Delivering Rural Development Post 2006: Developing New Approaches
Birnam Institute
Wednesday 31st August 2005
Workshop Report
INTRODUCTION
This event was organised on behalf of the Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department (Farm Business Restructuring Division) and the Enterprise Training and Lifelong Learning Departments Structural Funds team and was funded by the Scottish Executive and the Scottish LEADER+ Programme. It represents the third in a series of events considering the future of rural development in Scotland under the new support arrangements in 2007.
The first event, The Airth Summit, concentrated on informing rural partnerships and LEADER LAGs about the anticipated changes and on identifying some of the key concerns and needs which rural communities and businesses face. The first Birnam event concentrated on LEADER LAGs and developing the key messages in relation to the Programme which LAGs consider to be of critical importance for the Scottish Executive in the future mainstreaming of LEADER.
This third event again focused on LEADER and involved members of the PMC, other relevant agencies, Local Action Group coordinators and other LAG members to discuss relevant rural development issues and priorities. In particular the Executive wishes to investigate how LEADER can best inform and contribute to a wider, more complementary and more integrated approach to rural development than at present. The event was therefore designed to develop this theme and produce informed responses in relation to their key questions. The agenda thus progressed from previous events being specifically related to the possible approaches for the delivery of rural development post 2006 and the potential role of a mainstreamed and wider LEADER or similar partnership approach within the SRDP.
Following an update on progress with the SRDP, presentations concentrated on potential models for wider implementation of the LEADER model. As the plan development process progresses, the information needs become more specific, requiring greater definition and clear justification of the benefits of a LEADER approach and the strengths, weaknesses and potentials of the approach. This event was designed to respond to the need and opportunity to demonstrate LEADER's wider relevance in terms of what it can actually do for rural Scotland. Within this the workshops therefore focused on addressing key questions identified by SEERAD as emerging from the consultation process to date.
As with the previous events the findings have been recorded and reported back to the Scottish Executive. In this case, the outputs constitute a formal element of the ongoing programme of stakeholder consultation which SEERAD is undertaking in relation to the development of the 2007 SRDP. In addition to this LAGs were encouraged to consult further locally and feed back their findings to the SRDP plan team.
PURPOSE
The purpose of the Workshop was fourfold;
- to raise the level of awareness amongst LAG staffs, LAG members and PMC members of the progress with the SRDP;
- to raise awareness of the potential to contribute more widely to the consultation process and to encourage LAGs to consult locally with the range of partners and communities;
- to raise the level of awareness of the potential for wider application of the LEADER approach and provide examples of how this might be undertaken; and
- to respond to SEERAD's questions considering the practical implementation issues which arise from this and the implications for the Scottish Executive and their partners, regional and sectoral organisations, LAGs and rural communities and to communicate these to the SRDP plan team.
ATTENDANCE
A dedicated effort was made to secure wider attendance from within LAG memberships than at previous events. A total of 84 delegates were invited resulting in a highly creditable attendance of 73 individuals. All 13 Scottish LAGs were represented with at least two representatives from each and many more in some cases. The PMC was strongly represented and there was representation from key strategic partner organisations.
The event was chaired by Jim Millard of the Scottish Executive who is the convenor of the Scottish LEADER + Programme Monitoring Committee.
PRESENTATIONS
Following an introduction by the chair setting out the scope of the day and the programme a total of four presentations were made to delegates. These were:
- The SEERAD position, the RDR process and progress; the consultation process and means of improving the focus by Iain Matheson, SEERAD FBRD;
- Finland : A regionally integrated approach, the key elements, considerations and challenges of the Finnish approach to rural development by Kari Kylkilahti of Pirkanmaaseutu RY, the Tampere Rural Research & Development Network;
- The rural development potential of Community Planning, a reflection on the experience, relevance and potential of Community Planning and the potential links to the LEADER approach by Gordon Todd, Economic Development Manager; South Lanarkshire Council; and
- A short briefing on approaches and tools for undertaking local consultations by John Grieve of the Rural Development Company.
Copies of the PowerPoint presentations have been forwarded to all delegates and are available from the event organisers by request.
WORKSHOPS
In developing the SRDP consideration is now moving towards greater definition of the role LEADER and local partnerships can play in its delivery and the wider contribution these can make e.g. thorough complementary approaches. As the plan development process progresses the information needs become more specific requiring greater definition and clear justification of the benefits of a LEADER approach and the strengths, weaknesses and potentials of the approach. The design of the workshops sought therefore to move the discussion on beyond consideration of the principles, towards more practical considerations and to demonstrate LEADER's wider relevance to rural Scotland. SEERAD posed a range of questions which had emerged from the work to date, the two previous events and from their own discussions with individual LAGs.
Structure
The four workshop themes were:
- Workshop 1: Identifying key LAG considerations in developing or contributing to a wider portfolio of rural development activity.
Facilitator - Jane Fowler: European Manager, Argyll & Bute Council.
- Workshop 2: Developing local delivery models and capacity. Broadening the geographical base, widening partnerships. What are the challenges and needs?
Facilitator - Iain Matheson: SEERAD
- Workshop 3: Contributing to the Strategy, strengthening local to national links, identifying the strategic priorities for LEADER and for rural Scotland.
Facilitator - Sandra Hogg: SCVO
- Workshop 4: Delivering added value and public goods.
Facilitator - Frank Gaskell: HIE The task for each of the workshops was to achieve the following in relation to their theme;
- Identify at least three strengths which LEADER offers in relation to the theme from the perspective of the full range of stakeholders.
- Identify at least three weaknesses which need to be addressed to optimise the contribution the LEADER approach offers in relation to the theme from the perspective of the full range of stakeholders;
- Identify at least three key benefits or potentials which the LEADER approach offers to wider rural development and the delivery of the RDR in rural Scotland.
Workshop facilitators were provided with an extensive range of prompts drawn from the earlier work.
The outputs from each of the workshops were recorded on flip charts by the facilitator and scribe, these outputs are presented below.
Workshop 1 :
Identifying key LAG considerations in developing or contributing to a wider portfolio of rural development activity.
Strengths
The group identified three aspects of LEADER which they felt represented particular strengths, the discussion then identified further more specific factors in relation to each of these.
- The Bottom Up approach in terms of:
a. Engaging with community
b. Flexibility between areas
c. Local ownership
d. Local priority based
e. Means of explaining strengths - clarity re how support delivered
f. No more resource intensive overall
g. No need to keep reinventing model
h. Saves money overall
but
i. Requires policies in place to provide direction
- The dedicated Project Officer who contributes in the following areas:
a. Through someone working at community level
b. The ability to be linked with everyone in rural area
c. Providing information on funding
d. Development of projects
e. Maximising the utilisation of resources
f. Keeping people focussed once funding is allocated
g. A resource of practical experience
- The local Partnership in terms of;
a. Attracting other areas with interest in prospect
b. Delivering against shared agendas/ priorities
Weaknesses
The following weaknesses were identified in relation to developing the wider approach and role.
a. The LAG seen as a public sector entity operating a public sector strategy
- There is a lack of resources, particularly in relation to
a. Distance/ resource issues/ implications
b. Capacity building
- There is fatigue in the voluntary sector
a. This is influenced by restrictions in resources
- There is a lack of a wider national policy framework
- Administrative bureaucracy represents a burden on applicants
a. The LAG has the main input here
Potentials
LAGs were seen to have the following potentials to develop or implement wider approaches.
- The development of policies (policy vacuum at present)
a. Current policies are not specific enough, LAGs can inform
b. This will allow national policies to tie with local priorities
- The focusing, prioritisation and targeting of money; as
a. Policy formulation is on-going
b. This is easier to do at the local level
- Acting as an ideas factory
a. Through development of knowledge at local level
b. Once opposition to modulation is overcome and the benefits can be seen and proposed
c. Generating cross sectoral benefits
Workshop 2:
Developing local delivery models and capacity.
Strengths
This group identified four areas where LEADER was felt to offer particular strengths as a local delivery model; in each case they provided further interpretation or justification of the identified strength.
- Engagement with local communities
a. Helping deliver
b. Involvement in process
- Risk taking and innovation
- Enhanced through flexibility
- Broad partnership which is agency neutral
- Approach capable of being advanced
- The 6 year timescales
- Those experienced LAGs with a breadth of knowledge
- Very good joint working through:
a. Use of local knowledge
b. Partner engagement
Weaknesses
The following weaknesses of the LEADER model were identified in relation to its role as a model for the delivery of wider rural development.
- Bureaucracy and its interpretation
- Including match funding
- Complicated boundary issues
a. Several LA's etc
b. Need to be cautious about scale
- Lack of recognition/awareness of LEADER+
Potentials
The LEADER model was seen to offer the strongest potential contribution to local delivery of rural development support in the following areas.
- Coming together of wider interest e.g. land managers, farmers and communities
- Leave to LAGs to decide on geographic spread
- greater local decision making
- recognise need for capacity support for groups
- LAGs could take on additional programmes/ schemes eg ABDS
- working together to achieve 'one stop shop'
- use targeted approaches not just challenge type funding ( LAGs and projects)
Workshop 3:
Contributing to the Strategy, identifying the strategic priorities.
Given the focus of this topic the outputs differ slightly from the other three workshop sessions and consequently are presented in a different way. In identifying strategic priorities the group firstly discussed the wider range of issues before focusing on the relevant strengths, weaknesses and potentials in relation to LEADER. Finally the group focused on identifying the key priorities emerging from this consideration for the 2007 SRDP.
Wider Priorities and Issues Identified
The following more general points were identified by the group as areas or issues of priority for rural Scotland. These have been loosely grouped for ease of interpretation.
- The perennial question of what is rural?- there is a need for dedicated rural policy measures
- Policies should be rural-proofed
- Focus on Sustainability
- The high importance of quality of life
- Managing expectations
- Maintaining a population who are economically active
- Ensuring that demographics are balanced
- Housing
- Community capacity building
- Broadband for all
- Transport
- Mobility and transport
- Creating and sustaining rural jobs and rural community groups
- Achieving adequate income levels
- Under-performing economy
- Need for cross sectoral links
- Lack of R&D
- Threat to services
- Making best use of local facilities e.g. community schools to ensure viability, breadth of provision and economic benefit.
- Efficient resource utilisation - agencies local and national.
- Need clarity e.g. funding streams' roles
- Coordination EU - national - local e.g. match funding
The following strengths, weaknesses and potentials of the LEADER model were then identified taking account of the above points and looking forward to the implementation of the new RDP.
Strengths
1. Partnership working
2. Partnerships could be extended to include agriculture
3. The model is adaptable
4. Rural development expertise has been developed
5. Benefits may arise through continuity of approach
LEADER Weaknesses
- Will anyone listen to this constituency?
- LAGs do not promote themselves well - they do not see ourselves as leading the way
- There are differences in approach between areas with a need for LAGs to unite and identify key principles
- Time and resource limitation issue to feed into the RDR process effectively.
LEADER Potentials
- LAGs are well equipped for promoting bottom up involvement but need to develop a more weighty profile
- There is particularly strong potential to link with Community Planning
- LAGs can develop the higher level of commitment and understanding needed
SRDP Priorities
The discussion of the above points was drawn together to identify priorities which the group felt should be addressed in the development of the new SRDP.
1. Economic objectives should be at the heart with the economically active population retained, depopulation addressed and a focus on new job creation and enterprise.
2. The life / environment / economic balance should be recognised.
3. Funding routes need clarification with possible amalgamation of mix of strands.
4. Look at establishing best practice model for delivery e.g. an overarching community company or development trust model.
5. Community involvement and capacity building should be embedded into the plan.
6. Community Planning should be embedded in the plan, liked with other area based partnerships and used as basis for development.
7. Clarification of agency roles in plan development and implementation - the high importance of connectivity is highlighted.
8. Co-financing - agreement in advance is important to maintain continuity and reduce demands on finite organisational resources.
Workshop 4:
Delivering Added Value and Public Goods; can the LEADER £ deliver more?
Strengths
The group were asked to identify in what respects LEADER has strengths in relation to the value it adds by comparison with other approaches or in delivering public goods; the following 5 key points were identified.
1. Cross sectorality linking the public with the private etc.
2. Flexibility, in that the approach is non-prescriptive and allows for local 'fit'.
3. Ownership - the approach allows for local innovation / creativity, this contributes to the galvanising of communities.
4. LEADER is an open process which is demand led.
5. The environment is regarded and addressed as an asset.
Weaknesses
In identifying the more numerous list of weaknesses below the group highlighted that many of these are narrower and more specific than the strengths it being easier to identify specific flaws.
1. There are resource limitations e.g. LAG staff numbers with a reliance on voluntary staff or input (which may be limited by their associated loss of earnings). Paid employees therefore may dominate, although there may be benefits through a professional approach.
2. Local issues tend to dominate.
3. There has been insufficient consideration of the legacy - exit strategy / future growth.
4. LEADER can be seen as 'cash cow' offering top up funding for domestic initiatives. On the other hand match funding can represent a constraint.
5. Looking forward there is variable capacity with questions about the equity across each area and overall.
6. There is an apparent lack of profile resulting in missed opportunities or projects.
7. There are difficulties relating to defining community 'boundaries' and the context of such definition, e.g. is it by population or to fit with CAP.
8. The 4 LEADER themes may be seen as being restrictive.
9. There are questions as to whether is it really inclusive?
a. It was suggested that the programme suffers from volunteer fatigue and tends to be dominated by employees.
10. Image - seen as transient/ pilot, planning difficulties
Potentials
The following points highlight those areas in which it was considered that the LEADER delivery models potential fit with the new SRDP offered potential to deliver added value and public goods.
- Through the broad basis of delivery.
- Through the local and inclusive approach.
- By building capacity.
- Developing and drawing on community cohesion.
- Locally legitimised accountability re public money and public goods.
- Drawing agriculture in to a wider local forum.
- Supporting and drawing out innovation.
- Through leverage of other funding and resources.
- Through extension of the LEADER 'methodology' itself.
FURTHER CONSULTATION
The workshop sessions which addressed these issues and are reported here formed the first half of this element of the consultation process. The second half of the process is for those who attended the event to consult on these questions locally and feed that back in to the process thereby broadening the base and deepening the degree of rural community involvement and engagement.
Jim Millard in the chair drew together the findings from the workshop groups and the key points from the presentations highlighting the key points to consider in the further consultation. These are presented here as suggestions only; this is neither a definitive nor a prescriptive list. Groups should consider whether they wish to consult and contribute to the SEERAD consultation, how best to do so and how broad such consultation should be.
- Consultation is essentially on the delivery arrangements for the proposed SRDP.
- Consider carefully whether it is appropriate / helpful or not to mention LEADER.
- Keep consultation at appropriate and proportionate levels - consider the audience and design approaches accordingly.
- There is no single way of consulting, consider;
- Outward looking - use LAG members in their 'constituencies'
- Inward drawing - bring people into seminars / briefings
- Media - consider press articles raising awareness
- Use of a web site.
Try to keep it simple - avoid technical language / jargon
- Offer a range of options of model
- Blanket v. concentrated coverage
- Spatial v. thematic v. a sectoral approach
- Different solutions for different circumstances
- What should priorities be
- Capacity to deliver, report
- What is critical / optimal mass for budget, area, population
- What is appropriate level: top-down or bottom-up
- What works best at different levels
- Demonstrate how LEADER approach adds value
- How to enlist partner support
- How to raise