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

12. Focus Area 4B

Introduction

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

CEQ 9: To what extent have RDP interventions supported the improvement of water management, including fertilizer and pesticide management?

Contribution to Priority 4 - FA 4A, FA 4B and FA4C

Public expenditure

This is covered in Chapter 11 – as the expenditure data for Priority 4 was collated and reported in aggregate form.

Performance indicators

This is also covered in Chapter 11 – for the same reason outlined above, indicator data was collated and reported in aggregate form.

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

Agri-Environment Climate Scheme (Measure 4 and Measure 10)

Feedback from SG officials as part of the enhanced AIR submission (2018) and as part of this ex-post evaluation confirmed that there are several AECS options that contribute to water, pesticides, and fertiliser management.

Diffuse pollution mitigation is a national priority within AECS. The evaluators were told that every AECS application has to consider the diffuse pollution pressures as part of the environmental assessment of the holding. This process requires that applicants carry out a diffuse pollution assessment to identify risks on farm and identify the options to reduce pollution risk.

SG reported that AECS has a number of options available which, if appropriately located, will benefit water quality. Water quality actions are targeted at vulnerable catchment areas (nitrate vulnerable zones, for example) which have been identified by SEPA. These options include riparian and in-field buffers, ponds, wetlands, swales, sediment traps, bridges, alternative watering facilities, and others. Under the intervention logic, impacts should follow.

Some capital items were developed to help address diffuse pollution pressure, for example, Rural Sustainable Drainage capital items. The availability of several capital items dealing with diffuse pollution has been restricted to areas of Scotland identified as priorities for addressing diffuse pollution in order to target support at the areas with the greatest need for intervention. Funding was also available for irrigation lagoons within priority target areas also identified by SEPA; these are aimed at helping farmers store more water over the winter for summer use to reduce the amount of water abstracted from rivers during dry weather.

Funding to take forward natural flood management, for example, embankment removal, is also supported through the scheme. In terms of fertiliser management, the slurry storage option will help farmers to better apply slurry at times of the year when best use can be made of the nutrients and also benefit GHG emissions. The management options often limit whether fertiliser and/or pesticides may be applied and also when they can be applied. With regard to pesticide management, funding is also available to help improve handling and mixing areas, such as funding options for concrete pads, and biobeds, for example.

Water quality is not just about chemicals in the water but also particles in the water hence why the management of field margins, peatland restoration, etc are important when seeking to improve water management and quality.

There are organic maintenance and conversion options within AECS, and these will have an impact on the use of fertilisers and pesticides. This is because organic farming, when compared to traditional farming, seeks to work with natural processes using methods that are designed to achieve a sustainable production system with limited use of external inputs. There are also restrictions on input use in permanent habitats, these prohibit improvement techniques such as the use of fertiliser.

SEPA carries out farm visits on water quality, but it may not be possible to relate the outcomes to participation in AECS. Inspections clarify whether management options have been carried out as planned. If they have, the water quality etc. outcomes should follow.

According to a stakeholder, AECS contributes to the following:

• Scotland's climate change targets by reducing GHG emissions from agriculture and securing carbon stores in peatlands and other organic soils.
• meeting obligations to improve water quality under the EU Water Framework Directive by reducing diffuse pollution.
• control of flooding through natural flood risk management.
• support of organic farming.

It does this through supporting the improvement of water management, including fertilizer and pesticide management, through options such as Wetland management; water margins in grassland fields; and management of floodplains. A majority of AECS options restrict fertilizer and pesticide management. The scheme also targets options so that funds are directed towards locations of greatest need or where they are likely to deliver the most effective outcomes.

AECS is viewed as a key delivery mechanism here, as noted in the Centre for Expertise for Waters, Mitigating Climate Change Impacts on the Water Quality of Scottish Standing Waters report (2024). This report notes that the scheme provides support to help mitigate the impacts of climate change, with some measures to reduce the impacts of climate change also funded under the FGS.

Farm Advisory Service

The improvement of water management and pesticide management was a key feature in the advice delivered in the one-to-many and in the one-to-one FAS services (for example, through the Integrated Land Management Plans).

Drainage and good drainage that supports good water quality and management was a key area of interest. Feedback from farmers suggested advice in this area provided along with risk management advice improved economic performance.

Further, a significant component of the FAS one-to-many service related to water management and pesticide and fertiliser management. For example, the Soil Nutrient Network farms, the Farming for a Better Climate initiative, and the Farming and Water Scotland initiative were all interventions aimed at improving water management, as well as fertiliser and pesticide management. The inclusion of integrated pest management under the crop health initiatives created further significant delivery in this area.

SG officials believed that Farming for a Better Climate and the Soil Nutrient Network farms in particular will have a significant impact on water management and fertiliser and pesticide management. Many agreements were multi-annual and long-term in nature, and so short-term impacts will not yet have emerged. It is believed that the creation of catchment area discussion groups encouraged cooperation amongst participants, to the benefit of the catchment area.

SAC, who delivered the one-to-many part of FAS, had a close working relationship with SEPA, a leading implementor of the Water Framework Directive in the EU. FAS/SAC delivered important knowledge transfer activity. Amongst other things, FAS was used to raise awareness of the benefits of undertaking farm water audits to help identify current and potential areas for water efficiency savings.

There is no direct evidence on impacts on water quality from the one-to-one advice FAS service - rather an indication of intensity of activity on this objective can be taken from the extent of specialist advice on this topic provided to beneficiaries as outlined in the scheme evaluation.

Forestry Grant Scheme

The woodland creation element of the FGS included a water management theme. This was targeted in various ways including support for woodland in areas where there were water quality and/or flooding issues. Forestry was supported on farms where it created buffers between agricultural activity and water courses. The overall intention of this support was to help reduce diffuse pollution and flooding.

Through the delivery of the FGS 12,598 hectares of the native woodland planted was within 20 metres of a watercourse or waterbody – however, it should be noted these were not necessarily planted as riparian woodland. Everything that the FGS approved adhered to the forestry regulations on pesticides, fertilizer use and water management.

The role of SEPA was to identify areas where there were water quality and flooding concerns (flood risk areas or which do not reach current standards) and applications from these areas were targeted by attracting support at a higher rate (90% rather than 80%) of costs. There were restrictions on fertiliser, herbicide or ploughing on some sites where water quality could be negatively impacted. However, compared to arable land, fertiliser and herbicide use is very low.

Whilst the FGS did not have a discrete workstream or grant specifically targeted at water management, Scottish Forestry officials believed that the native woodland schemes and peatland restoration schemes will support good water management. Improving water quality and/or preventing flooding is one of the many benefits that woodland delivers, but it is not routinely monitored. This is an area that requires further research, and Scottish Forestry is undertaking further work to better understand the impact, in particular on water courses.

Knowledge Transfer and Innovation Fund

While none of the KTIF-funded projects were focussed specifically on water management, several were concerned with input use, primarily for biodiversity reasons, and these were also relevant to water quality.

Water quality (with the other environmental impact areas) was a mandatory aspect of the KTIF Monitor Farms programme which provided expert and peer group support, knowledge exchange, skills development and confidence building to a wide range of agritourism and rural businesses across Scotland.

As noted under other FAs, Soil Association Scotland delivered several KTIF projects. The organisation reported that these have had a positive impact on improved fertiliser and pesticide management. For example, the projects were said to help promote and support evidence-based soil management practices which minimise the use of synthetic nitrogen-based fertilisers and chemical pesticides.

As an example, the non-chemical control of soft rush was a popular topic among farmers and crofters, as land treated with chemicals cannot be used for grazing. The Soil Association Scotland reported that some 380 farmers and crofters who participated in its KTIF projects were currently progressing non-chemical strategies for controlling invasive soft rush.

Less Favoured Area Support Scheme

To meet the eligibility criteria for LFASS, applicants needed to meet cross-compliance conditions. There were two sets of requirements based on European and Scottish legislation, including:

• Statutory Management Requirements.
• Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions.

These requirements were about how the business was managed. They covered the environment, public, plant and animal health and animal welfare. The implication was that there would be a positive impact on issues of water quality, but this was not a condition nor was it monitored or measured.

EKOS conclusions and recommendations

SRDP interventions have supported the improvement of water management, including fertilizer and pesticide management.

Since the enhanced AIR 2018, the AECS and FAS schemes have been subject to evaluation.

The AECS scheme evaluation found that the scheme supported various water management projects that aim to benefit water quality. 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^[24] during the Programme period. These interventions were targeted at catchments identified as having diffuse pollution or poor water quality.

The FAS one-to-many service evaluation did not provide direct evidence on the impacts of the scheme on water quality – albeit the scheme evaluation noted that this was a key feature of the advice provided, and various initiatives (for example, Soil Nutrient Network farms, Farming for a Better Climate initiative, Farming and Water Scotland) comprised a significant component aimed at improving water, fertiliser, pesticide management.

It is recommended that steps are taken to quantify the impacts that the various schemes, individually and collectively, have on water management. This will mean improved monitoring arrangements, although the difficulties in establishing a baseline and assigning causality are recognised.