A11 Views of interested organisations.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

MID-TERM EVALUATION
OF THE
RURAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR WALES
Appendix 11 – Views of Interested Organisations
Final report for
Welsh European Funding Office
Submitted by
Agra CEAS Consulting Ltd.
Telephone: *44 (0)1233 812181
Fax: *44 (0)1233 813309
E-mail: info@ceasc.com
http://www.ceasc.com/
2114/BDB/November 2003

MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE RDP WALES
Contents
APPENDIX 11: VIEWS OF INTERESTED ORGANISATIONS.................................................................... 1
A11.1. LIST OF ORGANISATIONS SUBMITTING RESPONSES................................................................................... 1
A11.2. IMPACT OF THE RDP................................................................................................................................ 2
A11.2.1. Farm businesses............................................................................................................................... 2
A11.2.2. Welsh family farm ............................................................................................................................ 3
A11.2.3. Farm amalgamation......................................................................................................................... 4
A11.2.4. Non-agricultural businesses ............................................................................................................ 5
A11.2.5. Environment..................................................................................................................................... 7
A11.2.6. Wider rural economy ....................................................................................................................... 8
A11.3. PERFORMANCE OF THE RDP.................................................................................................................... 9
A11.3.1. Addressing the needs of rural Wales................................................................................................ 9
A11.3.2. Operation of the RDP ...................................................................................................................... 9
A11.3.3. Administration of the RDP............................................................................................................. 11
A11.3.4. Financial balance .......................................................................................................................... 12
A11.3.5. Gaps in the RDP ............................................................................................................................ 12
A11.3.6. Interaction with other schemes/programmes ................................................................................. 13
i

MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE RDP WALES
Appendix 11: Views of interested organisations
A wide range of organisations expected to have an interest in the RDP Wales and its operation were
canvassed for their views. This list was drawn up following a visit by members of the evaluation team
to the Royal Welsh Show on the 23 July 2003 and supplemented by suggestions made by other
interviewees during the course of the research.
Representatives from organisations were either interviewed face-to-face by members of the
evaluation team or sent a letter and response form asking for their written views. In some cases
organisations submitted response forms and were also spoken to personally.
This Appendix lists those organisations submitting a response and then summarises the responses by
topic.
A11.1. List of organisations submitting responses
Responses were received from the following ten organisations.
• Farming Union of Wales • NFU Cymru
• Countryside Council for Wales • Environment Agency
• The National Trust Wales • Country Land and Business Association
• RSPB • PLANED
• Dry Stone Walling Association • PTP Quality Training
Interested organisations were requested to provide their views on the impact of the RDP on the
following:
• farm businesses;
• the survival of the Welsh family farm;
• farm amalgamation;
• non-agricultural businesses;
• the environment. and;
• providing support to the wider rural economy.
They were then asked to comment on performance aspects of the RDP as follows:
• the way in which the RDP addresses the needs of rural Wales;
• the operation of the RDP through a suite of different schemes and measures;
• administration of the RDP and its schemes;
• financial balance between schemes;
• gaps in the coverage provided by the RDP. and,
• co-ordination of the RDP with other schemes/programmes.
1

MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE RDP WALES
The views on each of the above topics are considered below.
A11.2. Impact of the RDP
A11.2.1. Farm businesses
The impact of the RDP on farm businesses has been obfuscated by the impact of the foot and mouth
disease (FMD) outbreak in 2001 during which Wales was especially hard hit. This obfuscation is twofold,
firstly the outbreak delayed the introduction of Farming Connect as farm visits were prevented.
As a gateway to the Farm Improvement Grant and the Farm Enterprise Grant this delayed
promotion of these schemes. Secondly, FMD had a significant negative impact on farm incomes 1 and
this overshadows any other changes in farm income at this time that might have also been occurring.
The result of the FMD outbreak is therefore to delay any impact of the RDP on farm businesses
which makes it a little early to comment at this stage. It should, however, be possible to comment
on the impact on farm businesses by the time of the ex-post evaluation.
The Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) and the Country Land and Business Association (CLA)
point out that the RDP is one of many initiatives in the agricultural sector and that its impact is
therefore likely to be dwarfed by the Common Agricultural Policy. CCW adds that structural
change in the wider UK economy adds to this background noise. That said, the Farming Union of
Wales (FUW) claims that there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that farmers in receipt of monies
under Tir Mynydd, Tir Gofal and the Organic Farming Scheme, but not directly affected by FMD (and
thus compensated), were able to maintain some form of positive cash flow as a result of the RDP
which may have helped them to remain viable over this difficult period. The Environment Agency
(EA) adds that logically any funding channelled to farmers will assist the farm business to some
degree, whether this can be detected or not, although it notes that the schemes are not universally
available and impact will therefore be variable.
NFU Cymru adds that diversification from a position of income weakness is not an ideal platform for
development and the implication is therefore that the potential impact of the RDP may have been
mitigated for this reason.
The National Trust Wales and the CCW draw on evidence from the Tir Cymen pilot agrienvironmental
scheme to suggest that agri-environment schemes do, in general, have a positive
impact on farm businesses. On this basis, agri-environmental schemes under the RDP (specifically Tir
Gofal, but also the environmental enhancement element of Tir Mynydd) are likely to be beneficial for
farm businesses. The extra income that can be generated by those in the farm household not fully
employed on the farm through contracting work associated with agri-environment schemes, for
example dry stone walling, also contributes to improved farm household income.
1
NFU Cymru informs that average farm income in Wales fell to £6,100 in 2000/01, although this had recovered to £10,100 by 2002/03.
2

MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE RDP WALES
PLANED explain that the impact of the RDP on farm businesses is potentially good, but that there
are problems with red tape and bureaucracy which prevent many farmers, especially smaller scale
family farmers, from accessing funding.
While not a comment on the impact of the RDP on farm businesses per se it is interesting to note
that PTP Quality Training have noticed a significant decrease in requests for Agricultural Skills
Training in the past year. This does not suggest that farmers are being assisted towards taking
training courses by schemes under the RDP. This may be the result of these options being in many
cases introduced late. Alternatively, it could be a reflection on the health of farm businesses in that
farmers do not feel able to sign up for training courses as a result of either a lack of funds or a lack of
time. In either case it does not suggest that the RDP is facilitating training. PTP Quality Training
conclude that, coupled with a decrease in health and safety visits to farms over the last 18 months,
disasters are waiting to happen as a result of a poor skill set.
Tir Mynydd, covering over 80% of farmers in Wales, is the most important RDP funded scheme and
as such is a major contributor to maintaining farm businesses. However, NFU Cymru explain that
many farmers in LFAs are disgruntled about the re-deployment of resources under Tir Mynydd which
has resulted in a significant adverse impact on many LFA farmers in Wales (especially the medium
sized upland (but not mountain) farms, according to the National Trust Wales). In particular they
are concerned about the decline in the ‘safety net’ mechanism which they feel has exacerbated the
financial difficulties faced by farmers in Wales.
The impact of modulation under the Agenda 2000 reforms to the CAP has had an impact on all
farmers in Wales by removing 2.5% of subsidy in 2001/02, 3.5% in 2002/03 and which is scheduled to
increase to 4.5% by 2005/06. NFU Cymru claim that the distributional impact of this, in that all farm
payments are modulated, but not all farms are able to claim money back through the RDP, is a
source of frustration to the industry. This distributional impact is compounded by the fact that
money modulated in 2001 and 2002 is only now being returned to farmers.
A11.2.2. Welsh family farm
The notion of a Welsh family farm is widely held to be a political construct rather than a tangible
entity. It was pointed out that the importance of the notion of the Welsh family farm is heavily
linked to devolution and the fact that agriculture is one of the relatively few areas where the Welsh
Assembly Government has significant devolved authority. The CLA does not have a definition of
Welsh family farm and believes that most farms in Wales could be classified in this manner.
The NFU Cymru believes that economic pressure on the industry is reducing the number of viable
family farms in Wales. In the opinion of this organisation, Tir Mynydd has worked against smaller
family farms through the imposition of stocking density limits. They believe that these farms have
historically had to stock at high densities to ensure viability and they do not have the economies of
scale to retain viability at lower stocking densities. It is not felt that Tir Gofal offers an opportunity
3

MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE RDP WALES
to these farms because the management restrictions would compromise production levels. This
view is shared by RSPB Cymru.
However, this situation may have been at least partially addressed by the change in Tir Gofal
selection criteria, a change made, at least in part, in order to allow entry to what the CCW believes
to be family farms previously excluded for this reason (it was felt that small farms were able to access
the scheme because their farming practices were often already compatible with scheme management
prescriptions and large farms were able to access the scheme through making relatively small changes
over relatively large areas). The CCW state that the current scoring system tends to favour farms in
the 50 to 200 hectares range as a result of points being awarded for each farm enterprise. The
award of extra points for young farmers is also felt to favour farms with a successor in place.
The CCW also point out that the allocation of extra resources to young farmers under the Farm
Investment chapter of the RDP (i.e. FIG and FEG) should also have a positive impact on the survival
of the family farm. In the view of the CCW, however, the RDP lacks a coherent approach to this
issue with the application of different minimum size criteria in Tir Mynydd and Tir Gofal and the
differential treatment of young farmers from scheme to scheme. It is felt that this results from the
drafting of the RDP prior to the Farming for the Future document.
Part of providing support to Welsh family farms is likely to involve supporting young farmers and the
Farming Union of Wales is disappointed that the RDP did not incorporate explicit measures to this
effect. The FUW believes that with the average age of farmers in Wales increasing there are fewer
young farmers willing to enter the industry or take over the family business. They inform that
representatives from the major banks present at the Royal Welsh Show suggested that up to 59% of
farms now had no successor as young people move away to pursue more lucrative careers in other
sectors (a view also held by PTP Quality Training). This so-called ‘succession gap’ has apparently
been widening in recent years and this evidence therefore suggests that the RDP has failed to have an
impact on the long-term sustainability of the family farm. However, it should be noted that the
‘succession gap’ may have widened less than it would have done in the absence of the RDP, but this is
not a testable hypothesis.
PLANED feel that the bureaucracy associated with the RDP schemes prevents many farms (and they
emphasise particularly small family farms) from accessing funding. That said, the National Trust
Wales view is that RDP schemes such as Tir Mynydd, Tir Gofal and the Organic Farming Scheme
have been and remain vital for the continuing survival of family farms.
A11.2.3. Farm amalgamation
Although the RDP has, in the opinion of the Farming Union of Wales, made a contribution to the
viability of farms in Wales, the underlying economic position and the low market returns experienced
over the last few years has resulted in the loss of farming families in Wales and the subsequent
amalgamation of farms. Three and a half thousand IACS registered holdings have disappeared in
Wales between 1997 and 2003 and this loss of farming families is likely to have impacts in the wider
4

MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE RDP WALES
rural economy in terms of spend and also in terms of the viability of schools, churches and the Welsh
language and culture. It is not felt that the RDP has had a sufficient impact to make much difference
to this general trend. PLANED refer to the impact of the RDP on farm amalgamation simply as
marginal. The CCW note that the whilst they expect the RDP to slow down the trend in farm
amalgamation, the scale of the programme is too small to have a major impact given the other forces
involved, a view also subscribed to by the Environment Agency.
The Environment Agency believe that farm amalgamation in the dairy sector is a particular problem.
It claims that dairy farmers buy or lease additional quota and, for convenience, move more cows
onto the home farm thus increasing environmental pressure at this site. At the same time, areas
where the quota is leased from can then become under-grazed, which also has negative
environmental implications.
In contrast, NFU Cymru feel that farm amalgamation has helped some farming businesses to remain
viable and to generate sufficient income to retain farming jobs that would otherwise have been lost.
However, these gains must surely be at the expense of farms going out of business and it is difficult
to see how the net effect on employment could be anything other than neutral at best. The NFU
Cymru do add that farm amalgamation does reduce the opportunity for new entrants and
undermines the fabric of rural communities. The impact of the RDP on farm amalgamation, however,
is not stated.
The National Trust Wales did not comment on the impact of the RDP on farm amalgamation, but
they feel that amalgamation is not the way forward and that farms should diversify income streams
rather than increasing scale and becoming solely reliant on food production. It is NTW policy to try
to avoid farm amalgamations where possible. In contrast, PTP Quality Training believe that it is
amalgamated farms which have the greater need to diversify as labour demand is increasingly met by
machinery and not by family labour.
A11.2.4. Non-agricultural businesses
Any policy initiative similar to the RDP will inevitably create jobs related to the implementation of
the schemes themselves. These positions include, inter alia, scheme administrators and farm level
consultants (although the National Trust Wales add that the latter are only of benefit to farmers if
they are producing useful Farm Business Development Plans). Aside from this inevitable impact, the
NFU Cymru claim that there is some evidence of additional jobs and income being generated in
other industries linked to agriculture as a result of the RDP. However, the organisation questions
the extent and permanency of the jobs created.
The Farming Union of Wales states that agriculture is still the cornerstone of the rural economy,
despite its relatively low contribution to GDP, and as such the multiplier effect of money paid out to
rural businesses as a result of the RDP is substantial. Schemes within the RDP, such as Tir Gofal,
offer opportunities for conservation contractors, although the impact of this through the RDP is
5

MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE RDP WALES
more geographically dispersed than that recorded as a result of Tir Cymen 2 . All responding
organisations agree that the RDP is likely to create employment opportunities for conservation
contractors.
The CCW expects Tir Gofal to produce a similar impact to Tir Cymen in terms of impact on nonagricultural
businesses, albeit watered down by the more dispersed nature of the scheme. The
organisation adds that similar results would be expected from other schemes with a high capital
expenditure element (i.e. FIG and FEG). Schemes with more emphasis on annual management
payments, such as Tir Mynydd, are expected to have a less marked effect.
The NFU Cymru also reports a positive impact on the tourist sector, though adds that tourism is not
a panacea for a struggling sector. The Farming Union of Wales adds that some areas of Wales are
now saturated as far as tourism is concerned and that this is having a depressing impact on the
available revenue. It is also felt that the infrastructure in parts of Wales is not able to cope with
increased levels of tourism. Finally, one of the main attractions of Wales as a tourist destination is
the isolation and ‘wildness’ and this is not compatible with an ever increasing tourist burden.
PTP Quality Training point out that whilst the RDP has created opportunities for rural businesses,
whether these can be taken or not does depend on location. There are apparently issues relating to
planning consent, especially in National Parks. The example of the Bluestone project is provided
which, although it has gained the support of the County Council in Pembrokeshire, is being held up
by the concerns of the National Park. If this project were to go ahead it would create 600 jobs.
The Country Land and Business Association add that in their experience a lot of rural businesses
have planning applications turned down, often because the Highways Agency claim that the local
infrastructure is not adequate to deal with it. Also related to this issue, some applicants for planning
permission are being told that they can only obtain permission for one cottage if they close their
rural business. To this end it is possible that FEG has been hampered by the planning processing,
although the CLA have not actually carried out research into this issue.
The Dry Stone Wall Association comment that the implementation of Tir Gofal could be hampered
by low rates of grant as far as dry stone walling work is concerned. Grants for dry stone walling
under Tir Gofal are £18 per square metre, the same level as was available in the late 1980s under the
Environmentally Sensitive Area scheme. This figure is actually lower than the £25 per square metre
that is still available for the remaining Tir Cymen agreements. The Association also points out that
the cubic bulk of a wall is not considered and therefore a wider wall requiring more work is eligible
for the same grant as a narrower wall. Paying a flat rate also means that there is no link between the
grant aid and the actual cost of the work. There is a suggestion that some recipients of grant aid for
walling are carrying out the works themselves, in some cases to an inadequate standard, in order to
save costs.
2
The CCW comment that expenditure of £5 million on Tir Cymen led to the creation of 200 full-time job equivalents, a substantial
number of which were created off-farm in the contracting and supply industries.
6

MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE RDP WALES
A11.2.5. Environment
The CCW explains that disaggregating the various policy influences on the environment is extremely
complex. In this context it should be recalled that the RDP is dwarfed financially, and hence in terms
of influence, by, amongst other policy initiatives, the CAP. The Farming Union of Wales state that
the increasing raft of environmental legislation (EU and national) is likely to have a far greater impact
on the environment than the RDP. However, the CCW consider it likely that the RDP has led to
some positive environmental benefits, although whether these are always manifested will depend on
the influence of other factors at particular locations.
Assessing the environmental impact of the RDP is further hampered by the fact that a substantial
number of the indicators listed within the Plan are, in the view of the CCW, output rather than
outcome related. This is thought likely to result in a reduced emphasis on collecting the type of
information necessary for a full and systematic evaluation of the environmental impacts of policy.
The National Trust Wales adds that the failure to carry out research into an environmental baseline
makes it difficult to see how objective evidence of environmental improvement might be gathered.
Results from Tir Gofal environmental monitoring are not yet available, but the CCW believes that
the scheme is having a noticeable impact on the reintroduction of arable cropping in parts of mid-
Wales. RSPB Cymru also believes that Tir Gofal has resulted in important environmental benefit,
especially in terms of landscape improvement. The CCW feel that this impact is bolstered by the
existence of other RDP schemes including Tir Mynydd, and the introduction of new technology such
as ‘crimping’ of cereal silage. NFU Cymru also feel that Tir Gofal is delivering environmental benefit,
although they believe that a part-farm scheme would complement the whole-farm approach by
allowing access to those farmers unable to commit the whole farm. However, RSPB Cymru strongly
supports the whole farm approach.
Research on the environmental impact of Tir Mynydd has been undertaken for the CCW and this
suggests that in 15% of cases there was an intention to change from pure-bred to cross-bred ewes 3 .
This change may have positive implications for the management of unimproved hill land because
traditional breeds are generally better adapted to adverse weather conditions and poorer quality
herbage.
The CCW feels that the small average size of woodland under the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme
may reduce the environmental potential of the woodlands created. It should be noted that the
Forestry Commission have carried out a review of the FWPS and the Woodland Grant Scheme and
in future these will be targeted more closely in line with the priorities set out in the Woodland for
Wales document.
3
This was the result of a relaxation in the requirement to stock pure-bred flocks.
7

MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE RDP WALES
The Farming Union of Wales point out that environmental concerns may actually be hindering the
RDP and hence the overall impact that it might have. They point to what they term overzealous
environmental protection regulations, for example, restrictive planning policies, which might hamper
schemes such as FEG.
The Environment Agency stated that whilst there may be positive environmental impacts stemming
from the RDP, the issue of water pollution has been virtually ignored. The point was made that the
disparate nature of agreements under Tir Gofal does not necessarily present an opportunity to
improve water quality in a catchment area. This compares unfavourably with the geographically
concentrated approach taken under Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Tir Cymen. However, it is
recognised that the proposed Entry Level agri-environment scheme could prove to be a step in the
right direction.
The EA also point out that a greater degree of integration between the RDP and other initiatives in
Wales such as the Water Framework Directive and the Spatial Plan Wales would be beneficial.
Community strategies could also be more integrated and more account could be taken of the State
of the Environment Report for Wales in terms of identifying environmental priorities to address.
Finally, the EA add that there are particular issues with regard to individual RDP schemes. Most
notably it is felt that the synthetic pyrethroid sheep dip used by organic farmers under the OFS is
actually more environmentally damaging 4 than the organophosphate dip used by conventional
farmers 5 .
RSPB Cymru believe that whilst the OFS has inherent environmental benefits, more could be done to
enhance opportunities for wildlife in terms of biodiversity and farmland birds. Further, the
organisation states that without conservation standards, organic farming will become increasingly
intensive with a potential risk that the environmental benefits of organic farming systems, and the
organic sector’s environmentally friendly image, could be jeopardised. RSPB Cymru considers that
maintenance payments for organic production should be awarded contingent on organic producers
meeting high environmental standards.
A11.2.6. Wider rural economy
NFU Cymru explain that although the wider rural economy is heavily dependent on the viability of
the agricultural sector, the confluence of the RDP with the lingering after effects of BSE, FMD, the
strength of Sterling against the Euro, etc. makes it difficult to assess the wider impact of the Plan.
The Farming Union of Wales also concludes that the presence of so many confounding factors makes
it impossible to assess the wider impact of the RDP with any accuracy.
4
Synthetic pyrethroid has between 100 and 1,000 times the toxicity to aquatic fauna than organophosphate dips, although the latter are
themselves highly toxic.
5
Many conventional farmers have also switched to synthetic pyrethroid in response to human health concerns associated with
organophosphates.
8

MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE RDP WALES
The National Trust Wales believe that Tir Gofal and Tir Mynydd have provided employment
opportunities for local people (especially through conservation contracting) and that there has
therefore been benefit to the wider rural economy. However, the degree to which the RDP
stimulates inward investment is not clear.
The CCW expects a significant impact on the wider rural economy based on the organisation’s
experience and research into the knock-on effects of the Tir Cymen pilot scheme (see above,
Section A11.2.4 in particular).
PLANED state that in theory the impact of the RDP in supporting the wider rural economy is
excellent, although the organisation claims that the failure to build on LEADER I and LEADER II
represents a missed opportunity.
A11.3. Performance of the RDP
A11.3.1. Addressing the needs of rural Wales
The Farming Union of Wales feels that the extensive consultation which preceded the drafting of the
RDP has resulted in a policy which goes a long way towards addressing the needs of rural Wales,
with the exception of young farmers who would have benefited from installation aids. However, it is
felt that the UK’s historic low commitment to agri-environment schemes resulted in a low budget
allocation from the EU. This has had a significant impact on the range and size of schemes run under
the RDP Wales.
In contrast, the CCW feels that the fact that the RDP pre-dates other important policy documents
(Farming for the Future in particular) makes it potentially difficult for it to address the needs of rural
Wales fully. It is not entirely clear, in the CCW’s view, to what extent the overarching priorities of
the RDP are reflected in budgetary allocation. A stocktaking exercise of all the RDP schemes would
be useful in assessing this issue in more detail.
The National Trust Wales believes that the RDP is helping larger farms to increase profitability, but
that smaller farms (between 100 and 200 acres (47 to 95 hectares) are not seeing such benefits.
From the point of view of the wider rural economy this is not ideal as it is the smaller farms which
are more linked in with other rural businesses and the local community. The RDP is also seen as
bringing benefits in terms of making subsidies to the agricultural sector more acceptable to urban
dwellers through the greater emphasis on the delivery of public goods in return for support.
A11.3.2. Operation of the RDP
The CCW feels that Tir Gofal is very well integrated with other RDP schemes (through its links with
the delivery of the forestry measures, the training measure and the public access component of
Article 33 6 ). It is felt that this is the result of the extensive consultation process that was undertaken
6
The fact that organic farmers can gain extra points when applying to Tir Gofal might also be added to this list.
9

MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE RDP WALES
before the scheme was introduced. Other elements of the RDP were put together in a shorter
period of time and as such did not benefit from this exercise to the same extent.
The degree of overlap between elements of RDP schemes means that substantial cross-checks are
required in order to make appropriate deductions to avoid dual funding. Aside from increasing the
need for administrative resources, this is thought to deter farmers from taking up a second scheme,
especially where the area involved (and hence the financial benefit) is small.
The recent investigation into the pan-European application of the Rural Development Regulation
(Europe’s Rural Futures: Rural Development in an Enlarging European Union) concluded that a key
element in the delivery of a quality rural development programme was sufficient investment in
capacity building and training. The CCW believes that this investment is not evident in Wales to the
extent that it could be and that delivery suffers as a result.
Many organisations believe that the operation of the RDP is more bureaucratic than it need be 7 .
PLANED comment that this is the result of the top down delivery through mainstream organisations,
whilst PTP Quality Training and the National Trust Wales believe that Farming Connect, as a gateway
to some RDP schemes, is too unwieldy as an entity. The National Trust Wales state that in their
opinion farmers have lost faith in Farming Connect because the Farm Business Development Plans
drawn up by consultants are not specific enough to the farms they are concerned with. These do
not often lead to a grant, which is the sole reason that many farmers apply to Farming Connect in
the first place. PTP Quality Training believe that the PLANED Whole Farm Support Scheme (the
pilot scheme from which Farming Connect was developed) was superior as a working tool for
farmers.
In the opinion of the CLA, this bureaucracy often leads to farmers wishing to carry out grant assisted
work carrying it out themselves, unaided, in order to avoid the restrictions imposed upon accepting a
grant. The CLA feel that this drives projects that farmers really believe will be worthwhile in the
long-term to be carried out unassisted and projects where the farmer is less sure to be grant-aided.
It should be mentioned that Farming Connect has been heavily criticised by many contacts
throughout this research. Farmers feel that the Farm Business Development Plans are not providing
enough value to their businesses because they are all too often generic. There have also been cases
of misleading advice brought to our attention. There is a perception that Farming Connect provides
more support for on-farm consultants than it does for the farmer, the intended beneficiary. This
follows early criticism of Farming Connect for the delays between farmer requests and consultant
visits, although we note that this problem was addressed when it came to light. The Farming Union
of Wales feels that Farming Connect is now more appreciated in the farming community as a result.
7
The CLA explain that this bureaucracy leads consultants to carry out Farming Connect business only when they have nothing else more
lucrative to do.
10

MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE RDP WALES
The Farming Union of Wales expressed the opinion that whilst Tir Gofal was popular amongst
farmers, the scheme tends to be restricted through the application approvals process to certain farm
types. Specifically, and this is a view shared by RSPB Cymru, it is felt that low numbers of dairy farms
qualify and where they do qualify they receive a relatively low share of the budget 8 . The
determination of support on the income forgone procedure was also criticised and the FUW believes
that an element of profit ought to be included in payments in order to make the schemes more
attractive to farmers. Despite the above, the FUW does believe that the RDP provides a range of
opportunities to farmers and their families and that this is due in part to the operation through a
range of schemes.
The NFU Cymru agrees that a range of schemes makes it more likely that farmers are able to find
relevant opportunities. However, the organisation sees a danger in spreading limited resources too
thinly.
The CLA explains that in their view many contractors will submit expensive quotes for work if they
realise that it is going to attract a grant. This has the effect of providing an incentive to farmers to
carry out work themselves, which prevents the benefits of some schemes from reaching the wider
rural economy.
A11.3.3. Administration of the RDP
Whilst the Farming Union of Wales believes there have been limited problems associated with most
of the schemes run under the RDP, it believes that this was inevitable. The close partnership
between farmer representatives, the Welsh Assembly Government, CCW, the Welsh Development
Agency, Forestry Commission, etc. has meant that these problems have been addressed and changes
made where necessary.
The NFU Cymru also recognises the role played by the close partnership, although adds that the lack
of clear boundaries of responsibility at the ‘grass roots level’ between the Welsh Assembly
Government and the Welsh Development Agency has caused problems for Farming Connect and
hence in the delivery of FIG and FEG.
The National Trust Wales comments that late payments have led to some loss of faith in RDP
schemes. It also adds that there is a perception that bureaucrats are safeguarding their own
positions through the RDP.
The general lack of comment on the administration of the RDP is likely to reflect general satisfaction
amongst responding organisations.
8
Analysis of data provided to the Welsh Assembly Government Agriculture and Rural Development Committee on the 7th November
2001, highlighted that during the third application round, ‘there was little discernible change in the type of eligible application with the vast
majority made up of sheep and beef units (89%) whilst the percentage of dairy farms continued to remain low (2.4%)’. In the opinion of
RSPB Cymru it is imperative that a balance is kept in the farm types accepted into the scheme in order to build long-term support amongst
the agricultural community.
11

MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE RDP WALES
A11.3.4. Financial balance
The NFU Cymru believe that allocation of resources should be demand-led, but should relate to the
direct and indirect benefits that flow as a result. A greater degree of knowledge of the wider impact
of the RDP is therefore required in order to consider the issue of resource allocation. This is a view
shared by the CCW, although they add that the current allocation of resources is very much a
reflection of the measures existing prior to the RDP.
The Farming Union of Wales recognises that the financial weight of the RDP falls on the Tir Mynydd
scheme and believes, as does RSPB Cymru, that this is a vital socio-economic payment. In this
organisation’s view these payments retain farmers in the uplands and as a result ensure that the more
isolated communities remain viable. Whilst they believe that the WAG should attempt to negotiate
a greater share of funding for the RDP, the FUW is content with the allocation of resources within
the Plan.
Given the relative absence of comments on this point it is understood that the majority of
organisations are content with the current allocation of funds within the RDP, at least based on
current knowledge concerning relative impact.
A11.3.5. Gaps in the RDP
A number of organisations identified what they perceived as gaps in the coverage provided by the
RDP. These are summarised below:
• The Farming Union of Wales believes that the RDP should incorporate measures to encourage
young farmers to remain in (and enter) the industry. An early retirement scheme, coupled with
young farmer installation aids would help to address the perceived imbalance in the age structure
within the industry. The organisation adds that it is known that younger farmers are more likely
to take advantage of RDP schemes and to embrace diversification and therefore encouraging
these farmers would be beneficial to the overall success of the RDP.
• The NFU Cymru believes that a gap in coverage exists in that all farmers are subject to
modulation, but not all are able to recover these funds through RDP schemes. The proposed
Entry Level agri-environment scheme may address this concern.
• The CCW and the Environment Agency both recognise the need to take greater account of
diffuse pollution and to assist the effective implementation of the Water Framework Directive.
To this end both organisations support a ‘broad and shallow’ Entry Level agri-environment
scheme 9 , as does RSPB Cymru.
• RSPB Cymru believes that some geographical targeting of Tir Gofal should be introduced in
order to achieve further gains in respect of species recovery, large scale habitat restoration,
management of common land and flood management.
9
The CCW adds that this should not compromise the OFS or Tir Gofal. RSPB Cymru believes that such a scheme would underpin Tir
Gofal and would provide impetus towards the WAG’s vision of an innovative agri-food industry that would also create a Welsh
countryside rich in biodiversity and wildlife.
12

MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE RDP WALES
• The CCW believes that the application of Article 16 could assist with the restoration of
vegetation on areas of upland previously modified by heavy grazing (although not over-grazed
according to the implied definition under the existing beef and sheep subsidy rules). The first
indent of Article 22 of the Rural Development Regulation could be used to support traditional
breeds and crop varieties. It is recognised that the first modification of the RDP in 2001
introduced support for Welsh Black cattle, but the CCW believes that there is scope to broaden
this approach still further. Additional use could also be made of Article 33 where currently only
5 of 13 sub-measures are used. The FMD outbreak demonstrated how reliant the recreation
and tourist industry is upon agriculture and the RDP does not currently address the wider
economy as well as it might.
• The National Trust Wales feels that the biggest gap in coverage is the fact that medium-sized,
family farms are less able to attract support then either the smallest or the largest holdings. This
is an issue that also concerned the CCW and hence the change in application scoring for Tir
Gofal applications. It is unclear from key organisation comments to what extent this remains a
problem with regard to Tir Gofal, or to what extent this is a problem for participation in other
RDP schemes.
• RSPB Cymru suggests that all RDP schemes should deliver baseline environmental standards.
The organisation also believes that the environmental enhancement element of Tir Mynydd
should be developed further to provide greater incentives to promote mixed farming practices.
A11.3.6. Interaction with other schemes/programmes
The Environment Agency and the CCW made clear the need to have a greater degree of integration
between the RDP and other policy initiatives, and this seems to be especially the case with regard to
the protection of water quality. RSPB Cymru, whilst recognising the progress to date in delivery of
the aspirations of the Farming for the Future document through the RDP, called for unspecified
improvements to increase effectiveness in meeting these aspirations. The CCW and NFU Cymru
add that the current funding arrangements whereby the EAGGF Guarantee and Guidance funds are
both used to fund rural development is an administrative problem. The EU Commission appear to
share this view and it is likely that the funding of rural development will be streamlined in the future.
The Farming Connect scheme (whilst not itself RDP funded) was cited by the National Trust Wales
and the CCW as being problematic, although for operational rather than philosophical reasons. It
should be added that comments provided to us direct from farmers are less certain of the benefit of
this approach, even assuming that it worked more effectively.
13