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

17. Focus Area 5D

Introduction

This chapter answers the evaluation question related to FA 5D.

CEQ 14: To what extent have RDP interventions contributed to reducing GHG and ammonia emissions from agriculture?

Contribution to FA 5D

Public expenditure

Two schemes were programmed to contribute to FA 5D – AECS and BES.

Points to note from the AIR 2023 report includes that total expenditure realised under FA 5D was circa €22.5 million, see Table 17.1 – the vast majority of this was against the BES (circa €18.1 million or 80.7%), the remainder was under AECS.

Source: Scottish Government, Annual Implementation Report, 2023.

Three Measures were programmed under FA 5D, all of which had expenditure recorded against them. Points to note from the AIR 2023 report includes that:

• committed expenditure for Measure 10 (Agri-environment-climate) was €17.2 million (86% of total committed for FA 5D) and realised expenditure was €16.7 million (74% of the realised expenditure for FA 5D) – delivered through the BES.
• the levels of committed and realised expenditure for Measure 2 (Advisory services, farm management and farm relief services) for BES and Measure 4 (Investments in physical assets) for AECS have been lower in line with the lower planned expenditure for these two measures under Focus Area 5D.
• the realised expenditure for Measure 2 was higher than the planned expenditure for the whole Programme period – in part due to different exchange rates between Pounds Sterling and Euros used for the planned and realised expenditure figures. Further, the distribution across FAs for the planned expenditure for Measure 2 has not matched the demand for advice, resulting in a higher realised than planned expenditure.

Performance indicators

A summary of the outcomes achieved under FA 5D is provided in Table 17.2 and Table 17.3. Table 17.2 provides a cumulative summary of outcomes and Table 17.3 provides a detailed annual performance for outcomes O5 and O7.

Source: Scottish Government, Annual Implementation Report, 2023.

Source: Scottish Government, Annual Implementation Report 2023.

Further, there are two target indicators for FA 5D.

First, the livestock units indicator is the percentage of livestock units concerned by investments in livestock management in view of reducing GHG and/or ammonia emissions. This was delivered by AECS under Measure 4.

Points to note about this indicator include that:

• 22,229 livestock units were under management with a view of reducing GHG and/or ammonia emissions by the end of the Programme.
• this represents 1.02% of the total livestock units – this is lower than the target value of 1.32%.

It was originally estimated that there would be 200 operations that would result in livestock units under management with a view of reducing GHG and/or ammonia emissions during the life of the SRDP 2014-2020.

The demand for this type of operation was less than anticipated and only 134 operations were supported (67% of target achieved). This had a knock-on effect on the achievement of the livestock units indicator target. The average number of livestock units per operation was higher than originally estimated - this improved performance against the target slightly despite the lower number of operations supported.

As part of ninth modification of the Programme the planned output for the number of livestock units to be under management was amended to 22,330 – this means that almost all of the current planned output was achieved during the 2014-2020 Programme when compared to the amended output indicator.

The second target indicator is for the percentage of agricultural land under management contracts, which targets the reduction of GHG and/or ammonia emissions. The agricultural land under management contracts that contributed to this target was the land under management contracts as a result of the BES as well as relevant agricultural land under management funded under Priority 4.

The BES was launched in 2016 and the first payments were made to beneficiaries in 2017. As a result of the BES,108,322 hectares of agricultural land have been under management contracts, which targets the reduction of GHG and/or ammonia emissions.

The vast majority of agricultural land under management contracts that contributed towards achieving this target was funded under Priority 4 (via AECS as well as on-going commitments from the 2007-2013 Programme).

By the end of 2023, 1,544,223 hectares of agricultural land have been under management contracts, which targets the reduction of GHG and/or ammonia emissions as a result of commitments made under Priority 4.

During the Programme period to date, 1,652,545 hectares of agricultural land was under management contracts, which targets the reduction of GHG and/or ammonia emissions, 29.74% of the total agricultural land. This compares to the target value of 23.18% of total agricultural land, meaning that the target has been met. The area of agricultural land that has been under management contracts, which targets the reduction of GHG and/or ammonia emissions is 128.30% of the target value.

Scheme contribution to FA 5D

Agri-Environment Climate Scheme

The design of the AECS was intended to contribute to reducing GHG and ammonia emissions from agriculture. AECS had a ‘slurry storage option’ which allowed farm businesses to apply for a contribution to modern facilities which will reduce GHG and ammonia emissions and contribute to the SG Climate Change Plan (2020).

Nature Scot and SG officials told the evaluators that future GHG benefits will accrue from better timing of application of slurry, but reduced ammonia emissions will only be realised if improved application methods are also implemented. This is something that will need to be followed up in future evaluations.

AECS also included measures to secure carbon stores in peatland. The scoring of applications was also weighted to favour applications for peatland restoration.

The figures below provided by NatureScot are generalised figures – the online system for the AECS does not record the area of blanket peat included in moorland management or the area of restored peatland as a result of ditch blocking. There are two aspects, funding towards capital works such as ditch blocking and scrub removal and funding towards grazing management on peatland. Note: Data on total commitments was in Pound Sterling rather than Euros.

Source: NatureScot.

Note: The monetary values were reported by NatureScot in Pound Sterling not Euros.

NatureScot’s GIS team has produced two maps for commitments made in 2022 and for 2023 by overlaying AECS contracts with peatland data. The maps show that:

• there is an estimated 232,640 hectares of peatland within AECS contracts that are active in 2023 - these are contracts arising from the 2018, 2019, 2021 and 2022 AECS application rounds.
• there is an estimated 321,010 hectares of peatland within AECS contracts that were active in 2022 - these are contracts arising from the 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2021 AECS application rounds.
• nearly all of the peatland is under the AECS Moorland Management option, with very small amounts under the Lowland Bog, Heath, and Wetland options.

Lastly by supporting good soil management, for example, peatland management, green manures, grassland strips, AECS helps ensure that the carbon is captured and stored in soils – as outlined in SEPA’s The State of Scotland’s Soil report (2011).

Beef Efficiency Scheme

The BES had a climate change objective, although the scheme was also about providing support to the beef sector. The underpinning rationale for the scheme was that improvements in production efficiency that lowers GHG emissions would also increase profitability.

Carbon Audits were an integral part of the BES – and participating farmers were assisted through the BES advisory service through this process. The Carbon Audits were then used to help guide management changes within supported farms, including actions that could be taken over the short-term to reduce emissions.

Other actions taken to improve efficiency and thereby lower the carbon footprint included reseeding and carrying out soil analysis. An important part of the BES advisory service was to promote and communicate best practice in this area.

Feedback from SG was that genetic improvement (another output of the BES) was unlikely to make any difference in the early years of the scheme. BES was a five-year scheme, but payments were only made in the first three years. The thinking behind this was that by year three some of the efficiency improvements would be coming through and the farm would be more economically viable.

Further, it was reported that ammonia emissions would only be reduced as a result of changes in the way in which organic manures were stored or applied to land (for example, by injecting slurry rather than broadcast spreading) and there would be a time lag before these management changes came into effect.

No external evaluation was undertaken of the BES scheme – there is therefore a lack of evidence on the impact of the BES scheme on GHG and ammonia emissions.

SRUC has indicated there may be further analysis available on BES in the future – at the time of ex-post programme evaluation reporting this analysis has not been made available to the SG or to the evaluators. A Future Strategy for Scottish Agriculture (Scottish Government, 2018), however, states that the BES scheme (among others) should be retained and built on:

“Income support schemes like LFASS and the Scottish Upland Sheep Support Scheme, and improvement schemes such as the Beef Efficiency Scheme, should be retained and built upon, whilst looking for opportunities to simplify them. They should encourage production which matches and evolves with the market”.

EKOS conclusions and recommendations

SRDP interventions have likely contributed to reducing GHG and ammonia emissions from agriculture, but the extent of this cannot currently be quantified.

While there was some data available from AECS – in common with much of the evidence reviewed in relation to the SRDP, it is necessary to make the point that this focuses on outputs rather than outcomes, and it will be necessary in the future to consider impacts.

Further, no impact data was available on the BES scheme to help answer this CEQ. This is a notable gap in the evidence base. SG did not commission an external evaluation of this scheme – despite the BES representing the vast majority of the expenditure realised under FA 5E.

Any future data analysis undertaken by SRUC may, however, provide useful insights on the impact of BES – it is recommended that SG continue to follow this up with SRUC and review any findings in due course, as well as identify areas for improvement in the assessment of impact.