LEADER EXTERNAL SUB-GROUP, NOTE OF MEETING
30 OCTOBER 2006 , EDINBURGH CORN EXCHANGE
Present
Iain Matheson (SEERAD) (Chair)
Neil Ferguson (Scottish Enterprise)
Mandy Gloyer (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds)
John Grieve (Rural Development Company)
Patricia Hamilton (Cairngorm Local Action Group)
Reid Hutchison (Aberdeenshire Council)
Norman MacAskill (Scottish Council of Voluntary Associations)
Bryan McGrath (Scottish Borders Local Action Group)
Jim McLaren (National Farmers Union Scotland)
Chris Parkin (North Lanarkshire Local Action Group)
Mike Pow (SEERAD)
Claudia Rowse (Scottish Natural Heritage)
Pat Snowdon (SEERAD)
Melvyn Waumsley (Highlands & Islands Enterprise)
Apologies
Jamie Farquhar (Confor)
Jane Fowler ( Argyll and Bute Council)
Jonnie Hall (Scottish Rural Properties & Business Association)
Lyndsey Quarm (SEERAD)
1 Welcome and Introductions
The Chairman welcomed everybody and conducted a brief "tour de table." He confirmed that this was the first meeting of the newly constituted group. While the previous group had looked in particular at delivery models, this reincarnation would look at the wider rural picture.
2 Introduction and Background
The Chairman talked to 2 papers which had been circulated, a suggested implementation of the Leader approach in the Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) and a general SRDP paper being presented by the Minister to the Convention of the Highlands and Islands. He asked members to look at where Leader sits in the national plan and comment. In terms of implementation he confirmed that Leader had now been narrowed down to 5 outcomes. He further confirmed that there would be 3 main delivery mechanisms for the SRDP; Less Favoured Areas (administered directly by SEERAD), Land Management Contracts (driven through Regional Project Assessment Committees [RPACs]) and Leader (delivered through Local Action Groups [LAGs]).
It was pointed out that on one of the graphs it appeared that LAGs would not be taking final decisions, but it was confirmed that this was an error, as it was set out in the Regulation that the LAG would make the final decision.
3 Selection Criteria
The Chairman said the immediate priority was to decide how to select LAG areas. There were currently 13 in Scotland, but with some blank areas. He said that SEERAD was currently working with datazones, (common small area geographic zones covering the whole of Scotland) as a starting point to build up a bigger picture. This would help define population density and patterns. He said that it had been suggested by the internal group to set a minimum population of 50,000, but it was felt this would disadvantage areas in the Highlands and Islands. It was therefore suggested to lower this to 25,000. Discussion followed, and although there was general agreement that a steer was needed, it was recognised that there was a danger of being too prescriptive.
It was pointed out that there was in existence a well established set of LAGs of different sizes, and it would be detrimental to risk losing this experience by tinkering with population thresholds. With Leader being mainstreamed a much wider rural partnership would be involved, and this would build on what had gone before to feed into the RPAC mechanism. It would therefore not be a good idea to be too prescriptive, and it should be left to the LAGs to decide the fit.
It was agreed that the 2 stage process was a good idea, as it was imperative to display that Leader was competitive. The aim would be to cover the whole country, while avoiding one LAG competing against another. It was recognised that this may lead to a 2 tier system with existing LAG areas coming forward with a strategy quickly, whereas areas with no current LAG would take longer.
The Chairman referred to the "on the ground" rationalisation process which SEERAD was working on, and said that there may be proposals for 10 or 11 RPAC areas across Scotland, into which LAGs would fit.
4 Alignment Between RPACs and LAGs
The Chairman confirmed that there may well be more than 1 LAG per RPAC area. The idea would be to have LAG representation on the RPAC. That way they would be able to input local priorities into regional priorities and also take back regional thinking to the LAG to inform local strategy. He said that the RPAC would be the decision making body, comprising of government agencies. The actual make up was still under consideration, and the need to avoid duplication was recognised. The forum would have a much wider membership, but it was also recognised that that delays in implementing the SRDP would lead to the for a comprising of Leader+ membership in 2007.
It was pointed out that the current diagram seemed to imply a top down approach, and this would have to be revisited. There was a need to identify specific types of projects that Leader would fund. For the previous programme the Commission had set 4 main themes, which had given clear boundaries. Without such a framework there was a danger of funding being spread too thinly and losing effectiveness. Although there was some disagreement, the general feeling was that previous experience indicated that giving LAGs completely free rein led to problems. Some sort of direction was required.
It was recognised that Leader could not fund everything, and that priorities needed to be set. Much of this could be done locally at the forum level, but it was clear there was a need to consider what part of the strategy Leader would deliver. There was a need to look at the process and be more specific. Without a clear vision of what Leader was to be used for , there was a danger of it losing its way, as has been a common problem with rural development programmes throughout Europe. It was therefore agreed that a framework was required, based on the priorities of the strategic plan.
Action: Iain Matheson
5 Guidance and Administration
A revised vision statement, setting out a suggested framework for the Leader process had been circulated for comment, and the main point to take forward was the need to cut out duplication.
Action: Mike Pow
6 Financial Circuits
The Chairman advised that the amount of funds available for Leader ranged from €44 million to €72 million, dependant on the outcome of the voluntary modulation question. This may not be settled until February, but the likelihood was that Leader would receive some €50 million in funding.
He went on to say that there were 2 possible funding options. The first would see SEERAD making payments through SEAS for projects, and the second would be similar to the current Leader+ model where the lead partner pays the eligible cost of the project then seeks reimbursement from SEERAD. It was felt that the centralised approach could lead to delays in payment, something which small rural projects could ill afford. The Chairman said that the EU was keen to see 1 paying agency per programme, and to that effect the Forestry Commission would not be a paying authority in the new programme, however the regulation still allowed payments to be made to Leader projects as intermediate bodies.
7 Monitoring and Evaluation
A set of draft indicators had been circulated, and the Chairman asked for comments and suggestions. It was agreed to keep mandatory indicators, which would have to be reported to the Commission, to a minimum, but to have arrange of Leader specific for domestic monitoring. There was support for something to measure social enterprises, and it was felt that some of the suggested indicators did not measure what Leader was achieving. It was suggested to cut the number.
Action: Iain Matheson
8 Any Other Business
A question was raised about the Leader section in the strategic plan, and how this would fit with developing local strategies and business plans. It was agreed that the local rural development strategy prepared by prospective LAGs should be looked on as a bid document, setting out themes outcomes and how they integrate into other rural strategies in a particular area. The bid would be assessed against the selection criteria and accepted or rejected. A business plan would be prepared setting out the proposals for implementing an accepted strategy bid and funding awarded by the Executive towards the costs.
9 Date of Next Meeting
The next meeting will be on Wednesday 6 December at 11o'clock in Room 449 Pentland House.
Mike Pow
SEERAD
7 November 2006