Evaluation of the Countryside Productivity Small Grants and the Farming Equipment and Technology Fund

This final report evaluates two small capital grant schemes within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra): the Countryside Productivity Small Grants (CPSG) scheme, which operated from 2017 to 2020 as part of the Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE), and the Farming Equipment and Technology Fund (FETF), launched in late 2021 under the Farming Investment Fund (FIF). The evaluation covers both the outcomes of the CPSG during its operational period (2018-2020) and the early implementation phase of FETF (2021-2023), with claims under the latter being processed through early 2023.

The focus of the evaluation of CPSG was on outcomes and impacts achieved, performance against the original objectives, and value for money. The emphasis for FETF was on process evaluation and early outcomes, recognising that this scheme has just started. For both schemes, the evaluation has assessed additionality and the contribution of grants to the changes observed and explored factors that have helped or hindered progress.

The evaluation adopted a theory-based approach, using logic models and theories of change to assess the schemes' design, delivery processes and outcomes. The methodology employed a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative evidence from diverse sources. These included surveys with beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, in-depth case studies and stakeholder consultations.

The evaluation faced several limitations, including data gaps due to the early timing of the assessment, particularly for the FETF, where many outcomes could not yet be fully measured. Methodological challenges, such as attribution bias and low uptake in some areas, further affected the validity of findings.

The findings of the evaluation of the CPSG and FETF schemes highlighted several outcomes. For CPSG, the scheme was found to have successfully achieved its main objectives. Over 70% of farmers accelerated or scaled up the adoption of new technologies as a result of the grant, while 20% indicated that they would not have purchased the equipment without the grant's support.

The main reported benefits included increased efficiency, improved yields and enhanced animal welfare, which translated into lower costs, increased profitability and greater farm resilience. The most common cost reduction was labour costs, followed by fuel, animal feed, fertilisers or pesticides, electricity and veterinary or medical costs. Half of those observing cost savings were unable to quantify this, but for those who could, the majority said that cumulative cost savings to date were in the order of £1,000-10,000 (70%, 40/57). The picture was similar for those who had avoided costs. Furthermore, just over two-fifths felt that the equipment had helped alleviate challenges faced during 2022 in relation to supply chain issues and rising costs of inputs (44%, 178/408). However, environmental benefits were less frequently reported, reflecting the scheme’s primary focus on productivity.

In terms of wider impact, the net economic and environmental impact of CPSG to date was estimated at £50m, increasing to £147m when future anticipated impacts were included. In other words, if we include future anticipated benefits to 2032, the scheme will have generated £147m in benefits that would not have been achieved in the absence of the intervention. Financial benefits generated through improved farm performance contribute £110m to this figure, and the remaining £37m comes from the monetisation of GHG emissions abated.

Overall, the assessment is that CPSG will deliver a medium level of value for money. When comparing the net impacts above (achieved to date and anticipated in future) to net costs (both public and private), the scheme will generate a benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of 1.91. This means for every pound of investment, the scheme generates £1.91 in value that would not have happened otherwise. Sensitivity testing using more pessimistic assumptions still generates a medium BCR.

For FETF, the evaluation found that although it was too early to assess all outcomes fully, initial evidence pointed to improvements in technical and resource efficiency, which has resulted in cost reductions. Beneficiaries of FETF also reported reductions in GHG emissions, aligning with the scheme’s greater emphasis on objectives relating to the environment. Many farmers reported early benefits in cost savings, and the majority anticipated future gains in productivity and profitability. The grant was also instrumental in encouraging broader adoption of innovative farming practices and promoting further investments in productive equipment.

Both schemes demonstrated a high level of additionality, meaning that the grants accelerated investments or enabled purchases that would not have occurred otherwise. The evaluation also found that CPSG and FETF played a critical role in changing beneficiaries' attitudes toward adopting new farming practices, fostering a wider culture of innovation and knowledge sharing within the farming community.