, was captured in evaluation surveys, indicating that impacts may be taking place. However, it remains a challenge to demonstrate the extent to which the provision of farming advice has ultimately changed practices on the ground, and to what extent.

It is recommended that data on risk management be collected and aggregated across schemes to understand the extent of advice sought and given, along with the impact of the advice and training from farm level to the national picture.