Skip to navigation Skip to content

Development of indicators of the impact of SRDP measures

Research Funding Body

Scottish Government

Project Objectives

To develop post-hoc evidence based impact indicator for relevant agri-environmental payments funded with the SRDP fund program 2006-2013, to assess whether these payments are well designed. The general indicator of water quality has traditionally been the Gross Nutrient Budget, but there are problems associated with it and there is a need to develop alternative indicators. This project proposes alterative indicators of the impact of SRDP measures.

Why relevant to improve implementation and uptake of water quality measures

As part of the alternative indicators of impact of SRPD measures "an index of the level of implementation of the measures identified by the Rural Priorities Schemes as relevant to diffuse pollution mitigation" is proposed. This includes, among others: 1) how much money has been spent for each of the schemes? 2) what are the areas affected by the schemes (e.g. riparian or not?) and 3) what measures have been undertaken under the 2006-2013 scheme?. Since schemes are adopted voluntarily by land managers, these can be taken as indicators of level of uptake by land managers. This can be used as basis for research on why land managers have opted for uptaking those specific measures and why others have been less successful.

Method

The project analyses measures two types of measures: those that will always deliver the outcome and those that will contribute to delivering the outcome under specific circumstances. The measures were analysed in 17 categories, grouped in measures that are likely to generate similar impact indicator of Phosphorous loading. Information on expenditure and uptake of measure were collected from the Scottish Government Rural Priorities Stats website (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/farmingrural/SRDP/RuralPriorities/Rura...) and combined with cost and P loading information from several literature and technical reports sources.

Key Results

Measures ranked by expenditure, 2008-2011, and number of schemes adopted (in brackets)
A) Options that will always deliver desired outcome

  • Manure/slurry storage: 29,5 m £ (450)
  • Manure/slurry treatment: 193K£ (8)
  • Arable reversion to grassland: 655K£ (24)
  • Treat run-off of nutrients+ other pollutants, farm wetlands: 76K (5)
  • Nutrient management plan, reducing bacterial contamination in water: 10K£ (43)
  • Treat run-off nutrients and other pollutants, biobeds: 0£ (0)

B) Options that will help to achieve desired outcome in specific circumstances

  • Woodland: 86 m £ (1,220)
  • Low input grass: 17m£ (2,580)
  • Water margins: 9.5m£ (1,935)
  • Organic farming: 7,8m£ (402)
  • Moor and peatland management: 4.5m£ (433)
  • Wetlands: 4m£(1,261)
  • Field margins: 3.8m£ (832)
  • Lowland heath: 1.7m£ (157)
  • Lowland bog and fen: 1.5m£ (71)
  • Floodplains: 412k£ (119)
  • Biodiversity cropping on ln-bye land: 13.7k£ (7)
  • Tracks, gates, crossings: 88.5k£ (14)
  • Soil and water management: 7.3k£ (27)

Conclusions: There is significant adoption (between 1,000 and 2,500 schemes) of wetlands, woodlands, water margins and low input grassland. The largest expenditures have been for woodland, manure storage and low input grasslands. There is being no adoption of treatment of run-off of nutrients and other pollutants and biobeds. Manure/slurry storage: 29,5 m £ (450)

  • Manure/slurry treatment: 193K£ (8)
  • Arable reversion to grassland: 655K£ (24)
  • Treat run-off of nutrients+ other pollutants, farm wetlands: 76K (5)
  • Nutrient management plan, reducing bacterial contamination in water: 10K£ (43)
  • Treat run-off nutrients and other pollutants, biobeds: 0£ (0)

B) Options that will help to achieve desired outcome in specific circumstances

  • Woodland: 86 m £ (1,220)
  • Low input grass: 17m£ (2,580)
  • Water margins: 9.5m£ (1,935)
  • Organic farming: 7,8m£ (402)
  • Moor and peatland management: 4.5m£ (433)
  • Wetlands: 4m£(1,261)
  • Field margins: 3.8m£ (832)
  • Lowland heath: 1.7m£ (157)
  • Lowland bog and fen: 1.5m£ (71)
  • Floodplains: 412k£ (119)
  • Biodiversity cropping on ln-bye land: 13.7k£ (7)
  • Tracks, gates, crossings: 88.5k£ (14)
  • Soil and water management: 7.3k£ (27)

Conclusions: There is significant adoption (between 1,000 and 2,500 schemes) of wetlands, woodlands, water margins and low input grassland. The largest expenditures have been for woodland, manure storage and low input grasslands. There is being no adoption of treatment of run-off of nutrients and other pollutants and biobeds.

Year

2012/2013

Contact Person

Andy Vinten (andy.vinten@hutton.ac.uk

Project Information
Project Type: 
Active Project

Research

Areas of Interest


Printed from /research/projects/development-indicators-impact-srdp-measures on 12/11/19 05:23:05 AM

The James Hutton Research Institute is the result of the merger in April 2011 of MLURI and SCRI. This merger formed a new powerhouse for research into food, land use, and climate change.