A summary of the RDP, setting out context, problems identified, proposed responses would significantly improve the subsequent reading of the plan. While the programme has quite detailed analysis, the flow from problem identification to proposed response on an overall basis and at Axis level is not as clear as it could be.
The draft RTDP provides considerable analysis at section 3.1 but the SWOT analysis and problem(s) identification following could be more comprehensive. Clearly identified problems under each axis should be identified so that the appropriateness of the measures as responses at axis level can be better evaluated.
Expenditure on some elements of the Farm Improvement Measure should be reviewed to ensure absence of deadweight.
The Farm Improvement Measure and the level of funding should be reassessed at the mid-term stage in the light of the level of uptake. The measure is likely to prove attractive given the emphasis on restructuring at farm level.
The actual expected impact of the ERS on competitiveness should be more fully justified.
Despite decoupling, CAs probably still work to support farming in the LFAs, thus helping to maintain the countryside. Some of the conditions for qualifying for the payment need to be reviewed. In cases where farmers reduce activity to minimal levels, the CA will probably not have a positive effect on countryside maintenance.
The overall objective of Axis 3 and how measures under it contribute to this objective should be more clearly elaborated.
Some issues not dealt with under the programme may need to be considered.
There is a need to further define indicators of outputs, results and impact for each of the measures proposed in the RDP. This will require a structured approach and co-ordination between the DAF and the implementing divisions.
Response to Ex-Ante Evaluation
The following address the main points:
While the evaluation raises issues on specific measures and aspects, it is noted that it endorses the overall approach of the programme and the allocation of funding between the three priorities. It should be noted that the evaluation covered some measures and related funded that will be pursued outside the remit of the programme. This is because they will be financed solely by the exchequer.
On the concern about low rates of forestry plantation, it needs to be borne in mind that forestry is a long-term project and that afforestation rates can fluctuate significantly from year to year. The mix of measure in this programme will assist competitiveness and environmental enhancement. They will be kept under review and, where necessary, changes will be proposed in the light of progress and available funding. The suggestion that any additional resources should focus on Axis 1 measures merits caution. There is a need for a balanced approach, bearing in mind the primary aim of achieving and maintaining a sustainable level of afforestation.
In relation to the Early Retirement Scheme the aim, of this scheme is to address the issues identified as impeding competitiveness (lack of commercial viability due to small farm size, low-level productivity due to poor age structure, low education level and lack of land mobility) through encouraging the transfer of land to younger, trained farmers or established farmers who wish to enlarge their holdings. An Expenditure Review conducted by the Department of Agriculture and Food in 2004 indicated that the scheme had value, as a restructuring measure, particularly in the more intensive farming areas of the south and east. Take-up of the current scheme was proportionately higher in those areas. However, take-up of the current scheme throughout the country was depressed by uncertainty about the details and outcome of decoupling, and by controversy over the level of pension.
Now that the farming situation has stabilised after decoupling, and a higher rate of pension is proposed for the period of the programme, take-up can be expected to increase again, though not to the levels of the 1994-1999 schemes, which attracted over 10,500 participants. Regional disparities in uptake have been recognised in the programme, with a lower size of holding required in less favoured areas (LFAs).
The suggestion that a summary of the programme should be provided has been noted. While the programme has been prepared in accordance with the prescribed template, the intention is to provide a summary once it is adopted. The national rural development strategy is also relevant as it provides an overview of the programme’s context and contents.
In line with the evaluators’ recommendation, the SWOT analysis and problem identification at Section 3.2 has been substantially extended. The analysis has been done on the basis of the three axes set out in the rural development regulation.
As with all measures, the on-farm investment measure – including the Farm Improvement Scheme – will be kept under review. As regards possible deadweight, this will be borne in mind, although the terms of the farm improvement scheme and its limited grant rates should guard against this.
The evaluators’ argument that Compensatory Allowances in less favoured areas may not have a positive effect on countryside maintenance when farm activity is reduced to a minimum level has been taken on board. The measure has been amended to provide for a minimum stocking density of 0.15 livestock unit per hectare.
The position regarding Axis 3 and its measures has been elaborated as part of the extended SWOT analysis provided at Section 3.2.
In line with the evaluators’ recommendation, the performance indicators for the axes and their measures have been further defined to the extent possible from current information. The managing authority will liase with the implementing divisions and other appropriate bodies to ensure the timely provision of indicator data as the programme progresses.
