Scottish Government

10 Responses from SEERAD-sponsored Public Meetings

10.1 Introduction

A series of nine public meetings was held around Scotland, as part of the Consultation process. The comments, questions, and SEERAD responses were recorded and synthesised at each meeting. The comments reported in this sub-section comprise those which are in addition to those raised in response to Questions 1 to 21. That is, this sub-section is not intended as an exhaustive overview of the meetings; rather it comprises a summary of responses and issues that are not covered elsewhere in the analysis document. Coding for participants' comments is summarised in the following table:

Table 10.1. Coding for participants

10.2 Summary of findings specific to the meetings

10.2.1 Timing, certainty and funding levels

Some participants in the Consultation meetings were concerned about the timing of the introduction of the SRDP, and also whether there are plans in place should the timetable originally envisaged not be achievable. The SEERAD response was as follows:

• The EU has to review 88 separate programmes. The SRDP proposals will be submitted late summer 2006 and should be considered within six months. It will therefore be 2007 before we receive any indication of the outcome, and this timetable is likely to slip given the amount of programmes to be agreed. Contingency plans are being drawn up to cope with delays (KK01)
• SEERAD hopes to submit a final document for approval in October/November 2006 but it may take a further six months to gain EU approval. Contingency plans are being discussed e.g. to roll forward existing ESA, RSS approvals by a further year (T01)

Similar concerns about the future were raised in relation to the degree of certainty which could expected from LFASS, particularly after 2010. The SEERAD response was:

• Once the funding packages have been agreed, they cannot be easily moved. This should provide re-assurance that funding put in place at the start of the Programme will continue throughout te 2007-2013 period. The financial tables agreed with Brussels will set out indicative funding by measure, although it will be possible to move small amounts about. It should be remembered that there will be a review of LFASS for the period after 2010 (T01).

Participants wished to clarify spending details, both as ongoing under the existing schemes, within the new SRDP, and specifically for administration:

• Q: What is the spend in the current programming period on different Axes? (C02):
• A: We currently spend over 90 % on Axis 2 type measures (C01)
• Q: How much of the funding available will be taken up by commitments from current schemes rolling over into the next programme? (C03):
• A: We can continue to spend on current commitments out of the existing 2000 - 2006 programme for a number of years (C01)
• Q: There is a lack of discussion about finance - how much goes on administration? (TH04):
• A: Not a penny of EU or National programme money is spent on administration. The administrative costs are all covered from Departmental running costs. We are, however, keen to reduce complexity wherever we can and simplify where possible (e.g. through the On the Ground project) (TH01).

10.2.2 Exclusion or inclusion of sectors and activities

In a number of meetings, dairy farmers expressed concern over their exclusion from LFASS. The following example is illustrative of a question-and-answer exchange:

• Q: As a farmer with 90 dairy cows, the farm is more economically active than neighbouring farms with beef cattle and sheep and yet it is not covered in the LFASS scheme. The farm actively contributes towards other farm interests (economic activity from the land is often higher through a dairy farm) but the inability to access additional support leaves the farm uncompetitive when it comes to bidding for grass lets. The farm experiences the same geographic and climatic disadvantages as neighbouring farms - so why is no support provided? (A04).
• A: The NFUS is arguing that case. It would cost approximately £4 million to introduce the change - without new money, this reduces payments for others (A02).

Participants were also unsure as to whether farmers' co-operatives would be eligible for SRDP funds:

• Q: Will farmers' co-operatives have direct access to funds or would each individual member have to make a separate application? (KK02).
• A: Possible group applications will be allowed (KK01).

Specific examples of confusion were also raised by participants at the meetings, including: (i) biomass projects; (ii) (additional) planning permission for diversification (answers given below); (iii) the need for an IACS number to ensure eligibility for SRDP funds; and (iv) whether there will be a deadline for Tier 3 applications:

• Q: What is the best route to get something like a biomass project funded? What would be the ceiling for something like that? Surely we should have a higher grant ceiling for innovative projects? The 5 year commitment is too inflexible for LMCs. (KE2)
• A: It would probably be funded under Tier 3 of LMCs. European rules can make funding arrangements difficult (KE1)
• A: Planning law applies for diversification. New guidelines have been produced for Local Authorities. These explain the situation with regard to the encouragement of rural diversification (A01)
• A:SPB 15 takes into account matters on rural diversification (A02)
• A: Planning permission has not changed: it depends on the nature of the project (A03)
• Q: What I if don't have an IACS number, how can I apply? (P02)
• A:SEERAD can assign a Business Reference Number (P01)
• Q: Will there be a deadline for Tier 3 of LMCs similar to the current situation with RSS? (CO3)
• A: This has not been decided yet; we are currently proposing to have continuous applications with a number of cut off points throughout the year. We want to hear your views (C01)

10.2.3 The feasibility of local-level delivery and decision-making within the SRDP

Firstly, respondents were interested in the "On the Ground" initiative outlined at the meetings. Secondly, there are concerns over whether regionalising the SRDP is appropriate when local-level decision-making forums already exist and can be seen to be working. Thirdly, there is some concern over the capacity of the LEADER approach to deliver across all Axes across Scotland:

• Q: On the Ground project and resources for advisory project - how will it contribute to confidence and avoid uncertainty? (TH02)
• A: On the Ground is wider than just the SRDP - it's about making best use of our resources. In terms of advice, it's a big task. Advice may have to come from many bodies and it's important that advisors are fully trained to cope with that. We have someone working on it at the moment but there isn't any more on the project in the consultation (TH01)
• Q: Why plan at regional level when we have LAGs and CPPs? (TH03)
• A:RPACs are a hypothetical structure - if we'd said CPPs, someone would have said 'why not LAGs?' - We need to think about the best way to facilitate the process. There's no point in duplicating existing structures (TH01)

10.2.4 SRDP monitoring and further opportunities for input

Respondents raised concerns over how achievements of the SRDP will be recognised and measured:

• Q: We question what defines a prosperous rural community. What are the aspirations, the visions, the desired outcomes, and the measures required to meet the objectives? Is there flexibility to amend the programme if it is not delivering? (KK03)
• A: Outcomes are not fully documented yet and indicators need to be identified to measure progress within the UK as a whole, and Scotland. We are looking at much wider indicators to measure success in the whole rural community. Flexibility is built in which will allow the programme to develop and change as necessary (KK01)

Respondents also wished to be made aware of whether further opportunities for consultation exist within the SRDP:

• Q: We are concerned that the consultation period ends before many important facts are known. Will there be any further consultation after these facts emerge? (KK04)
• A: Representations can continue to be made through the Stakeholders Group (KK01)