LEADER EXTRNAL SUB-GROUP, NOTE OF MEETING
12 OCTOBER 2007 , ROOM 1.5 PENTLAND HOUSE
Present Iain Matheson (Scottish Government) (Chair)
Chris Parkin (South Lanarkshire Council)
Neil Ferguson (Scottish Enterprise)
John Grieve (Rural Development Company)
Reid Hutchison (Aberdeenshire Council)
John Dougan (Forestry Commission Scotland)
Mike Pow (Scottish Government)
Apologies Frank Gaskell (Highlands and Islands Enterprise)
Norman MacAskill (Scottish Council Voluntary Organisations)
Bryan McGrath (Scottish Borders Council)
Tony Fitzpatrick (Convention of Scottish Local Authorities)
Patricia Methven (Cairngorms National Park)
Mervyn Waumsley (Highlands and Islands Enterprise)
Mandy Gloyer (Royal Society Protection of Birds)
Jonathan Hall (National Farmers Union Scotland)
Welcome and Introductions
The Chairman welcomed everyone for the meeting and thanked them for agreeing to meet at short notice.
Funding Allocation
The chairman confirmed that Inverclyde and Renfrewshire had still to indicate whether they wanted to be included in LEADER despite his having written to them again. He said that work had been done on population criteria in relation to funding, but wanted to go beyond a simple percentage score based on this. He wanted to include area and remoteness. The intention would then be to average out the percentages, rather than using population alone.
He said he had been warned against using Scottish Index for Multiple Deprivation information. While this was useful in urban areas it did not relate well to rural Scotland. Something else was therefore required, but concern was expressed about using remoteness. It was also pointed out that LEADER was not solely targeted at areas of deprivation, but should also reflect opportunity. The trick would be to balance opportunity and need.
It was agreed to concentrate initially on how much of the £41 million to hold back for the second round of bids. The Chairman tabled a draft scoring matrix based on the following criteria;
Population
Area
Remoteness
Access to Structural Funds
Leverage
Alignment with SRDP Objectives
Partnership
Discussion followed and it was noted from lessons learnt from the Leader+ allocation process that attention should be paid to 'per capita' data. It had been suggested to hold back
£9 million fort the second round, with a further £2 million being kept back for subsequent funding. This was based purely on population criteria. While agreeing with the £2 million element it was felt the £9 million hold back was too prescriptive and instead should be calculate on the basis of two thirds population and one third area. This was seen to be a completely transparent approach.
In respect of producing guidance for the selection panel the different criteria in the matrix were discussed.
'Remoteness' was seen as a proxy for need and was not seen as being focussed enough to use on its own. The suggestion was to find something more robust, or drop it. It was pointed out that sometimes settlements close to main centres could have as many problems as remote areas, and also that costs (eg land) could be much higher in peri-urban areas.
The relevance of 'Access to Structural Funds' was discussed. A requirement would be some assessment of what alternative funding is what additionality LEADER will bring. It was important to differentiate LEADER from other funding streams, and should cover areas not covered by Structural Funds. Priority 4 projects in the main involved more expensive projects, so this was a way additionality could be addressed.
In terms of 'Alignment with SRDP Objectives' it was felt there was a need to display linkages between the LAG and the RPAC. Thy could not work in isolation, and there has to be ann understanding of how programmes interact. Concern was expressed that the guidance sent to LAGs had not been clear enough on this issue, but the general feeling was that LAGs should be aware of the criteria and should reflect an appreciation of the issues in their strategies. Targeted outcomes should also be addressed so it was suggested changing the heading to 'Alignment with a Hierarchy of Objectives'. In this way bids could incorporate quality and realism. It was also felt that, where relevant, cognisance should be taken of previous Leader+ performance.
Indicators
The Chairman said that SRDP core indicators had been issued as part of the guidance to LAGs back in July, and it had been hoped this would be sufficient until the start of the programme. However some LAGs had indicated that they needed more hard and fast indicators prior to submitting their strategies. While this was unlikely given the timescale, an economist had been contracted to produce a set of indicators and these had been circulated. It was envisaged there would be 3 separate stages;
Phase 1 Core indicators for SRDP, alreadt issued
Phase 2 When bids come in it will be possible to identify separate targets. The plan will then be to pull together all objectives and fit into the core criteria. Soft outcomes would also be considered. The Welsh paper which had been circulated was seen as an example worth striving to achieve.
Phase 3 In January/February a finalised set of indicators would be issued. LAGs would be required at this point to complete a baseline survey.
Lengthy discussion followed and the upshot was that it was considered that this would be an extremely onerous task which would only produce limited benefits. It would be much more realistic to produce a set of headline baseline indicators (e.g. jobs created). There was also a perceived need to capture a wider range of inputs. They would be difficult to get and would not show up at LAG level headline indicators. They could only be collected at project level
The general feeling was that it was important to get an indicator framework set up at an early stage, and that the suggestions made by the economist had been too vague to be of any benefit to LEADER.
The way forward would be to set up a Steering Group to look at the issue, and it was agreed that the group should consist of those present at the meeting, and also Melvyn Waumsley of Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Ros McNay from Dumfries and Galloway LAG. Both of these had already indicated their willingness to be part of the group. Mike Pow will be in touch further.
Date of Next Meeting
No date was agreed.
Mike Pow
Rural Directorate
12 October 2007