On this page:

Analysis of Responses to the Rural Development Programme for Scotland 2007 - 2013 Consultation

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

4 Structure of Analysis Report

4.1 Questions and Sections of SRDP Consultation Document

The structure of this report follows that of the SRDP Consultation document itself, in order to facilitate easier digestion and use of the material. The following table illustrates the sub-sections of the SRDP consultation document and their associated questions. These provide the headings and sub-headings used within this report:

Table 4.1. Sub-sections of the SRDP Consultation document and associated Questions.

SRDP Part

Sub-section

Question(s) 1

1: Purpose /Introduction

N/A

No questions

2: Content of SRDP 2007-2013

Less Favoured Area Support Scheme ( LFASS)

1

Do you agree with the "historic payments" system proposed for LFAs?

2

Do you agree with the suggested approach for ensuring that payments are only made in respect of land that is being actively farmed?

3

Do you agree with the proposals to give greater weight to "very fragile areas" and to increase the minimum payment?

Land Management Contracts (including Forestry)

4

Do you agree with the national objectives identified in Annex C?

5

Do you agree with the proposed integration of schemes into LMCs?

6

Are the proposed lists of Tier 2 and Tier 3 measures in Annexes D & E suitable for the delivery of LMC objectives on: (i) economic issues; (ii) social issues; (iii) environmental issues?

7

Is there an appropriate balance between the proposed economic, social and environmental measures for LMCs?

8

Do the proposed measures encourage an integrated approach compatible with sustainable development?

9

Should there be a mechanism for ensuring that land manager adopt a spread of measures from Tier 2?

10

Do you agree with the list of capital items as proposed in Annex G?

LEADER

11

Should the LEADER mechanism be used to deliver across all the Axes?

12

How can LMCs and LEADER be administered to deliver mutually supportive approaches to rural development?

Rural Development Frameworks

13

Do you agree with the proposed Rural Development Framework approach?

3: Implementation of the SRDP 2007-2013

A regional perspective

14

Do you think that the proposed RPAC approach would be an effective means of delivering regional and local priorities while meeting national objectives?

15

Would RPACs be an appropriate approach for applications under all of the Axes?

16

Which interests do you think should be represented on the RPACs?

17

Do you agree with the proposed system of guidance on regional and local priorities to enable greater targeting in the SRDP?

18a

Do you agree with the range of topics that the guidance will cover?

18b

Should the guidance adopt the same approach across all three Axes?

Advisory network

19

What mechanisms could be put in place to ensure that the advice provided is of a high standard that will help achieve the policy outcomes expected?

Applications

No questions

Finance

No questions

Co-ordination with other funding streams

20

What areas of activity should the SRDP support in order to ensure that it complements activities supported through the funding streams?

Monitoring and evaluation

No questions

Publicity

No questions

Equality and discrimination

21

Do you have a view as to the potential impact of this programme on equality groups, such as those relating to gender, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, age and faith or belief?

Although this structure is predominantly used within the Analysis, two sections are reported using a different approach:

(i) the section where respondents could add "General Comments" (Section 7); and

(ii) additional comments from the SEERAD-sponsored public consultation meetings held around Scotland (Section 8).

In both of these instances, the data are reported "thematically" - that is, the themes emerging from respondents' comments are presented, but not necessarily in relation to the specific SRDP questions 1 to 21.

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Page updated: Monday, October 9, 2006