The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

DRAFT RURAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATION
ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION

CHAPTER 6 - RESPONSES TO AXIS 111, DIVERSIFICATION (articles 49-59)

The proposals did not significantly expand the scope of "wider rural" spending, although spending in the current SRDP did not include non-accompanying measures.. Some measures are farming linked in the same way as a number of measures in the current Rural Development Regulation, although a new measure to support micro enterprises was included.

The Commission proposed that the preferred implementation method for Axis 111 was to be through local development strategies targeting sub-regional entities, either developed in close collaboration between national, regional and local authorities or designed and implemented through a bottom up development using the LEADER approach.

The draft regulation suggested that the list of measures for support to the broader rural economy should be defined on the basis on the experience of the LEADER initiative and have regard to multi-sectoral needs. It also set out the need to define clearly how this policy fits with other Community financial instruments, particularly those of Cohesion Policy. The measures proposed under Axis 111 were;

As with Axes 1 and 11 the following questions were posed ;

• Is the approach and allocation of measures to strategic axes relevant and appropriate?

• Are the proposals for redefining LFAs appropriate?

• What parameters should we consider for a future LFA Support Scheme?

• Does the proposed scope of forestry measures and the increased integration with measures to support agriculture and rural development meet the needs of Scotland's forestry sector?

In general there was support for the measures proposed under this axis but there was some doubt expressed about the ability to deliver. As Aberdeenshire Council put it, "success of what can actually be delivered will depend significantly on the level of support given to the axis." SCVO was adamant that failure to include these measures, as happened with the current SRDP, must not be repeated on the pretext that the available budget would not permit such spending. While welcoming the broadening of support to address wider rural development measures, the Crofters Commission questioned whether they are best supported through the limited funds available through EAFRD. Scottish Natural Heritage expressed the view that demand for these measures could be offset by setting a minimum level of expenditure in Axis 2 at 50%, as proposed by Defra. They also wanted to see payments time limited, as with Axis 1. NFUS were strongly against a minimum spend on the axis, arguing that it would remove much of the flexibility associated with the current RDR, but SCVO were in favour, rejecting the argument that it would impose unacceptable limits on flexibility.

The Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society argued, as with Axis 1, that co-operatives had a major role to play in helping deliver sustainable rural development, and both COSLA and Argyll and Bute Council felt that it was important that innovation was factored into the new SRDP. Argyll and Bute also argued that it was fundamental that local authorities, along with Community Planning, were at the centre of the delivery of Axis 111. COSLA and Midlothian Council were of the opinion that the inclusion of forestry measures was important from an economic, environmental and social perspective.

The British Horse Society felt that spending in the countryside should be wider than farming and forestry and argued that the community aspect of measures was important as locally generated schemes were key to improving rural life in an area. The Council for Scottish Archaeology welcomed the commitment to conserve and enhance rural heritage, but suggested some drafting changes to reflect cultural heritage/historic environmental concerns, while the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors wanted a definition of what constituted a "sub-regional entity" before giving an opinion. They also felt unable to comment on the scope of forestry measures as they felt there was too little information.

Diversify the Rural Economy

Comments on individual measures, starting with diversifying the rural economy, came in the main from the same 3 organisations; Aberdeenshire Council, Scottish Natural Heritage and Scottish Rural Property and Business Association. SNH was concerned that Article 50 (diversification into non-agricultural activities) could exclude diversification from other traditional land use, such as forestry, and was inconsistent with the general aim of the proposals and should therefore be modified. The restriction of support to micro-enterprises under Article 51 caused a divergence of views, with Scottish Estates Business Group and Aberdeenshire Council warmly welcoming the proposal and Highland Perthshire Communities taking the view that support should be for all small businesses. SNH welcomed the tourism initiatives, but felt they should refer to "sustainable" tourism. They suggested some drafting changes. While the Crofters' Commission welcomed all the measures in this section, National Farmers Union Scotland had a concern that Article 52, in relation to Natura 200, had the potential to absorb a significant proportion of the funds. While recognising the benefits offered, they felt it should not be at the expense of funding measures to achieve social and economic objectives.

Improve the Quality of Life in Rural Areas

SRPBA felt that these measures would clearly complement key articles in Axis 11, enabling a degree of added value. SNH also welcomed the proposals, but would like to see a reference to landscape. Highland Council believed they could assist in the provision of affordable housing and local transport initiatives, essential to improving quality of life. Aberdeenshire Council added a note of caution in that the measures would have potential for high capital expenditure, and could deplete funds. A clear definition would be needed as to eligibility criteria.

Vocational Training, Skills Acquisition and Animation

There was general support for these measures, a typical comment (from Aberdeenshire Council) being that they "have potential to assist in the capacity building process so necessary for rural development, social inclusion and equality.

Implementation of the Priority Axis

Both Scottish Borders Council and the South of Scotland Alliance welcomed the wider approach together with the proposed implementation through LEADER. SRPBA was somewhat indifferent to the proposals, although acknowledging they would tie in well with the rhetoric of the Commission and the stated intention of resolving local problems through subsidiarity. SNH was supported the intention to leave demarcation between EAFRD, SF and EFF up to Member States.

« Previous | Contents | Next »