Impact evaluation of the Rural Development Programme on the competitiveness of agricultural holdings

• Measures 3.1 and 3.2, which support participation in quality schemes and information/promotion of products covered by these schemes.
• Measure 4.1.1, which supports investments.
• Measures 4.2.1 and 4.2.2, which support investment in developing on-farm processing and processing/marketing in small-scale agri-food businesses.
• Measure 6.1.1, which supports the setting-up and takeover of farms.

The evaluation takes stock of the implementation of these measures and their impact on the competitiveness of farms in Normandy's agricultural sector. It examines the economic, social and environmental effects, as well as their contribution to innovation. This in-depth study was also used to draw up recommendations for improving the impact of these measures in the next programming period.

The effects on other cross-cutting issues are also considered, such as generational renewal, employment, farm resilience to climate hazards and the path towards the green transition.

Finally, this evaluation looked at the coherence with other objectives of the Normandy RDP, such as innovation, agroecological transition, animal welfare and employment.

The evaluation mostly relied on a thorough analysis of implementation data to assess the uptake of the RDP measures by farm types.

The assessment of the effects of RDP measures on the viability of agricultural holdings and the competitiveness of all types of agriculture in the Normandy region during the 2014-2022 programming period was mostly qualitative. It collected data through in-depth interviews with institutions involved in implementing the RDP measures and stakeholders in the agricultural sector. Thirty-one in-depth interviews were also carried out with beneficiaries of the schemes from the whole region and the main beneficiary sectors. The information gathered during these interviews was useful for an in-depth understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the schemes.

The evaluation is also based on a literature review, an online survey of beneficiaries and a participatory workshop with farmers. A total of 1 788 farmers benefiting from the schemes were asked to participate in the survey. Of these, 229 responded, resulting in a turnout of around 13%.

The online surveys provided accurate information on the investments made under the RDP measures. However, the representativeness of the results obtained must be considered with caution.

The evaluation concludes that farmers, particularly dairy and beef farmers, appreciated the RDP measures and that they met their needs by facilitating investments required to carry out projects. However, the highly selective process of farmer applications favoured ambitious projects and left out less efficient farms with lower investment capacity that cannot carry out large-scale projects. The evaluation recommended introducing selection criteria based on surface area and/or economic size to encourage their selection.

The start-up support was also appreciated, particularly by new young farmers with no family in the agricultural sector. The interviewed farmer representatives praised the scheme's relevance, which reinforced the viability of the supported farms.

Greater consideration could have been given to the environmental performance of projects. The RDP measures favoured farmers already involved in a green transition process, sometimes to the detriment of those struggling to get started. One solution could be to introduce specific unit amounts favouring environmental projects rather than selection criteria to allow ‘conventional’ farmers to join the scheme and provide a strong incentive for environmental projects via a higher rate of funding.