« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
11 Conclusions
The purpose of this section is to indicate themes which have emerged throughout the analysis of responses, rather than to provide a synthesis of findings which has already been presented in the Summary (at the beginning of this report). Further, in stating these themes, the intention is not to imply consensus across or within them, since, as can be seen from the detailed responses, opinions do vary, sometimes strongly. Therefore, this final commentary is intended as indicative of five key emerging themes, with the indication that their further investigation is required within the context of implementing the SRDP.
Firstly, there is concern over the "labelling" of the SRDP and potential confusion this may cause. The SRDP is called a "Rural Development" Programme. Many respondents recognise that its focus largely upon the land-based sector is due to both its EURDR context and the legacy of agri-environment and LFA support. However, questions remain as to whether the wider rural development objectives outlined in Axis 3 can be achieved through "Land Management Contracts", thus raising the issue of appropriateness of the SRDP for achieving wider rural community objectives.
Secondly, there is disagreement over the degree to which the SRDP achieves its hoped-for balance between environmental, social, and economic objectives, and indeed between the three Axes of agricultural competitiveness, environmental enhancement, and thriving rural economies and communities. Critiques of the Consultation document, and proposals contained within it, variously point to an over/under representation of each of these three strands and Axes. It is therefore of paramount importance to understand these differing perspectives (as outlined in detail above) in order to assess the possibility for, and feasibility of, changes in emphasis.
Thirdly, the role of LEADER is felt to be poorly-defined, particularly in contrast with the evidently well thought through and detailed guidance associated with the LMCs. The mechanics, governance issues, degree of authority in local decisions, and the make-up of decision-making groups, all remain unclear. It is of concern to respondents that such elements have not been made more concrete, or been subject to the same degree of discussion through "scientific groups" or forums that have been integral to the development of the SRDP thus far. This is a particularly problematic issue, given the mainstreaming of the " LEADER approach" across all Axes, and it is felt that such detailed thinking must take place urgently.
Fourthly, although there is broad support for an "integrated approach" to rural development, respondents are concerned that the advisory input for delivering the broad-ranging intervention and support which the SRDP represents, will be a key challenge, and that it must be sufficiently recognised and resourced, particularly if a "single gateway" approach is to be implemented. In addressing the relevant questions posed in the Consultation, many respondents point to the need for accreditation of advisors, in order to maintain (and increase) quality of advisory input. Further, a number of respondents call for "capacity-building" of potential agreement-holders through being able to draw up their own plans rather than being 100% reliant on outside expertise. This is felt to increase confidence and ongoing commitment to planned activities over an extended period. It is also inherent to the LEADER approach. Thus, these two strands of accreditation and increased "user knowledge" need to be approached in tandem, and from an early stage, in order to ensure confidence in the SRDP.
Finally, the issue of funding is, of course, of key concern to respondents, both in terms of "rumours" of cuts in EU levels of support associated with EU expansion (current and future), and in relation to the balance of funding allocation at the Scottish level between the Tiers of LMCs and Axes of the RDR. In relation to the former, there is a concern that the SRDP is over-ambitious given the likely budgetary allocation and pre-existing commitments, and that this should be addressed in order to avoid disillusionment with the Programme. In terms of the latter, there are differing (and opposing) views concerning changes in voluntary modulation levels, from those who feel any increases will be to the detriment of a healthy agricultural sector, through to those who feel that rural communities will be disadvantaged due to an anticipated minimum level of voluntary modulation and thus poor levels of funding for Axis 3 and mainstreamed LEADER.
« Previous | Contents | Next »