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

22. Synergies

This chapter answers CEQ 19: Have the synergies among priorities and focus areas enhanced the effectiveness of the RDP? (Operational Performance).

Response

The SRDP Programme Document set out the combination and justification of rural development Measures selected under each FA. In each case the needs were identified using a SWOT analysis, followed by an explanation of the way in which the relevant Measures were expected to address these needs. Measures were brought together to provide a comprehensive and coherent intervention. As part of the ex-post evaluation SG officials confirmed to the evaluators that this intervention logic remains valid.

The main driver of synergy within the SRDP related to EU Rural Priority 1: Fostering knowledge transfer and innovation in agriculture, forestry and rural areas. Whilst no spend was programmed under FA 1A, FA 1B or FA 1C under Priority 1, the intention of Measure 1 (Knowledge transfer and information actions) was to have an impact across the entire Programme.

Some aspects of Measures under 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), Priority 3 (Promoting food chain organisation, including processing and marketing of agricultural products, animal welfare and risk management in agriculture), Priority 4 (Restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems dependent on agriculture and forestry), and Priority 5 (Promoting resource efficiency and supporting the shift towards a low carbon and climate resilient economy in agriculture, food and forestry sectors) were also anticipated to contribute to indirect impacts under FA 1A, FA1B and FA 1C.

Drivers of synergy were also programmed between various aspects of Priority 4 where schemes relevant to one FA under this priority were also relevant to others. This was commented on in the ex-ante evaluation where the strong synergy between sustainable land management and the protection, enhancement and restoration of Scotland’s iconic landscapes including hills, moorlands and farmland was noted. Many land management actions that supported landscape objectives had the potential to be designed in such a way that they could deliver wider benefits, including carbon sequestration and natural flood management (for example, peatland restoration). These synergies can be seen in the monitoring data where a substantial proportion of land under agreements contributed to restoring, preserving, and enhancing biodiversity, improving water management, and preventing soil erosion.

Within the schemes programmed under the SRDP there were several areas where synergies could take place to achieve common goals.

Achieving synergies were outlined in the design of the schemes, for example:

• in the suite of grants for young farmers/new entrants (Measure 4 and Measure 6) where support for business planning could be used alongside support for capital investments.
• actions taken at the local level under LEADER (Measure 19) could be used with support for greater connectivity under the IPA scheme (Measure 7).
• the suite of cooperation sub-measures under Measure 16 where the SG told the evaluators of the enhanced AIR 2016 that these were designed to ensure coherence from the customer point of view.
• the link between innovation and the provision of training and advice provided under Measures 1 and 2 through the SRN.

The view of several scheme managers is that synergy is ‘hard-wired’ into the SRDP. For example, FAS encouraged participants to link schemes together where they could deliver better outcomes; for example, the new entrants SRDP schemes were linked to FAS so that appropriate advice was also provided. There was also a link between the Agri-environment schemes (AECS, FGS, BES) and KTIF and FAS.

The Scheme Steering Groups were alert to activity across all schemes within the SRDP, proactively enabling and facilitating synergy. A good example can be found in the FPMC scheme where beneficiaries undertook training and were then made aware of further opportunities supported by the FPMC. Another example was the LFASS and its complementarity to AECS, which required livestock grazing as a base from which to build more targeted options to deliver environmental benefits.

A degree of signposting took place across the schemes. For example, AECS and FGS worked closely together. Agents that provided advice to farmers would often signpost them towards the right SRDP scheme to best meet their needs. The FAS also directed farmers to other opportunities within the SRDP as part of its advisory role. The Soil Association Scotland, which administered several KTIF-funded projects, had commented previously for the enhanced AIR 2018 that signposting had directly supported the AECS and the FGS by raising awareness of its offer and encouraging uptake. SRN officials noted that some signposting within LEADER took place to ensure that applicants were directed to the appropriate SRDP scheme, but it was limited.

There are many examples within the SRDP that demonstrate practice to make schemes complementary by covering gaps. This, however, does not necessarily mean synergy has taken place – where additional benefit is generated by collaboration. For example, there was complementarity between the IPA scheme and the FGS (which supported maintenance and management of existing paths in woodlands); the differences in scheme design and priorities meant that they complemented each other in a rural context, with the IPA focusing on new and improved infrastructure and the FGS on management and maintenance. Similarly, IPA and LEADER were complementary, with the latter funding path/access related projects that could not be supported by the IPA scheme.

There were also examples where LEADER and the FPMC worked together with the former supporting customer-facing elements of projects and the latter supporting investments in production.

EKOS conclusions and recommendations

The SRDP 2014-2020 was designed with synergies in mind between the various Measures. The intervention logic for the Programme also suggested that synergies would be delivered. From scheme evaluations and some monitoring data from the ex-ante evaluation attempts were made to ensure schemes complemented each other where possible.

Whilst there were no significant examples of barriers to synergy, evidence of additional benefit was limited. Whilst it was possible to quantify synergies in the SRDP outputs, evidencing the impact between FAs was extremely limited.

It is recommended that the SG considers how best to measure the impact of synergies for beneficiaries and rural development in Scotland for future planning.