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

4. Focus Area 1A

Introduction

This chapter answers the evaluation question related to FA 1A.

CEQ 1: To what extent have RDP interventions supported innovation, cooperation, and the development of the knowledge base in rural areas?

Contribution to FA 1A

Public expenditure

Priority 1 was an overarching Priority that all the other five Priorities could contribute towards. It was not possible for the SG to programme any Measures under FA 1A as a result.

Six SRDP schemes contributed to FA 1A in some way, see Table 4.1

In addition, there were on-going commitments from the 2007-2013 Programme for the Rural Priorities (RP) and Land Managers Options (LMO) schemes.

Source: Scottish Government, Annual Implementation Report 2023.

The AIR 2023 reports that the total expenditure realised under relevant Measures relating to this CEQ was circa €31.6 million, broken down as follows:

• Measure 1 (Knowledge transfer and information actions) - €3.8 million or 12% of total expenditure allocated to various FAs.
• Measure 2 (Advisory services, farm management and farm relief services) - €22.1 million or 70% of total expenditure allocated to various FAs.
• Measure 16 (Cooperation) - €5.7 million or 18% of total expenditure allocated to various FAs.

Almost all public expenditure incurred under these three Measures (99.5%) was recorded against six SRDP 2014 schemes:

• predominantly the Farm Advisory Service (FAS) – 65.2% of total expenditure.
• followed but to a lesser extent by Knowledge Transfer and Innovation Fund (KTIF) – 25.3% of total expenditure.

The remainder of the total public expenditure (0.5%) was due to on-going commitments from the 2007-2013 Programme, with this expenditure incurred up to and including 2018.

Performance indicators

There is one target indicator under FA 1A which relates to public expenditure - the percentage of expenditure incurred in relation to the total planned expenditure of the SRDP.

The AIR 2023 notes that the €31.6 million expenditure achieved under the afore-mentioned three Measures:

• represents 2.08% of the total planned expenditure of the SRDP - this is slightly below the target value of 2.15%. The target was amended downwards from 2.19% to 2.15% as part of the final modification of the Programme (approved August 2023).
• represents 96.74% achieved against this target indicator.

Wider commentary at a SRDP scheme level

In examining the extent to which SRDP interventions supported innovation, cooperation, and the development of the knowledge base in rural areas, feedback from SG officials, including those involved in scheme delivery, was that innovation (for example, product, process) and cooperation (for example, networking, cooperation, coordination, full collaboration) are both relatively broad concepts. In addition, these terms can also often mean different things to different people, in different contexts, and at an individual scheme level.

The extent to which SRDP scheme beneficiaries undertook innovative and collaborative activity may therefore have been influenced by the way in which information, advice, guidance, and good practice examples were presented. It may have also been influenced by the extent to which scheme beneficiaries had a good understanding of the potential benefits of undertaking innovative and collaborative activity.

Beef Efficiency Scheme

The Beef Efficiency Scheme (BES) contribution to FA 1A was small in financial terms (circa €1.5 million or 4.8% of total expenditure reported under FA 1A). The five-year climate change scheme predominantly provided support relating to cattle genetics and management practice to help beef breeders improve the efficiency, sustainability, and quality of their beef herd.

Stakeholders involved in scheme delivery considered this type of support innovative at the farm level. That is, support to identify animals that are more efficient and therefore produce lower Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, although stakeholders also noted in the enhanced AIR 2018 that there have been less advanced management changes implemented that could produce environmental benefits and economic gains to the farms involved.

Under Measure 2, the BES supported scheme participants to engage with advisory services at various points over the course of their participation to help identify the best management improvements for their farm (parallel with the FAS). This included an advisory services video, a one-to-one consultation, and group events. Advisory services represented a much smaller part of the wider BES and were put in place to increase knowledge and understanding of data collection and reporting and genotype tissue tagging. The enhanced AIR 2018 notes that advisory services also helped farmers to make more informed management decisions on changes to practice based on information from:

• the collection of data and genotyping.
• monitoring animal weights.
• their Carbon Audit.

Crofting Agricultural Grant Scheme

The Crofting Agricultural Grant Scheme (CAGS) contribution to FA 1A was small. The AIR 2023 shows that CAGS:

• supported one cooperation project - this represents 2% of all cooperation projects supported by SRDP 2014-2020.
• expenditure for the one cooperation project was €538 – this is less than 0.002% of the combined expenditure under Measures 1, 2 and 16.

Under the SRDP 2014-2020 CAGS started in 2014-2015 and primarily provided capital grants for crofters to undertake infrastructure developments and to purchase machinery or equipment. Under Measure 16 CAGS facilitated cooperation through the establishment of constituted common grazings committees.^[7] Committee members were appointed into office by the crofters who shared in the common grazings and had responsibility to make and submit grazing regulations to the Crofting Commission for approval. Demand from crofters for funding from CAGS for this specific purpose (project type) was extremely limited.

An external evaluation of three SRDP capital grants schemes, comprising CAGS, New Entrants Capital Grant Scheme (NECGS) and Small Farms Grant Scheme (SFGS) was published in August 2024. This evaluation confirmed the low uptake of CAGS support towards the establishment of constituted common grazings committees was in part due to the small amount of financial support available which could be used to engage a consultant to establish the committee, rather than towards the costs of hiring a hall or adverts.

Rather, CAGS predominantly supported individual crofters to carry out projects at their own crofts. Far fewer collective investments were supported. SG officials noted, however, that Common Grazings Committees are also eligible for a range of CAGS measures (for example, fencing, sheds, handling facilities) so this would have likely encouraged crofters to continue to cooperate with each other.

SG officials confirmed that a total of 534 applications were approved which involved groups of crofters, largely focussed on support for common grazings (for example, the provision of fences to help ensure each crofter’s stock is kept separate for grazing and to improve stock control) and for sheep stock clubs (to support sheep management). This represents 11.7% of the 4,571 applications approved.

While there is no explicit link with innovation, the scheme evaluation found that some CAGS awards were used by crofters to purchase the latest piece of equipment, kit, or technology. For example, funding for electronic identification (EID) readers and weighing equipment to help promote innovation at the individual croft level.

The scheme evaluation concludes that ‘the CAGS contribution to FA 1A and FA 1B was small’.

Farm Advisory Service

The FAS accounted for the majority of the realised expenditure under Measures 1, 2 and 16 at circa €20.6 million (or 65.2%). While innovation was part of the FAS remit, its main function was to provide advice to farmers and crofters on sustainability and productivity, delivered through a suite of mediums.

One-to-many services (delivered by SAC Consulting) sought to promote innovation by demonstrating novel and new practices. Tools included on-farm demonstration, events, workshops, seminars, etc., and through the provision of technical notes, guidance notes, and case studies as well as information disseminated on social media channels and websites.

The FAS demonstrated an innovative approach by its use of modern social media techniques for distribution of information, including its website, FAS TV, Podcasts, and extensive use of its social media channels.

Some of the one-to-many FAS services were targeted at and supported innovation, including activities such as:

• the provision of technical resources to give in-depth information and guidance on a range of topics relevant to farm management. This included the use of laminar strips in soils to identify soil microbial activity - this provided a measure of soil biodiversity. Other examples included demonstrations of solar powered water pumps for livestock waterings.
• running a series of podcasts on a range of topics, including Agroforestry, Succession Planning, Biodiversity, Financial Planning – these were popular with farmers and crofters who were, for example, able to use their time efficiently by listening to the podcast while also working.
• the introduction of FAS TV which covered topics such as innovation and problem solving.
• peer to peer networking.

Many of the FAS face-to-face events helped to strengthen messaging on how to unlock innovation in farming by providing support and advice on a range of topics to Scottish farmers, crofters, and land managers with the aim of improving farm efficiency, sustainability, and compliance. It supported businesses to adapt to new challenges and opportunities in agriculture. Events included opportunities for farmers and crofters to take part in farm walks and farm visits to experience innovation first-hand and to develop a better understanding of how different innovations were applied in the workplace.

A good example of innovation supported through the FAS was virtual fencing for farmers and crofters. This proved popular as virtual fencing uses the help of GPS and other technologies so that farmers and crofters could prevent their animals from wandering too far and kept the animals safe.

The more innovative ideas and novel practices showcased, often on-farm, were based on the latest research findings published by research institutions in Scotland and further afield.

The FAS one-to-one service also supported and promoted innovation. Details of this were set out in the individual business plans developed for supported farmers. To provide a stronger evidence base SG commissioned research to explore the quality, focus and effectiveness of the one-to-one service. The FAS: enhanced monitoring and evaluation (Winning Moves, 2019) was largely a process evaluation which assessed service satisfaction rather than an impact evaluation.

The scheme evaluation notes that a key strength of the FAS was the involvement of users in the implementation of service delivery.

The FAS services - which were contracted out - allowed the service providers to bring in independent experts as and when required. For example, LANTRA managed the registration and quality assurance of professional advisors (under the Farm Business Advisor Accreditation Scheme for Scotland), and this helped to develop the knowledge base of farmers under the Whole Farm Review Scheme.

In addition, there was a supportive and effective governance group behind the FAS that included relevant partners such as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and NatureScot.

The annual planning process also helped to keep the FAS relevant and agile in meeting the changing needs of the farming community. The FAS delivery team reported that a key strength of the scheme was its ability to adapt in year. For example, particular wet weather experienced during the delivery period resulted in plans for the FAS changing to prioritise flooding and water management.

FAS Connect Groups provide evidence of how the FAS contributed towards supporting ongoing cooperation in rural areas. The Connect Groups, which consisted of small groups of farmers and crofters (usually between 10-12 members), were established to encourage, and support peer to peer learning in a safe space. Each group was supported by a facilitator who helped to run group sessions and create the right environment for the sharing of knowledge, ideas, and experience with and between group members.

In terms of cooperation, FAS supported both horizontal and vertical cooperation. Discussion groups and local meetings were set up which helped to encourage cooperation between FAS beneficiaries. These groups and meetings were also open to other parts of the supply chain, thereby encouraging and developing vertical cooperation.

Forestry Grant Scheme

The contribution of the Forestry Grant Scheme (FGS) to FA 1A was small in financial terms. The scheme realised expenditure of circa €208,000 (0.7% of the total expenditure reported under relevant Measures).

The FGS evaluation, which was carried out by Scottish Forestry’s Forestry Development team with input from other business areas, is currently in draft form and is due to be published by the end of the calendar year 2024. A draft report was shared with the evaluators. The scheme evaluation found that the main area where innovation took place in the forestry sector was in harvesting and processing. It highlighted specific examples of innovative projects such as a solar drying kiln and that FGS beneficiaries were also encouraged to explore new market opportunities.

The FGS included a specific cooperation element, albeit this was relatively small-scale. Funding was available to support and facilitate project delivery that involved two or more landowners to address specific issues or challenges. This type of cooperation also applied to roadbuilding which crosses multiple ownership. The AIR 2023 reports that 15 cooperation operations were supported by the FGS which explored projects at a landscape scale and cross-ownership collaboration.

The scheme evaluation notes that the majority of these related to a site of special scientific interest (SSSI) or a Natura 2000 designated site. Further, only three of the cooperative projects led to new applications to the FGS. Whilst this seems low, there are several reasons why this might be the case, including:

• timing – additional cooperative projects may have come forward out with the scheme evaluation period.
• the extent to which projects were feasible.
• the extent to which parties involved in the initial collaborative project were committed to undertaking follow-on collaborative and cooperative activity.

Additional data analysis carried out by the FGS team on the cooperative activity supported concluded that:

• the availability of grant funding helped to support scheme aims around facilitating collaborative projects.
• it is not clear why more projects that addressed a wider range of issues across the whole of Scotland and all Conservancies did not come forward – albeit some of the cooperation activity was to be regional or target area specific. The FGS team also noted that this would have required strong levels of collaboration between various landowners which is inherently challenging.

Food Processing, Marketing and Cooperation Scheme

The Food Processing, Marketing and Cooperation Scheme (FPMC) scheme contribution to FA 1A was small. The FPMC scheme largely provided grant funding for food and drink processing businesses to undertake capital projects such as processing facilities and equipment.

The FPMC scheme also provided access to revenue funding for marketing projects (for example, trade shows and branding), for cooperative activity (for example, between food and drink producers and manufacturers and third parties such as retailers, research community, hospitality, and food service sector), and for efficiency initiatives.

Scheme expenditure under Measure 16 amounted to circa €1.1 million (or 3.6% of total expenditure reported under FA 1A). The FPMC supported five cooperation operations, including:

• one cooperation activity under sub-measure 16.2 – support for pilot projects, and for the development of new products, practices, processes, and technologies.
• two cooperation activities under sub-measure 16.3 - cooperation among smalls operators in organising joint work processes and sharing facilities and resources, and for developing/marketing tourism.
• two cooperation activities under sub-measure 16.4 - support for cooperation among supply chain actors for the establishment and development of short supply chains and local markets, and for promotion activities.

An internal evaluation of the FPMC (September 2019) noted that the scheme had funded 119 projects by the first quarter of 2019, and very few were non-capital related. Note: the final number of projects supported by the FPMC was 162.

Feedback from those involved in FPMC scheme delivery confirmed that need and demand was by far greatest among start-up and existing food and drink processing businesses throughout Scotland for capital projects. Demand for non-capital projects, including for cooperative activity, was said to be much more limited.

FPMC grant funding could also be used by food and drink producers and manufacturers to support innovation, including clusters, process, and organisation related innovation – this was, however, also said to be limited.

Knowledge Transfer and Innovation Fund

The KTIF achieved realised expenditure of circa €8 million (allocated under FA 2A Measure 1 and Measure 16) – this represents 25.3% of the total expenditure reported under FA 1A but allocated to other FAs.

In terms of innovation the KTIF provided grants to operational groups which fall under the European Innovation Partnership (EIP) initiative (operational support rather than capital items). The AIR 2023 reports that the KTIF supported 27 EIP operational groups by the end of the Programme – the planned output was achieved.

The largest single expenditure involving the EIP was for the Monitor Farm Programme. Nine monitor farms were spread across Scotland, and designed to improve profitability, productivity, and sustainability though practical demonstration, sharing best practice and discussion of sector issues.

The KTIF supported innovation projects that related to completely new ideas and to existing ideas used in a new context. All aspects of innovation were eligible for support (economic, social, environmental), and most projects were between three to four years’ duration. SG officials involved in scheme delivery confirmed that there is often a time lag before benefits (impacts) are achieved given the nature of the innovative activity supported.

Some examples of innovation projects supported by the KTIF include:

• Live lambs - the objective of this project was to increase lamb survival rates.
• Skinny milk – this project used lean management techniques in dairy farms to optimise the production of the right quality content rather than focusing on quantity (also an example of horizontal and vertical cooperation). The dairy farms have formed an association with a dairy in Dumfries.
• a project to look at the feasibility of using woodchip bedding for livestock.
• the Soil Association Scotland project Farming with Nature – this project aimed to increase awareness of the importance of nature to farming. Innovative events were held including ‘worming your way to profit’ (healthy farms and enhanced animal welfare leading to nature benefits) and ‘buzzing about grasslands’ (the importance of species rich grassland for pollinators).

The Soil Association Scotland, which delivered several KTIF projects, reported in its closing conference of the Scotland’s Future Farming Project (funded through KTIF) that:

• participants reported increased knowledge, ability/skills, and confidence of sustainable land management practices – the highest score was given by farmers to increased knowledge (77% of those who responded to the post-project survey).
• horizontal (field labs) and vertical knowledge exchange event formats were rated highly by participants.
• there was evidence of innovation at the farm level - 89% of participants who responded to the post-project survey adopted/or pledged to adopt new sustainable land management practices. Some 45% put more than half their holding under new management practices and 21% implemented new management practice(s) across their entire business holding. This amounts to over 830 square miles of farmland across Scotland managed more sustainably.

Further, Soil Association Scotland commented that SRDP interventions have had a positive effect on farmer-led innovation. Led by farmers, with input from experts, the Soil Association Scotland field labs tested ideas to find low-input solutions to practical challenges – a lab usually lasted around 12-18 months and took a scientific approach to testing ideas. A new practice was compared against a baseline or control, with a researcher’s input into trial design. Data was collected by the farmers themselves, with support from the Soil Association Scotland, and lab participants met several times to discuss progress and results.

Soil Association Scotland also noted at its conference and in progress reports to the SG that its KTIF-supported activities encouraged cooperation and helped to build social capital – and this was expected to improve incomes, productivity and resilience.

Survey analysis relating to its Future Farming Scotland project found that participants reported increases in social capital across all forms, in particular bonding capital. In the survey, this form of capital was characterised as networks and relationships ‘within your immediate farming community’, to which 52% of respondents reported an increase ‘somewhat’ and 14.2% ‘a lot’. These results were expected given that the majority of participants at Future Farming Scotland events were farmers and land managers and events tended to be quite local.

A separate internal evaluation of the KTIF is underway and the final report was not available at the time of ex-post programme evaluation reporting. The evaluation report is, however, forthcoming.

The SG KTIF Annual Progress Report 2022 identified a wide range of benefits arising from the Monitor Farm Programme and Soil Association Scotland’s Farming with Nature events. Feedback included that:

• a strong sense of community was developed between the Monitor Farms.
• there was greater integration between the monitor farms within each cluster.
• there was a strong level of industry engagement and involvement at meetings, and positive industry discussions.
• there were opportunities to develop new industry champions from the ranks of the Monitor Farmers.
• strong connections were established between the Monitor Farmers and the scheme delivery team.
• industry stakeholders and farmers engaged with topics that have a bearing on climate and biodiversity targets (Soil Association findings).
• opportunities were identified to connect like-minded farmers for peer support.
• there was an appetite for more knowledge exchange on ‘Reducing Inputs’ which aimed to inspire and inform farmers and growers to: reduce their use of external inputs including synthetic nitrogen-based fertiliser, pesticides and herbicides; reduce carbon footprints; tackle disease resistance; improve soil health and ecological performance; protect natural capital; and boost financial resilience.

An external evaluation of the Monitor Farms Programme (James Hutton Institute, 2021) was undertaken on behalf of the SG and funded by the KTIF. The evaluation examined learning and change by farmers based on two Monitor Farms located in the Lothians and Morayshire. Findings were based on observations and interviews conducted across the three-year Monitor Farm Programme period (2017-2020) and a virtual workshop conducted one year after the Programme concluded (April 2021).

The evaluation contributed in-depth qualitative insights into key features of successful on-farm demonstration found to underpin community engagement and support capacity building among farmers, including acquisition of knowledge, approaches to decision-making, and challenging norms towards achieving individual and community legacy. It also identified lessons learned with clear recommendations that included:

• the importance and definition of key roles in terms of characteristics that underpin success.
• implementing approaches that challenge and support farmers to become active participants in community-based demonstration programmes or events.
• continued investment for the work.
• scope to replicate the practice at the monitor farms.

Further, the evaluation report suggested that the lessons learned could be used to underpin future similar activities and programmes.

EKOS conclusions and recommendations

No Measures could be programmed under FA 1A as Priority 1 was an overarching Priority. However, it is clear that several SRDP schemes were expected to, and have, contributed to it in some way.

The €31.6 million expenditure incurred under FA 1A (but allocated against other FAs) made up a very small part of the overall Programme expenditure. The 2.08% of the total planned expenditure of the SRDP represents a high level of attainment in relation to this target indicator (96.74%), albeit below both the original and revised target values.

A majority of the expenditure achieved under the three Measures was through Measure 2 and delivered through the FAS. This was followed but to a much lesser extent by the KTIF expenditure which made the most contribution to Measure 1 and Measure 16. Most of the other SRDP scheme contribution (BES, CAGS, FGS FPMC) to these Measures was much smaller by comparison.

While the level of interest in establishing EIP operational groups was around the anticipated level, interest in undertaking other cooperation operations was lower than expected. This was particularly true for the cooperation option that was part of the FGS. While the option itself works, historically, the forestry industry in Scotland has not collaborated well with neighbouring holdings. While the SG has tried to create a cultural shift towards this type of co-operation activity this takes encouragement and time.

The enhanced AIR 2018 concluded that it was difficult to quantify the impact on innovation, as many supported projects would take several years before outcomes are accrued. This remains the case at the time of the ex-post evaluation.

It is recommended that the SG considers how best to measure the impact of innovation, cooperation, and the development of the knowledge base for beneficiaries and rural development in Scotland of future interventions.