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

5. Focus Area 1B

Introduction

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

CEQ 2: To what extent have RDP interventions supported the strengthening of links between agriculture, food production and forestry and research and innovation, including for the purpose of improved environmental management and performance?

Contribution to FA 1B

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 1B as a result.

Four SRDP schemes contributed to FA 1B in some way, mainly the KTIF, followed by the FPMC, see Table 5.1.

Source: Scottish Government, Annual Implementation Report 2023.

The AIR 2023 reports that the total expenditure realised under Measure 16 (Cooperation) relating to this CEQ was circa €5.7 million.

The KTIF represents a vast majority of the expenditure reported (76.7%), followed by the FPMC (19.7%).

Performance indicators

The target indicator under FA 1B relates to the total number of cooperation operations supported under Measure 16 (Cooperation), see Table 5.2.

Source: Scottish Government, Annual Implementation Report, 2023.

The AIR 2023 reports that under Measure 16:

• a total of 48 cooperation operations were supported – this represents 90.57% of the current planned output of 53 co-operation operations supported.
• most of the cooperation operations supported were through the KTIF - 27 EIP operational groups were supported by the KTIF by the end of the Programme - the planned output was achieved.
• the remainder (21) of cooperation operations supported were mainly through FGS (15), followed by FPMC (five), and CAGS (one) - the current planned output for the number of cooperation operations supported is slightly higher at 26.

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 is considered further below.

Wider commentary at an SRDP scheme level

Crofting Agricultural Grant Scheme

Similar to its contribution to FA 1A, the CAGS contribution to FA 1B was small. The CAGS only supported one cooperation project and this project (and the scheme more generally) did not establish links with research and innovation for the purpose of improved environmental management and performance.

The external evaluation of three SRDP capital grants schemes (August 2024) concludes that the CAGS supported a range of project types, and this was identified as a strength of the scheme by crofters and stakeholders alike. The evaluation found that the scheme funded capital projects that supported environmental management and performance in some way. For example, activities to help crofters protect their plants and crops, support rotational grazing, and improve grassland management.

The same scheme evaluation found that of the circa 3,100 CAGS projects supported between 2019 and 2023^[8]:

• 42% of projects involved planting of shelter belts and the provision of fences, hedges, walls, gates, or stock grids – the planting of shelter belts, for example, helps to provide shelter for plants from the negative effects of strong wind conditions.
• 6% of projects involved investment in land management – this included initial grassland improvement works to support the restoration of degraded land and the control of bracken.

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

Forestry Grant Scheme

The FGS supported 15 cooperation operations and demand was lower than anticipated.

Scottish Forestry put considerable efforts into strengthening links between agriculture, food production and forestry and research and innovation, including for the purpose of improved environmental management and performance. Scottish Forestry employs a Forestry and Farming Development Officer who works on Agroforestry (the integration of trees into the farming system, while maintaining or enhancing the farm’s main agricultural output).

As part of its work on Agroforestry Scottish Forestry worked collaboratively with the SG Agricultural Policy team to establish the Integrating Trees Network to help more farmers and crofters realise the benefits that trees can bring to their business – such as providing shelter for livestock, improving productivity, diversifying income streams, creating habitat for wildlife, and reducing their carbon footprint. This farmer-led initiative also provided information and support for those farmers and crofters who were considering planting trees.

Food Processing, Marketing and Cooperation Scheme

The FPMC contribution to FA 1B was small. Only five cooperation operations were supported by the scheme.

Grant funding from the FPMC could be used by food and drink processing businesses to facilitate cooperative activity between food and drink producers and manufacturers and third parties such as the research community.

Either demand for this type of activity did not materialise and/or it may have required additional ‘brokerage’ support from other bodies and agencies, including from food and drink trade bodies and membership organisations, to help bring industry and the research community together for the purpose of collaborative and cooperative activity.

The internal evaluation of the FPMC (2019) did not provide any further information that could help answer this CEQ.

Knowledge Transfer and Innovation Fund

SG officials reported that several of the 27 KTIF EIP operational groups supported comprised members from research institutions. An additional two groups were supported by the end of the delivery period in 2020.

The KTIF placed specific emphasis on encouraging the practical implementation and application of the findings, lessons learned, and good practice identified in relevant research undertaken in Scotland and further afield – and this applied to some extent in all the KTIF projects (21 projects approved by the end of 2020). The KTIF projects helped to fill technological gaps by better linking research outputs such as research reports (which otherwise might go unused) to tangible agricultural practice on the ground. A good example is the Soil Association Scotland research on field labs.

The Soil Association Scotland, which delivered several KTIF projects, state that its field labs helped to connect farmers with researchers to test new ways of working, and that this delivered environmental benefits. For example, the Soil Association Scotland ran a field lab which explored the effectiveness of mob grazing – an innovative practice in Scotland but in use elsewhere – to find out if it could be adapted to suit Scotland’s biogeography and climate. There had been little specific attempt to link the stages of the agri-food sectors, though a project approved in 2017 aimed to build resilience into Scotland’s lamb supply chain by supporting farmers to work more closely with processors.

Other schemes’ contribution to FA 1B

Scottish Rural Network

The Scottish Rural Network (SRN) ensured that its events, conferences, and social media included case studies and examples of good practice on the links between agriculture, food production and forestry and research and innovation, including for the purpose of improved environmental management and performance.

LEADER

Data provided by SG shows that a total of 67 cooperation projects were supported by the LEADER programme in Scotland. This represents a small proportion (4%) of the total number (and type) of LEADER projects supported. Cooperation projects included a mix of preparatory, inter-territorial and transnational cooperation activities.

EKOS conclusions and recommendations

A total of 48 cooperation operations were supported by the Programme and this represents a good level of achievement against the target set (90.57% achieved). The vast majority of the cooperation operations supported were through the KTIF followed by the FGS. Albeit, as described in the previous chapter, interest in undertaking cooperation operations (other than EIP) was lower than expected, and in particular for the FGS.

The SRDP has provided links between primary production and research and innovation – however, there remains a lack of evidence at this stage on the impact of this and the extent to which the SRDP activities strengthens these links.

In the design and development of similar or new interventions, greater attention is needed to monitor links between, on the one hand, the agriculture and forestry community (broadly defined) and, on the other, the research and innovation community. Consideration could also be given to the evidence that might be collected to demonstrate the impact of the links between primary production and research and innovation.