LEADER EXTERNAL SUB-GROUP, NOTE OF MEETING
1 MARCH 2007 , ROOM 449 PENTLAND HOUSE
Present
Iain Matheson (SEERAD) (Chair)
Christine Davidson (SEERAD)
Sharon Douglas (Fife CPP)
Jamie Farquhar (Confor)
Neil Ferguson (Scottish Enterprise)
Jane Fowler (Argyll & Bute Council)
Frank Gaskell (Highlands & Islands Enterprise)
Reid Hutchison (Aberdeenshire Council)
Jim McLaren (National Farmers Union Scotland)
Bryan McGrath (Scottish Borders Council)
Chris Parkin (South Lanarkshire Local Action Group)
Mike Pow (SEERAD)
Claudia Rowse (Scottish Natural Heritage)
Apologies
Ingrid Clayden (SEERAD)
Michael Garden (SEERAD)
John Grieve (Rural Development Company)
Patricia Hamilton (Cairngorm Local Action Group)
Norman MacAskill (Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations)
Lyndsey Quarm (SEERAD)
Alison Smith (Angus Council)
1 Welcome and Introductions
The chairman welcomed everyone and introduced Sharon Douglas as a replacement for Tim Kendrick at Fife CPP.
2 Minutes and Action points
The minutes from the last meeting were agreed and it was noted that all action points arising would be dealt with further on in the agenda.
3 Selection Criteria
The chairman reported that meetings had been held with the 3 current blank areas in Scotland, Aberdeenshire, Ayrshire and West Lothian. These had taken the form of a presentation followed by discussion, and had proved to be very useful. Ayrshire were keen to use Leader in the new programme, as Structural Fund spending in the area was being cut back.
This led on to discussion about where Arran and the Cumbraes would fall. Currently part of the Argyll and Bute LAG, however under On the Ground rules it will now come under Ayrshire. Co-operation type projects were seen as the way forward, as the decision had been taken to define boundaries around CPP areas.
A similar situation had arisen with regard to National Parks. The idea being promoted here was to set up LAGs based on CPP areas, but to look at how the Parks might have a devolved budget and powers within them. A proposal had been received from Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park which appeared to address the issues and was acceptable to Local Authorities, and SEERAD officials will be meeting with them soon to discuss how best this could be put in place. It is to be hoped a similar system could apply in Cairngorm National Park. This was generally seen as a positive way forward.
Action: Mike Pow
The chairman confirmed that a national rural network needed to be in place. A draft specification at national level had been sent to Defra, and the intention was to go out to tender in the summer. It was hoped that Defra would pick up 80% of the cost. A meeting of Leader people had been held recently in Edinburgh to look at possible network scenarios. It was recognised that it was important to have UK sub groups under the national Rural Development Network, but also sub groupings in the 4 countries. A Leader network would be one strand, but it was important to link directly to wider rural development strands. This needed to be developed further. The idea was to set up a Scottish Leader group then look at the wider level. It was regarded as imperative that this Leader group be set up as soon as possible in order to ensure continuity. LAGs were preparing a paper which set out ideas on how this could be implemented.
Action: Co. Antrim LAG
The chairman said that an initial meeting had been held with the LMC Implementation Group, with the idea of differentiating between applications for Leader and Tier III. The decision to allow Tier III to apply to communities had muddied the waters, and made it imperative that there was a differentiation process. A draft selection criteria had been drawn up which did not rank or score, but set out indicators. Further discussion would take place, and it was recognised that it was important to decide what was to be achieved through the 2 sets of funding. Action: Iain Matheson
Although it was yet to be agreed whether there would be project officers working on LMCs, assuming there were the Chairman felt it would be a good opportunity for them to be co-located with LAG co-ordinators. This would greatly help make the distinction.
4 Guidance and Administration
The chairman referred to the Leader in Scotland document which had been circulated prior to the meeting. He said the intention had been to encapsulate as much information as possible to set the agenda for Leader and go forward to the Policy Board. It would then form the basis of the call to the LAGs, and he sought views as to its content. There was general agreement that some of the language needed to be simplified.
Going through the document it was queried how it would link to the SRDP. As there were no measures in the SRDP solely for Leader, it would apply across all measures. A comment was made that there was in theory a possibility of duplication with individuals receiving money through Tier II and then applying to Leader. It was agreed that Leader could fund certain capital works provided by Community Groups which if they were land managers might also be eligible under LMC tier II. As all land managers required to be registered on the SIACS database a cross check of the system would indicate any duplicate funding. This would be discussed with IT.
Action: Iain Matheson
Problems identified in the Mid Term Evaluation had been picked up in a number of recommendations. The MTEU of December 2005 was the evidence base for taking Leader forward.
The expectation was that any amount of funding awarded to a LAG would have to be co-financed at project level. Advice from the EU was that co-financing money from Local Authorities or Local Enterprise Companies was so far removed from the centre that it could be classified as private funding. If correct this would have a big impact on state aid implications. It was pointed out that this agreement did not apply to Structural Fund money.
The Funding Rates at Section 4.3.2 were discussed. The higher rate for trans-national projects was in recognition of the fact that match funding was harder to secure for these types of project. It was queried whether revenue criteria should be included. While accepting that sustainability had to be the key, it was doubtful whether there should be discrimination against projects which generated profits. This would require further consideration.
Action: Iain Matheson
Grant Recipients at Section 4.2 also came under consideration. It was felt that references to private individuals and specific organisations such as churches should be removed, and "properly constituted organisations" and "social enterprises" be included. After further discussion it was felt that it was possibly too prescriptive to list eligible recipients. It may be better to be more generic and list possible examples. This will be considered further.
Action: Iain Matheson
Finally the Selection Panel at Section 4.5.4 was discussed, and more comments were sought. The possibility of having an environmental representative (such as SNH) was raised, as was the possibility of having representation from outwith Scotland. It was important that the panel did not contain anyone with a vested interest.
5 Regionalisation
The chairman reported that the Policy Board had approved the plan for RPACs and Fora. Fora members will be appointed, and unpaid. It will be their job initially, after discussion with wider rural interests, to set priorities for a region. LAG strategies will have to reflect Regulation measures, SEERAD outcomes and then regional priorities as set out by the Fora. It was pointed out that this would lead to a problem with timescales. The intention was that Leader areas would be set up sooner rather than later, but this would not be the case with the Fora. However after further discussion it was felt that this would not necessarily pose a major problem as there was already sufficient material available.
It was confirmed that while LMC budgets would be held centrally, LAGs would receive their funding through their lead partner. The possibility of funding running out and applicants losing interest as happened with the RSS was discussed, but it was agreed that it was one of the strengths of Leader that funding was regionalised.
6 Any Other Business
The chairman said that, following discussion with Operations Group, it may be necessary to have a generic SRDP application form. He said that SEERAD was currently looking at the 13 LAG application forms with a view to framing a standard Leader application form. It was cautioned that a lot of thought had gone into the drawing up of the forms initially and it was important not to lose anything, but it was recognised that having 13 different forms was not efficient. Revised forms will be circulated round LAG co-ordinators for comment.
Action: Lyndsey Quarm
The chairman then mentioned the forthcoming SCVO conference in Stornoway, at which there would be a Leader workshop, and asked if there was anything contentious that SEERAD had not covered. It was felt that most interest would be generated by the demarcation between Leader and LMCs, together with questions about the Rural Protection Fund and village halls.
Asked about timescales, the chairman replied that the 3rd version of the Programme, containing draft financial tables, would be sent to the Commission at the end of March. Following the Scottish Election final version could be sent in May or June, but this would be dependant on the new Minister's approval. It was hoped that Commission approval would be given around September or October, after which Scottish Statutory Instruments would be raised. There was, however, always the danger of delays.
7 Date of Next Meeting
No date was set at the meeting, but the secretary will be in touch shortly looking at suitable dates in April.
Action: Mike Pow
Mike Pow
SEERAD
2 March 2007