LEADER EXTERNAL SUB-GROUP, NOTE OF MEETING
6 DECEMBER 2006 , ROOM 449 PENTLAND HOUSE
Present
Iain Matheson (SEERAD) (Chair)
Neil Ferguson (Scottish Enterprise)
John Grieve (Rural Development Company)
Patricia Hamilton (Cairngorm Local Action Group)
Norman MacAskill (Scottish Council of Voluntary Associations)
Scott Walker (National Farmers Union Scotland)
Chris Parkin (North Lanarkshire Local Action Group)
Mike Pow (SEERAD)
Claudia Rowse (Scottish Natural Heritage)
Melvyn Waumsley (Highlands & Islands Enterprise)
Paul Kirkland (Link)
Alison Smith (Angus Council)
Michael Garden (SEERAD)
Tim Kendrick (Fife CPP)
Jane Fowler (Argyll and Bute Council)
Lyndsey Quarm (SEERAD)
Jamie Farquhar (Confor)
Apologies
Ingrid Clayden (SEERAD)
Jim McLaren (NFUS)
1 Welcome and Introductions
The Chairman welcomed everyone including two new members to the group and conducted a "tour de table."
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 'On the Ground' paper was tabled and views were sought, in particular as to whether it would be a benefit to allow market towns to be included within areas that would potentially be excluded due to population numbers being to high.
It was commented that exceptions would apply such as a business based in a city applying for funding for a project which would benefit the wider rural population.
A suggestion was made that as the definition of towns is blurred it would perhaps be more useful to consider the area itself and whether there is good reason for it to be included. It was felt that the use of population numbers was too rigid and did not reflect the 'local decision making' principles of LEADER.
It was further suggested that perhaps the LAGs themselves would be best placed to decide if an area should be included based on whether they feel a town is rural or would be of benefit to the wider rural community. The rigid criteria such as those in the 'defining LAG boundaries' paper could appear contrary to the regulation by taking away some of the local decision making power.
The chairman commented that the purpose of the paper was not to impose rigid criteria but to suggest ways of defining areas to assist with LEADER.
Discussion followed as to whether the European commission actually required a definition of rural or market town. It was commented that this was perhaps not the most important reason but instead defining areas was most needed in order to ensure the funding benefited the rural community in the best way possible and including areas not contributing directly reduced the funds available to meet aims.
Further discussion relating to definitions followed, broad examples for various decision making models were given with the general feeling being that the issue would perhaps be best left to the CPP's, Local authorities and LAGs to define in line with their business plan.
A word of caution was raised about rearranging established methods too much, particularly those that have been working well during the current LEADER programme.
It was commented that it was vital to allow communities to have a say in decision making but it is also important that CPPs are given a definite role to ensure their formal participation. Past experience has shown that there must be an incentive for CPPs to become involved if partnerships are to work successfully.
In response to the question of whether LAGs can cross boundaries, the Chairman explained that for administration and priority setting purposes it would be preferable that they did not. It was commented that this could be seen as contrary to the LEADER ethos of flexibility and local decision making. It was further commented that as the map is administration led it may not be helpful to constrain boundaries in this way as it runs the risk of not reflecting local needs and established networks.
It was therefore agreed that a framework was required, based on the priorities of the strategic plan.
Action: Iain Matheson
It was acknowledged that when defining areas there is a need for co ordination but it was felt that any definition set should be on the basis of whether the proposal achieves outcomes and are fit for rural community benefit rather than imposing a statistical definition which is unable to take account of a wider range of relevant issues. It was generally agreed that flexibility was needed to ensure rural needs are addressed and not overlooked due to statistics.
In response to a question about whether National parks could be Rural Development Forums in their own right, the Chairman explained that although possible, the final decision on National Parks would be taken at ministerial level.
There was some feeling that when considering boundaries, the question should not be whether LAGs could fit, but rather the purpose of the On the Ground regions and how does they assist LAGs delivering rural benefits. There was a perception that the methodology used in the On the Ground project represented a retrograde step.
A discussion about trans-regional projects followed. It was commented that there was nothing to stop trans-regional projects between LAGS in various regions. An application could be submitted to each LAG for funding to run a programme of measures in an area which crosses more than one regional boundary.
However it was pointed out that this may not be successful if each region and LAG had very different priorities and could therefore not approve such an application.
There was general agreement that it would be sensible to use the On the Ground boundaries but there was feeling that some flexibility should be allowed to deviate where there is justification. However there was little suggestion as to what the criteria for deviations should be.
In answer to the question about whether the whole of rural Scotland would be covered, the Chairman explained that LEADER would be open for all areas to apply but the process must be competitive.
There was some concern that there would be areas of Scotland not covered if that potential LAG did not get approval. It was pointed out that there was a provision in the regulation which allowed a group to be formed in order to apply for EU funding for a specific project.
In response to the question of what support newly formed LAGs would have, it was commented that various meetings have taken place and more are planned to help new areas in advance of business plans being written. An example of this was a meeting with the Ayrshire region in January. In order to avoid a 2 tier scenario developing between experienced and new LAGs a mentoring system was being considered , but it was pointed out that funding would have to be available to achieve this. It was commented that when it came to capacity building, in particular for new areas, those best placed to assist would be LECs and CPPs who already have experience.
The Chairman replied that up to €2 million had been set aside for networking, training and capacity building, but that this funding would not be available until the programme had been approved.
The comment was made that this may be too late as valuable capacity, networking links and experience may be lost between programmes if there was not funding to sustain an effective transfer. It was felt that it was vitally important to find some mechanism to help ensure this would not happen.
In response to the question about the rural network and what role it would play, the Chairman commented that it would cover the whole of the SRDP but there was nothing to prevent the formation of a LEADER sub network . This was generally felt to be a good idea as a network to cover the whole SRDP was likely to be very big and a more narrow focus on LEADER would be more helpful in some instances.
There was some discussion about how funding for LEADER would be allocated, the Chairman explained that while the details were not yet clear, it would based on the business plans and the amount needed to deliver the aims. The Chairman confirmed it would not be based purely on area covered and population.
4 Priorities and Themes
The chairman introduced the 'Visions, Priorities and Themes' paper and explained the work which had been done on it. Thoughts, suggestions and criticisms were asked for.
It was commented that the paper has various commendable objectives but that some specifically stated LEADER EU objectives appeared to be missing. The chairman stated that the 3 EU LEADER objectives were:
- LEADER as a tool for endogenous local development
- LEADER as a governance tool for building organisational capacity of rural community
- LEADER as a tool for stimulating innovation
It was felt that it would be helpful to have these clearly stated in the paper as it would act as guidance and make the issue of where the LEADER role fits in more clear and understandable. This point was generally agreed by the group and the Chairman agreed to take it on board.
Action Point: Iain Matheson
General discussion followed relating to defining boundaries between Land Management Contracts and LEADER.
It was suggested that if the 3 EU LEADER objectives were added to the 'Visions, Priorities and Themes' paper, it would allow LAGs to be clearer when deciding if a project should fall under LEADER or LMCs.
It was commented that the differentiation is likely to be made when an applicant considers what criteria needs to be met for each and for this reason the decision is likely to fall to the applicant to chose which funding stream is applied for first. The LAGs would simply apply their decision making criteria if and when the project was presented to them.
It had been suggested that LEADER would be funding mostly Axis 3 measures, and the Chairman explained that while SEERAD could not stop LAGs from spending in Axis 1 and 2 if they see fit, guidance would be produced which would show Axis 3 as the top priority.
It was pointed out that the opening paragraph of the Vision, Priorities and Themes paper made no mention of environment or biodiversity and it was suggested that more description be added with more reference to a wider range of considerations. The paper will be brought back to the table for the next meeting
Action Point: Mike Pow
5 Guidance and Administration
The chairman acknowledged an action point from the previous meeting to cut out the duplication from the vision statement. It was confirmed that this had been done and was reflected in the most recent version of the paper which had been circulated along with the agenda for this meeting.
Further comments were asked for on the paper, in particular there had been a suggestion at the internal group meeting that the vision statement be merged with the 'visions, priorities and themes' paper. The aim was to have all the issues in one paper to make it clearer and therefore easier to work with. It was generally agreed that this would be a good idea.
Action Point: Mike Pow
6 Monitoring and Evaluation
In the last meeting it was suggested that the number of indicators should be cut. The chairman noted that this had been agreed and the indicators have now been reduced.
7 Any Other Business
Mike Pow gave an update from the UK Regional Development Funding Group meeting in London, the main points being:
- With regard to volutary modulation, Defra confirmed that the European Parliament was likely to give its final decision in mid February, and that the Council would adopt in March. If programmes were submitted during April, and allowing the Commission a full 6 months for consideration, approval would be expected in October. Concerns had been expressed that his process could be further delayed, but Defra was not party to this.
- Defra confirmed that it had sought and gained agreement from the Commission that the interpretation of allowing other bodies apart from paying agencies to make payments was correct. However, National Audit Office had challenged this, and had requested that the Commission reconsider its own interpretation. In the meantime it had advised the Forestry Commission in England to stop paying out grants. This could potentially have far reaching implications in whether or not payment could be delegated to lead authorities.
8 Date of Next Meeting
Monday 5 February at 11am.
Lyndsey Quarm
SEERAD
11 December 2006