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

11. Focus Area 4A

Introduction

This chapter answers the evaluation question related to FA 4A.

CEQ 8: To what extent have RDP interventions supported the restoration, preservation and enhancement of biodiversity including in Natura 2000 areas, areas facing natural or other specific constraints and High Nature Value (HNV) farming, and the state of European landscape?

Contribution to Priority 4 - FA 4A, FA 4B and FA 4C

Public expenditure

All financial and performance data for Priority 4 and FA 4A, FA 4B and FA 4C are presented in the AIR 2023 in aggregate form. This is due to how the monitoring data was required by the EC. Monitoring data are not disaggregated because actions in this area are deemed to be relevant for biodiversity (FA 4A), water management (FA 4B) and soil erosion (FA 4C). The aggregated data is presented in this chapter and is not repeated in Chapter 11 (FA 4B) or Chapter 12 (FA 4C).

Five SRDP 2014-2020 schemes were programmed to contribute to Priority 4. In addition, there were on-going commitments from the 2007-2013 Programme for the RP and LMO schemes.

Nine Measures were programmed under Priority 4, all of which had committed and realised expenditure. The AIR 2023 reports that for Priority 4:

• there was an overall committed expenditure of €698.2 million and a realised expenditure of €696.7 million, see Table 11.1.
• of both the total committed expenditure and realised expenditure for the whole Programme, including Technical Assistance under Measure 20 which is not programmed under a FA, 47% has been for Priority 4.

Table 11.1: Summary of public expenditure realised under FA 4A FA 4B, and FA 4C

Scheme	Expenditure	Percentage of total public expenditure realised under FA 4A, B and C	Proportion of total scheme public expenditure realised under FA 4A, B and C
LFASS	€236,416,387	33.9%	50.0%
AECS	€203,229,628	29.2%	97.9%
RP	€186,987,309	26.8%	77.0%
LMO	€20,013,614	2.9%	63.0%
FAS	€6,190,891	0.9%	30.0%
FGS	€43,387,482	6.2%	17.3%
KTIF	€508,193	0.1%	6.4%
Total	€696,733,503	100%	47.6%

Source: Scottish Government, Annual Implementation Report, 2023.

Other points from the AIR 2023 to note on Priority 4 include that:

• around two-thirds of both the committed and realised expenditure was on two Measures - namely Measure 10 (Agri-environment climate) and Measure 13 (Payments to areas facing natural or other specific constraints).
• for Measure 1 (Knowledge transfer and information actions) and Measure 8 (Investments in forest area development and improvement of the viability of forests) both committed and realised expenditure were higher than the planned expenditure for the whole Programme.
• for Measure 1, the realised expenditure was more in line with the committed expenditure - this shows that the distribution of the planned expenditure of Measure 1 across the FA it was programmed under did not quite match where it was actually realised (the level of expenditure is small compared to other Measures and so differences in expenditure levels will appear larger in percentage terms).
• committed expenditure does not necessarily equate to realised expenditure - is again illustrated when the level of committed expenditure is compared to the level of realised expenditure for Measure 8. Both are higher than planned expenditure but as for Measure 1, it seems the distribution of the planned expenditure for Measure 8 across FA did not quite match how the expenditure was realised.
• the committed expenditure for Measure 2 (Advisory services, farm management and farm relief service) was higher than the planned expenditure for the whole Programme, although realised expenditure was lower that the planned expenditure.

Performance indicators

A summary of the outcomes achieved under Priority 4 is provided in Table 11.2 and Table 11.3. Table 11.2 provides a cumulative summary of outcomes and Table 11.3 provides a detailed annual performance for outcomes O4, O5 and O7.

Table 11.2: Summary of performance against Priority 4 (FA 4A, FA 4B, and FA 4C)

Outcome	Description	Result
O1	Total public expenditure	€696,733,503
O2	Total investment	€705,156,776
O3	Number of actions/operations supported	2,888
O4	Number of holdings/beneficiaries supported*	388
O5	Total area (ha)*	15,571
O7	Number of contracts supported	See Table 11.3
O11	Number of training days given	826
O12	Number of participants in trainings	1,575
O13	Number of beneficiaries advised	9,998
O14	Number of advisors trained	301
O16	Number of EIP operational groups supported	1

Source: Scottish Government, Annual Implementation Report, 2023.

* Considers this output under measure 8.1 Support for afforestation/creation of woodland establishment. Does not include maintenance. See table 11.3 for annual outcomes including both establishment and maintenance activity.

Table 11.3: Annual summary of outcomes O4, O5 and O7 performance against Priority 4 (FA 4A, FA 4B, and FA 4C)

Year	O4 Number of holdings/beneficiaries supported	O5 Total area (ha)	O7 Number of contracts supported
2014 and 2015	5,900	3,166,905	14,118
2016	4,551	1,471,727	4,504
2017	6,713	1,843,657	4,004
2018	5,743	1,991,657	2,570
2019	6,291	2,307,605	2,912
2020	6,186	2,225,975	2,612
2021	6,533	2,287,220	2,733
2022	1,025	1,243,705	2,767
2023	788	660,318	1,331

Source: Scottish Government, Annual Implementation Report, 2023.

There are six target indicators for Priority 4, and these are considered further below.

Agriculture:

All of agricultural land that was under management during the first three years of the Programme was due to on-going commitments made under the 2007-2013 Programme. Agricultural land started to be under management as the result of the Agri Environment Climate Scheme (AECS) from 2016.

AECS funded all the agricultural land under management contracts that contributed to three targets (see below). In addition to the agricultural land under management via Measure 10, AECS contributed to the agricultural land under management via Measure 11 (Organic farming) and contributed to the targets supporting biodiversity and soil management.

The AIR 2023 reports that:

• by the end of 2023, 1,855,247 ha of agricultural land had been under management contracts that support biodiversity - this means that 33.39% of agricultural land has been under management compared to the target of 22.73%. The target of the area under management contracts that support biodiversity has been met, with 146.89% of the original target area now under management.
• the target for the agricultural land under management contracts to improve water management has been exceeded (140.21% achieved) - with 27.76% or 1,542,356 ha of agricultural land under management compared to the target of 19.80%.
• the area of agricultural land under management contacts to improve soil management and/or prevent soil erosion is 1,700,649 ha - this is 30.61% of the total agricultural land, compared to a target of 19.13%. Of the three agricultural land target indicators, the target to improve soil management and/or prevent soil erosion was over-achieved the most (159.99%).

Forestry:

Forestry had three target indicators under Priority 4, including:

• percentage of forest/other wooded area under managements contacts supporting biodiversity and/or landscapes.
• percentage of forestry land under managements contacts to improve water management.
• percentage of forestry land under managements contacts to improve soil management and/or prevent soil erosion.

In relation to these three indicators the forest/other wooded area under management contracts was the:

• area of forest to be established under sub-measure 8.1.
• area of forest to be established in Agroforestry systems under sub-measure 8.2.
• area concerned by investments improving resilience and environmental value of forest ecosystems under sub-measure 8.5.
• area under forest environment contract under Sub-Measure 15.1.

It did not include the area of forest that is maintained under sub-measures 8.1 and 8.2 on an annual basis.

Forestry land was under management as a result of the FGS for the first time in 2016. In the first two years of the Programme, the land under forestry management was due to on-going commitments from the 2007-2013 Programme.

As part of work to complete the AIR 2022 the performance against these three forestry target indicators was examined in more detail – and it was possible to establish the actual area that has been supported via sub-measure 15.1.

Points to note from the AIR 2023 include that:

• the original planned estimate for the area to be supported by sub-measure 15.1 was just over 200,000 ha (the maximum area that could have been supported is just under 130,000) – the contribution to the targets of the area supported was therefore set 70,000 ha too high. The planned output for the area to be supported was amended to reflect this (approved ninth modification of the Programme).
• in total, 196,784 ha of forestry land was under management contracts during the 2014-2020 Programme period – this is 13.96% of the total forest and other wooded land.
• the target percentage for all three forestry target indicators is 37.99% - meaning that only 36.73% of the target area has been under management contracts.
• using the final revised planned outputs, the area under management contracts that contribute to these three targets would have been 213,153 ha. This would be the equivalent of 15.12% of the total forest and other wooded land – with 196,784 ha of forestry land under management contracts this means that 92.23% of the amended planned output was achieved.

According to the AIR 2023 the amended planned outputs for the area under management contracts were not quite achieved as less area was supported under by Sub-Measure 15.1 than had been forecast.

Wider commentary at a scheme level on contribution to FA 4A

Agri-Environment Climate Scheme

Scotland has had a scheme to support agri-environment since the early 1990s and has developed a suite of interventions that benefit Scotland’s biodiversity. Under the SRDP 2014-2020 the AECS aimed to promote land management practices which protect and enhance Scotland’s natural heritage, improve water quality, manage flood risk, and mitigate and adapt to climate change. It also helped to improve public access and preserve historic sites.

Under Priority 4, the AECS had a realised public expenditure of circa €203 million. This is the second highest contribution in financial terms towards the total expenditure under Priority 4 (29.2%), and mainly through Measure 4 and Measure 10.

Under the SRDP 2014-2020, the AECS was delivered jointly by NatureScot and SG RPID. The first competitive funding round opened to applications in 2015 and the last year that contracts were awarded was in 2019 as there was no funding round from SRDP for AECS in 2020. Rather, for 2020, one-year extensions were offered to those with expiring contracts. All management contracts for AECS were for up to five years, so the SRDP funding covered the period 2016 to 2024.

The AECS agri-environment (and FGS) funding were the main SRDP delivery mechanisms to support the management of the terrestrial designated sites, with NatureScot Management Agreements providing support for more specialist circumstances. Payments were offered in return for an agreed work programme and relate to income forgone and costs incurred for the managing the habitats and species in a more environmentally sustainable manner.

The scoring criteria for AECS continues to be designed not to disadvantage small units. Under the SRDP co-financed programme, the scheme’s scoring criteria recognised that management of habitats delivered at a lower capital infrastructure cost provides better public value for money than those applications which required higher capital infrastructure costs. In other words, more money is spent on management of habitats than on associated capital items.

In the value for money assessment points were deducted on a sliding scale depending on the percentage of capital infrastructure costs compared to total application cost.

AECS supported a wide range of interventions, some relevant to general habitats and the wider countryside while others had a narrower focus on rarer habitats or vulnerable species. For example, vulnerable species included corncrake, corn bunting, chough, black grouse, hen harrier, and the great yellow bumble bee.

AECS management options were grouped together based on the type of farming system and activity they supported including:

• arable options.
• grassland options.
• upland, peatland, moorland, and heath options.
• farmland habitat and feature options.
• wetland and bog options.
• support for small units including crofting.
• control of invasive non-native species options.
• managing water quality and flood risk options (see answer to CEQ 10).
• organic conversion and maintenance.

AECS also provided support for the management of historic sites and Improving Public Access (see Chapter 20, FA 6B).

Stakeholders involved in scheme delivery (NatureScot and SG) considered AECS to have been a vitally important investment in Scotland, in particular as the scheme helps to secure environmental benefits for Scotland’s land. It did this by providing payments to land managers to deliver a wide range of activities that helped to maintain and enhance Scotland’s rich and varied natural environment, with a view to securing biodiversity and climate change benefits from management of arable land, grasslands, peatlands and carbon-rich soils, designated sites, pollinators, wetlands and moorlands.

The AECS offered support for land management and also for the capital items that were required to enable that management. More specifically, the scheme provided support for farmers, crofters and other land managers looking to positively position themselves for nature net gain – it offered participants set payments for agreed management practices that were tied to HNV farming principles, as well as supplementary support for capital infrastructure to help deliver specific management options.

The enhanced AIR 2016 noted that evidence from previous programmes had demonstrated the benefits of AECS measures in supporting biodiversity, and that according to the ex-post evaluation of the previous programme period, many of Scotland’s environment-related problems associated with land use had been addressed to a considerable extent by the SRDP 2007-2013.

The principal changes for the 2014-2020 period, as reflected in scheme guidance, on biodiversity related to successful engagement with recovery strategies for some bird species such as corncrake, chough and corn bunting.

Scotland’s first Biodiversity Strategy (It’s in Your Hands) was published in 2004. In 2013, it was supplemented by the 2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity which set out the major steps needed to improve the state of nature in Scotland. The two documents together constituted the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy

Scotland’s Biodiversity: A Route Map to 2020 (published June 2015) was developed to help direct priorities for action to achieve the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy and set out the target of at least 80% of designated ‘features’ in favourable condition by 2016. It set out six ‘Big Steps for Nature’ and a number of priority projects, including: ecosystem restoration; investment in natural capital; quality greenspace for health and education; conserving wildlife in Scotland sustainable management of land and freshwater; and sustainable management of marine and coastal ecosystems.

In December 2020 the SG published the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy Post-2020: A Statement of Intent. This paved the way for the new, ambitious 25-year strategy which will supersede the 2020 Challenge strategy. Scotland's Draft Biodiversity Strategy 2022-2045 emphasises that Scotland faces an unprecedented nature-climate crisis and that a decline in biodiversity will exacerbate the climate crisis, and a changing climate will accelerate the rate of biodiversity loss. The vision is for Scotland to be Nature Positive by 2030, and to have restored and regenerated biodiversity across the country by 2045. By 2045, Scotland will have restored and regenerated biodiversity across our land, freshwater and seas. Our natural environment, our habitats, ecosystems, and species, will be diverse, thriving, resilient and adapting to climate change. Regenerated biodiversity will drive a sustainable economy and support thriving communities, and people will play their part in the stewardship of nature for future generations.

There are a total of 1,866 protected areas in Scotland, which host 5,368 natural features (habitats, species populations and earth science interests) which are routinely monitored through NatureScot’s Site Condition Monitoring programme.

In terms of the condition of protected nature sites, as at March 2024, 75.6% of designated natural features on protected nature sites were assessed as being in favourable condition. This figure represents a decrease of 0.9 percentage points from 2023 and a decrease of 0.4 percentage points from 76.0% in 2007.

Some of the recent gradual decline (following previous improvements) will, in part, reflect the status of natural features where remedial management actions had been put in place, and subsequently concluded. In those cases, the assessment status defaults from favourable to unfavourable (when the management action concludes) until a further assessment is carried out.

Stakeholders involved in scheme delivery expressed the view that the AECS has played a pivotal role in, and makes an important contribution to, delivery of a range of national and international targets, including those related to biodiversity, climate change, water quality.

The AECS contributes to biodiversity by supporting appropriate management for vulnerable species and habitats, strengthening ecological networks, controlling invasive non-native species, and enhancing the condition of protected nature sites. The enhanced AIR 2018 noted that one-to-one advice to land managers to explain the schemes and what is possible on their holding works best to achieve results.

The enhanced AIR 2018 also noted that the loss of the Environmental Cooperation Action Fund (terminated in 2017) had been partly compensated for by rewarding applications to AECS through the scoring system where there is collaboration between two or more land managers which can deliver a more landscape-scale approach. This is an internalisation of the approach under the Environmental Cooperation Action Fund which helped support collaboration. That said, there is no dedicated facilitation service whose purpose is to help bring applicants together. However, the KTIF has helped to established Operational Groups, including those that aim to test out new ideas through projects which adapt existing techniques and practices to new geographical/environmental contexts.

AECS data provided by ARE shows that between 2015 and 2020 uptake of scheme funding was strong, see Table 11.4.

Table 11.4: AECS – summary

Funding round	Applications assessed	Approved	Contracts accepted	Value of accepted contracts	Ha under Management (2024)
2015	927	593	558	39,362,548	0
2016	1,251	979	907	55,585,998	0
2017	989	807	742	43,672,043	412
2018	900	604	565	36,349,360	4,613
2019	709	506	467	31,851,128	186,967
2020*	NA	547	490	5,214,057	0
Total	4,776	3,489	3,239	206,821,077	191,992

Source: Extract from Core Brief for AECS, overview, 2.9.24 version from SG.

* Note - no funding round from SRDP for AECS in 2020. Rather, for 2020, one-year extensions were offered to those with expiring contracts.

This shows that over 3,200 farmers, crofters and other land managers have AECS contracts out of the regular 18,000 CAP claimants.

AECS accepted contracts were widely distributed across Scotland, see Table 11.5 and Table 11.6. These tables show that a total of 3,239 contracts were accepted between 2015 and 2019 (2,412 for RPID and 827 for NatureScot).

Table 11.5: AECS – summary of contracts accepted by RPID area offices between 2015 and 2019

Area office	Number of contracts	Area office	Number of contracts
Ayr	137	Inverurie	426
Benbecula	132	Kirkwall	271
Dumfries	103	Lerwick	57
Elgin	92	Oban	123
Galashiels	341	Perth	204
Golspie	39	Portree	39
Hamilton	52	Stornoway	55
Inverness	191	Thurso	150

Source: Extract from Core Brief for AECS, overview, 2.9.24 version from SG.

Table 11.6: AECS – summary of contracts accepted by RPID area offices between 2015 and 2019

Area office location	Number of contracts
East	235
North	152
South	193
West	247

Source: Extract from Core Brief for AECS, overview, 2.9.24 version from SG.

Since the enhanced AIR 2018, NatureScot has carried out some further work on behalf of SG to provide additional monitoring and evaluation evidence for the AECS. This involved two separate but inter-related pieces of work, including:

• an in-house report that examined scheme data and which provided an overview and assessment on scheme uptake and potential impact - Agri-Environment Climate Scheme heat maps report 2015-2018 (NatureScot, 2021). The heat maps relate to agri-environment, which forms the largest element of AECS, and to organic management, but do not include, improving public access and slurry stores.
• an externally commissioned report which looked at the biodiversity outcomes and other benefits of the AECS - Evaluation of the biodiversity outcomes of the 2014-20 SRDP Agri-Environment Climate Scheme through a selection of case studies (James Hutton Institute, 2021). The qualitative assessment was based on three case study areas covering about 30-40 farms.

The work involved three strands, including: a field survey of in-scheme and out-scheme farms, an analysis of case files of those in-scheme farms and a telephone questionnaire for the surveyed farms and an additional sample of in-scheme and out-scheme farms.

The Heat Maps (agri-environment) report looked at scheme uptake in terms of geographic distribution, numbers of hectares, and funding allocated for specific AECS management options and other key elements. For each management option maps were produced as follows:

• area: hectares per 10km square.
• funding allocated per 10km square.
• density: number of fields (land parcels) per 10km square.

The report is not fully comprehensive of agri-environmental activity supported by SRDP 2014-2020 (as the scheme was still ongoing at the time), however, it provides an insightful overview and understanding of scheme uptake and impact.^[20] The report found that options with more significant uptake included the main arable and grassland options, water margins, organic, and moorland management. Further, the scheme has also made an important contribution to the management of designated sites. Note: the monetary values in the report are presented in Pound Sterling not Euros.

Other conclusions from the Heat Maps report include:^[21]

• Arable Farmland and Birds – key management options that provide food for farmland birds had a good uptake across Scotland. Many also deliver water quality benefits. The area covered by key options for arable farmland birds was about 13,800 hectares with £31.6 million committed.
• Designated Sites – the scheme has a major role in helping to deliver the favourable condition of designated sites (SSSIs and Natura). About 621,444 hectares are under positive management through AECS with 1,399 contracts and a total budget of £45 million committed.
• Key vulnerable species – the scheme is making significant strides in helping address the decline of vulnerable species such as corncrakes, corn bunting and waders. The combined area of land managed for waders, including the provision of cover and food for their survival, was estimated as more than 48,880 hectares with a committed funding of more than £30.5 million. Funding was widely distributed including ‘hot spot’ areas in Caithness, Speyside, the Islands (Western Isles and Orkney), and parts of the North East, Central and South Scotland. Other key vulnerable species such as corncrakes have a more restricted range focussed on remoter area such as the Outer and Inner Hebrides, and Orkney. Over £4 million committed with 2,464 hectares under management.
• Pollinators – farms within AECS had a higher number and diversity of pollinators with a significant number of options providing habitat for pollinators including hedgerow management and creation, wild bird seed, water margins and species rich grassland.
• Water Management – the scheme supported arable and grassland water margins to help improve water quality estimated at more than 1,060 hectares with a committed funding of £6 million during the period. These interventions were targeted at catchments identified as having diffuse pollution or poor water quality.
• Grassland Management, Habitat Mosaics and carbon rich soils – more than 26,140 hectares of species rich grassland and habitat mosaic managed under the scheme with a committed funding of more than £20 million. These are some of the most diverse habitats which, without this support, are more likely to decline or disappear. Uptake of Species Rich Grasslands management and creation has been high across the country including parts of North and West Scotland, the North East, Islands and the Borders.
• Carbon rich soils and Climate Change – an estimated 7,400 hectares of carbon rich soils (lowland bogs and wetlands) were managed under the 2015-2018 rounds with a £5 million budget and contributing to climate change and biodiversity targets. A cluster of contracts were in the Caithness and Sutherland peatland area, the largest blanket bog in Europe - a key carbon store in Scotland and at international level. Peatland restoration capital work was also funded under AECS with a £2.3 million budget spent or committed during this period.
• Moorland Management and climate change – about 653,079 hectares of upland moorland and heath is managed under the scheme with £27.4 million committed to help achieve biodiversity and climate change benefits.
• Hedgerows – the combined area of creation and or management/ restoration, of hedgerows is estimated at 1,214,700 metres, with more than £8.4 million funding allocated, and contributing to increased habitat connectivity across the landscape.
• Organic Farming – a key achievement of the scheme has been supporting land under organic management, with 52,258 hectares of land managed or converted to organic farming with £15.8 million budget allocated under the scheme during the 2015-2018 period.

Expected outcomes of the scheme were reported as:

• farmland bird options have helped maintain a stable trend in the farmland bird index and the recovery of vulnerable species such as the corn bunting
• management of moorland habitats in the uplands and special rare heaths to maintain habitat condition.
• protecting carbon rich soils such as the Caithness and Sutherland Peatlands, the largest blanket bog in Europe - a key carbon store in Scotland of international significance.
• extensive management of species rich pastures, moorland and wetlands too maintain high nature value systems.
• conservation of unique habitat such as Machair only found in the Western Isles and Ireland.
• management of water margins to improve water quality, benefit fish, and management of other landscape features.

While the sample size for the James Hutton report was small and the survey covered only one season, the report includes some useful findings, including that:

• field surveys showed that a significant number of options improve habitat for pollinators including those for Hedgerow Maintenance and Restoration, and Hedgerow Creation; Wild Bird Seed for Farmland Birds; Water margins and Species Rich Grassland Management. In the case studies sample, farms under the scheme had a higher number and diversity of pollinators for these options.
• Hedgerow Creation and Management or Restoration of Hedgerows substantially increased plant diversity.
• both for farms in and out of the scheme, the indicators of soil and water quality were good for the relevant options - there were also less differences in habitat quality for some options.
• overall results were indicative that options supported the maintenance of habitats of environmental value.
• analysis of the applications revealed that the management options were well targeted and were being used appropriately. Many lowland farms are widely dispersed so it was not possible to assess as part of this study how options might improve connectivity as this very much dependent on adjacent land holdings.
• farmers interviewed identified a clear motivation for applying to the scheme was to improve biodiversity.
• the overall results of the project are indicative that the AECS is benefitting biodiversity.

NatureScot and SG officials reported that scheme uptake and the outputs show where the money has been spent, and this is a reasonable proxy for outcomes on the principle that if the management prescriptions are followed properly (and this is inspected), then the outcomes should follow.

There are 14 priority species which are mapped to the prescriptions in the areas on which they are targeted. Other species could have been targeted, but there was less confidence that measures could clearly result in the desired improvements.

The breakdown of expenditure for AECS options shows that a significant part of the funds were allocated to interventions that would deliver core objectives supporting the recovery vulnerable species, the farmland bird index, HNV farming and Natura 2000 (94% of the total, see above):

• wader grazed and mown grassland options – which will support waders, and other wildlife. The farmland bird index shows a declining trend for waders.
• retention of winter stubbles for wildlife and water quality – supporting seed-eating birds which have a more stable trend.
• stubbles followed by green manure – supporting bird species and pollinators.
• corncrake management: identified as a vulnerable species.
• moorland management (including stock disposal and away wintering) – supporting HNV farming systems and Natura 2000 (heather and blanket bog).

It should be noted that crofting is used as a proxy for HNV farming. There are data on AECS scheme uptake which can be broken down by crofting area.

It is noted in this context that A Future Strategy for Scottish Agriculture (Scottish Government, 2018) has as a headline recommendation that support schemes must be kept simple and must not attempt to please everybody.

Farm Advisory Service

The FAS had a realised expenditure of circa €6.2 million under Priority 4 (0.9% of the total expenditure realised under this Priority.

The FAS one to many service is mandated to include 70% advice on biodiversity and habitat controls. This is integrated into the general advice for farmers as the service has experience of farmers not participating specifically for this topic alone.

The FAS one-to-many service sought to integrate improvements in biodiversity and environmental performance with all aspects of financial and quality improvement. Events held covered categories such as:

• livestock.
• arable.
• soils.
• air and water quality.
• rules and regulations.
• funding and support.

Enhancing and protecting biodiversity has been woven into broader themed events. For example, biodiversity in terms of the microflora and fauna of the soil quality was delivered under the theme of soil quality.

Events were also specifically targeted at LFA/HNV types of farming, and others targeted deer management and grassland management. No individual species were specifically targeted, but corncrakes, corn bunting, waders, pollinators, and invasive species were all addressed at various FAS events.

In the FAS one-to-one programme, Integrated Land Management Plans examined the restoration, preservation and enhancement of biodiversity. The number of specialist advice notes provided would give an indication of the extent to which this area was supported - however, advice data is not broken down by this category therefore aggregated data was not available.

Forestry Grant Scheme

The FGS had a realised expenditure of circa €43.3 million under Priority 4 (6.2% of the total expenditure realised under this Priority).

The FGS made a significant contribution to FA 4A. The two main areas of expenditure for the FGS related to climate change and biodiversity. Whilst some tree planting was undertaken for productive purposes both types of planting contributed to offsetting carbon and netting emissions. Much of the management funding in the scheme supported the ongoing management of the restoration work and/or enhancements.

One of the main grant schemes delivered under the FGS was the Woodland Creation Grants. This grant scheme was designed to support and create sustainable forests and peatland restoration.

There are specific habitat and species options within the FGS, both for capital (for example, fencing, weed control, etc.) and ongoing management works, and there are biodiversity benefits both from management and establishment of woodland.

Support was provided subject to a plan which had a biodiversity dimension that could be monitored annually. This information was reviewed to ensure satisfactory progress before payment was released. There are 53 schemes on native woodland management (SSSIs), and 86 on species control.

Afforestation also counts as supporting biodiversity, and this applies both to native woodland creation and commercial wood production species. Around 500 native woodland creation schemes were supported. Management checks were undertaken to make sure that the right number of trees had been planted. All schemes are now of mixed design; they cannot be simply commercial, and they must offer other benefits. There is a limit on commercial planting, so 70-75% can be single species, but the remainder would provide biodiversity, etc. benefits.

The evaluation of the FGS is in draft form and its scope includes assessment of scheme contribution towards Priority 4 and associated FAs, in particular in relation to the sustainable management of woodlands. The publication of the scheme evaluation is forthcoming. Early findings from the FGS evaluation were made available by SG to the evaluators as part of the ex-post programme evaluation.

Draft FGS evaluation findings highlight scheme achievements including:

• a total of 48,889 hectares (120,807 acres / 488km²) of new woodland was established, this is just short of the original scheme aim^[22] of 49,000 hectares over the seven-year period.
• of the total, 15,281 hectares (31%) is distinctly native woodland planting (this figure does not include the required component of native woodland planting within other options, so the actual total will be higher).
• 12,598 hectares of the native woodland planted was planted within 20m of a watercourse or waterbody, however these were not necessarily planted as riparian woodland.
• 8,577 hectares of new woodland was created in the Central Scotland Green Network area.
• 1,262 hectares of new woodland was created through Natural Regeneration.
• 11 million tonnes of Scottish grown timber is expected to be available from FGS funded new commercial softwood plantations.
• 8 million tonnes of carbon is expected to be sequestered by these FGS funded woodlands by 2045.

Less Favoured Area Support Scheme

The LFASS had realised expenditure of circa €236 million under Priority 4 – this represents 33.7% of the total realised expenditure under this Priority. The LFASS made the largest contribution to Priority 4 in financial terms.

Some 85% of agricultural area in Scotland is classed as LFA (land which is classified as either Disadvantaged or Severely Disadvantaged).^[23] The LFA maps quite well onto HNV areas. The LFASS supported 6,055 farmers and crofters under this FA. The objectives of LFASS are primarily about maintaining people and businesses on LFA land. Whilst delivered under Pillar 2, it acts similarly to a Pillar 1 scheme of income support and viability depends on the LFASS payments.

According to SG officials without these payments there is a likelihood that land abandonment would follow, with negative socio-economic and environmental consequences.

However, some of the LFA areas of land are important habitats which many believe are protected better when they are farmed and not lying unused. As a consequence, LFASS has a more indirect way of supporting the restoration, preservation and enhancement of biodiversity including in Natura 2000 areas.

LFASS supports livestock systems in remote and fragile areas and there is an implied impact on biodiversity. Livestock are known to have a positive impact on this outcome too (for example, hill sheep).

The LFASS external evaluation (Rural Development Company Ltd, 2016) suggests that some element of stock grazing is good for biodiversity. People on the land and managing it means the land does not go rank as they are positively managing the land. This can create more opportunities to improve biodiversity because farmers and crofters are living on and working the land.

A stakeholder representing crofters during the LFASS evaluation commented that:

“LFASS enables crofts to survive, so without it many crofts would not be able to operate and provide the benefits to restoration, preservation and enhancement of biodiversity in Natura 2000 areas, areas facing natural or other specific constraints and HNV farming, and to contribute to the state of European landscape in the ways the currently do”.

It would be fair to say that LFASS has secondary impacts on this objective as it does not directly target the restoration, preservation, and enhancement of biodiversity. Its main purpose is to support income and business viability in remote and fragile areas where land has natural constraints in producing food from that land and living on it.

There is no specific scheme data to show an impact on biodiversity. Nevertheless, LFASS requires the maintenance of livestock, and the scheme evaluation states that appropriate livestock grazing is good for biodiversity. Grazing helps to maintain habitats and reduce rank grassland and monoculture species. Sheep grazing in remote areas provides greater environmental enhancements than cattle grazing does. SG told the evaluators that previous studies suggested that there are environmental benefits as a result of the scheme.

The LFASS is referenced in 'A Vision for Agriculture' (Scottish Government, 2022) and is considered very much part of the future policy provision.

Knowledge Transfer and Innovation Fund

The KTIF had a realised expenditure of circa €508,000 under Priority 4 – this represents a very small part of the total expenditure realised under this Priority (0.1%).

Several KTIF projects were relevant to biodiversity aims. SG provided the evaluators with a list of projects, three of which are run by the Soil Association Scotland and appear to have a strong biodiversity element. This includes Future Farming Scotland, Farming with Nature, and Farming for the Future.

The Soil Association Scotland reported that the KTIF projects it administers have had a positive impact on biodiversity. For example:

• analysis of its KTIF-funded programme participants found that 68% had changed their attitude most positively towards ‘farming and biodiversity’.
• the Farming with Nature project specifically promotes and supports evidence-based land management practices which deliver integrated benefits for biodiversity and farming/crofting businesses.
• further, a majority of Farming with Nature participants manage land designated LFA and/or HNV, which provides valuable habitat for wildlife (including priority species and habitats) dependent on traditional farming and land use practices.
• a Soil Association Scotland evaluation found that over 400 farmers who had participated in the Farming with Nature themed events were currently undertaking a range of projects to benefit biodiversity on their land including pollinators, farmland wading birds and peatland.
• examples of integrated biodiversity and business benefits promoted by the Farming with Nature project include:
• conservation grazing for species-rich grassland and better ewe management.
• integrating peatland restoration with active livestock hill farming and crofting.
• using non-chemical strategies for controlling soft rush on pasture and creating habitat for rare breeding farmland waders.
• highlighting ‘win-win’ situations on farms where AECS options management can benefit both wildlife and production.
• showing how to make Ecological Focus Areas work for farming and biodiversity.
• biodiversity (and the other environmental impact areas) is a compulsory aspect of the Monitor Farms programme (run by Quality Meats Scotland).

EKOS key conclusions and recommendations

SRDP interventions have supported the restoration, preservation and enhancement of biodiversity, including in Natura 2000 areas, areas facing natural or other specific constraints and HNV farming.

However, the extent of these impacts is not always quantified. There are inherent difficulties in establishing a baseline position from which to measure change and determining causality is problematic. Further, in many cases, it is too early to expect impacts from this programming period to have emerged. That said, it is clear that the general direction of travel over successive programming periods has been positive, and this is expected to continue.

NatureScot and SG officials reported that scheme uptake, expenditure, and outputs are a reasonable proxy for outcomes on the principle that if the management prescriptions are followed properly (and this is inspected), then the outcomes should follow. And the James Hutton report on AECS concluded that the overall results of the scheme are indicative that the scheme is benefitting biodiversity.

It is recommended that for future schemes, steps are taken to quantify the impacts that the various schemes, individually and collectively, have on biodiversity.