Evaluation of Scottish National Rural Network (SNRN) and Scotland Rural Development Programme (SRDP) Communication Plan

4. Overall conclusions and recommendations

4.1 Introduction

In the course of the delivery of the 2007-2014 SRDP, two parallel communications systems were operational: one within Scottish Government; and the other, networking and knowledge transfer, primarily through the externally funded SNRN activities. The Scottish Government communication role was primarily associated with the provision of information about the overarching aims of the programme and a description of the delivery schemes and measures that could be applied for. The SNRN activities tended to have a stronger focus on wider rural community and economic development matters and, although they did not neglect the land manager constituency, was not much used by land managers, although their agents reported making greater use of their information.

4.2 Conclusions on the Communications Plan and Communications within the SRDP in the 2007-2013 period

The internal and external communications associated with the 2007-2013 SRDP have been extensive but their effectiveness has been significantly compromised by flaws in both their design and delivery. Although a Communications Plan was prepared by Scottish Government, most of those involved in the delivery of the SRDP had not seen it. There was no monitoring and any strategic communications vision embedded within it was overtaken by events.

Those who designed the programme did so with the best of intentions. They sought to use the SRDP to deliver transformational change through an integrated approach to the development of land based business in particular and rural communities more generally. Many more recent policy commentators including those looking forward to create a vision for the new SRDP from 2014 argue for a similar transformational approach.

With any public support scheme there is a constant tension between the acquisition of scheme benefits to the direct beneficiary and the higher-level aspirations of public servants seeking to maximise the public good and, in the specifically Scottish situation, to contribute to the Scottish Government's overarching aim of Sustainable Economic Growth. The applicant and/or his/her agent want accurate information on their eligibility and how to pursue a successful application. The Government wants discernible outcomes and impacts.

Arguably, a well-designed and well-communicated policy can deliver both private and public good. But when receipt of public money is seen more as a proprietary right rather than rewards for a public good delivered, confusion can prevail. Strong communication messages are needed to indicate the public purposes for which support is given.

The sense of cohesion and overall vision which is evident in the SRDP itself and the launch communications was rapidly jettisoned in favour of less cohesive scheme-specific communications (for example the guidelines for Rural Priorities launched in 2010).

Many respondents felt that there had been a distinct shift of mission within Scottish Government perhaps associated with the political change. The early communications centred on indicating the overall vision and intent of the programme. The subsequent communications, were much more concerned with getting the funding out to beneficiaries and designing and implementing a more workable set of administrative arrangements for implementing the schemes. In this second phase of communications pragmatism, a need to get fundable applications were the dominant, if not publicly stated, messages.

This pragmatic approach to supporting the programme uptake through communication is a far cry from the kinds of approach to communicating change management that would be seen as good extension practice and which is clearly manifested in for example monitor farm projects.

There were significant weaknesses in communicating the 'rules of engagement' internally with RPID and SEARS staff at the outset of the programme. Ad hoc training was introduced by some regional offices and the initial assumption in regional offices that the 2007-2013 was just another scheme to implement not unlike a number of previous farm development schemes, was quickly dispelled by trying to deliver the new scheme.

In effect, the communications bridge between Scottish Government, land managers and some other beneficiaries was occupied primarily by consultants and agents, whose expertise came to be seen as essential to ensure scheme delivery. Their understanding of the schemes became crucially important in delivering bankable projects, but as their expertise on the scheme grew, so it became clear to those vetting the schemes that impacts and outcomes might be less, but proposals were still being funded. Other beneficiaries used a variety of means of engagement.

European co-financing of the SRDP is sometimes not acknowledged in communications including some key SRDP pages on the Scottish Government website, the press, leaflets and posters. It is not clear whether this omission is unintentional or intentional, but there is a clear obligation on the Scottish Government to recognise EU co-financing and it appears this is not always being adequately complied with.

4.3 Conclusions on the effectiveness of SNRN

The SG Rural Communities team responsible for the Scottish National Rural Network contracted out two primary functions: the website (design, hosting and content) and the organisation of events. The SCVO 'home' for the SNRN gave it a natural reach to a rural communities constituency and to a section of those involved in rural economic development. This constituency has been serviced by information on the website and a range of regional and national events. For others it appears to have led them to question the relevance to their interests.

A number of stakeholders questioned the effectiveness of regional and national events and survey evidence suggested a relatively low rate of uptake. However, some respondents reported attending well organised and useful events.

For many rural land managers and some other business interests the SNRN was 'off-radar.' SNRN was seen as a means of communicating with the rural communities and rural development constituencies. Land managers communications networks around the delivery of the SRDP were based on communicating (often through agents) with RPID officers.

However, the SNRN has operated on a shoestring budget and unlike the NRNs in Nordic countries and the Netherlands, all of which have a massively larger budget, the ability of the SNRN to provide a platform to support much greater engagement of different rural constituencies with regard to the RDP and other development opportunities has been rather limited.

In other member states, there was much stronger evidence of a coherent strategic plan, of strategic issues being given a sharp focus for a period of time, of engagement with a wide community of practice and of much closer engagement with government policy priorities, consonant with the purposes of the NRN. In these examples there is a very clear focus on improving RDP delivery and outcomes. This is important and represents a significant and substantial untapped potential of an NRN in Scotland. The belief that the SNRN's functional role could grow on a shoestring budget was unrealistic.

Because of the limited use (and perception of usefulness) of the SNRN by particular constituencies, especially land managers, they have tended to source information differently. Trade organisations have been important intermediaries and a range of networks have provided information on the SRDP and its measures.

4.4 Lessons and opportunities for the future

A number of lessons can be drawn from these investigations.

1. The communications plan for the 2014 - 2020 SRDP should be developed, implemented and monitored to ensure that all relevant staff understand the policy objectives and the mechanics of their delivery.

The development of a Communications Plan for the SRDP for the 2007-2013 programme period, but failure to operationalize within the Scottish Government, makes the assessment of the effectiveness of government communications regarding the SRDP a difficult task. The implementation of the SRDP-specific Communications Plan appears to have been shelved at a time that communication planning within the Rural Affairs and Environment Directorate was reviewed and a new RPID-wide communications strategy implemented. We understand why the plan was shelved but argue that there is a case for an SRDP-specific Communications Plan which addresses both internal communication needs within RPID and SEARS bodies and external communications to the whole range of rural constituencies.

With respect to the internal communications of the new SRDP, there is a need for a communications plan, which ensures that all staff inside government or arm's length agencies (SEARS) dealing with the plan, as desk officers, communications team etc. have a clear understanding of the policy logic, any novel features of the scheme, any changes in administrative arrangements intended at the outset of the programme or planned over its life. All staff who act as desk officers for the scheme should undergo training to ensure that they have a good understanding of the scheme and their role in its effective communication.

2. The Scottish Government should communicate SRDP policy objectives and the delivery arrangements to potential beneficiaries in a concise and carefully targeted manner using appropriate communication tools and based on an understanding of their needs. An appropriate monitoring framework should be developed and implemented.

After the inception of the programme when programme-wide leaflets were produced explaining the new SRDP, the subsequent communications regarding the SRDP were mostly scheme-based. There is a need for the Scottish Government to reflect on the appropriate balance between trying to communicate messages about the vision and overarching narrative of the SRDP and trying to operationalize it through its component parts. Given the administrative challenges early in the scheme, the Scottish Government understandably emphasised scheme delivery, but this was achieved with a loss of overall vision and a loss of connectivity to wider Scottish and European rural development agendas. The Scottish Government should retain a primary communications function with respect to the SRDP to explain the policy logic, structure and administrative requirements of the different parts of the SRDP. Written documentation should accompany web-based materials. The web-portal should offer an easily understood cascade of information. The core written SRDP 2007-2014 was in several volumes, extremely long and difficult to assimilate and would have benefited greatly from a short background paper (rather like the statement for the general public in an EIA) which should provide an overview of the logic of the scheme and the measures proposed. We consider that there is a need to communicate the vision of the SRDP to the full array of rural constituencies, but recognise the benefits of scheme-specific communications in a nested approach. Accordingly, we endorse an approach to communicating specific measures with the SRDP based on segmentation of the client base and the product.

3. In order to help staff deliver and communicate the new RDP appropriate needs focused training should be provided.

The internal communications between centre and regional offices were poor and left staff ill-prepared for the assignment of delivering the new programme. Ad hoc training provided some remediation, but there is a clear need for officer training prior to the launch of a new programme. If the new programme is radically different, it is imperative that appropriate training be put in place and that this is communicated effectively to case officers. More arguably, case officers should have a clear grasp of the overarching vision of the programme as this will help them steer outcomes towards national rather than individual preferences. Where, as in the 2007-2013 SRDP, new constituencies such as (non-farm) forestry were drawn into the scheme's administration, there is a need for outreach activities to engage with intermediaries such as the sector itself (i.e. non-farm forest owners), trade groups and consultants to make them fully aware of the administrative requirements of the programme.

4. The acknowledgement of the European Union contribution should be strengthened and supported by monitoring action.

The acknowledgement of the Community contribution in the promotional and information materials associated is in some cases inadequate. Clearly the domestic contribution to the programme of support is greater than the EU contribution but this does not obviate the obligation for such acknowledgment. Press releases may well include acknowledgment of EU support but the very limited occasions on which this is in turn reported suggests that this may not be universally so. There is a danger that this could be perceived as a failure in compliance. Scottish Government managers and those personnel concerned with communications and publicity should more actively monitor the compliance with this requirement and ensure the adoption of a common policy in all RDP related communications.

5. An adequately funded National Rural Network should be established focused on communicating with the range of Scotland's rural stakeholders and their existing networks, strengthening the connections and fostering knowledge transfer to improve Rural Development outcomes.

At the same time as the SRDP was being rolled out, the SNRN was launched by the Scottish Government Rural Communities team; specific services for the website and regional coordination were tendered and externally contracted. Whereas the SRDP Communications Plan was about creating sound administrative architecture for scheme delivery and informing the different constituencies of scheme requirements, the aspiration of the NRN was to build and nurture a network that embraced the RDP and rural development more widely. Although, arguably any communication plan should listen to feedback from the intended recipients of messages, the idea of a network implies a much stronger sense of collective learning and sharing of ideas and a strong multi-directional flow of information for example from network manager to network member, from informed actor/stakeholder to uninformed actor/stakeholder etc. A network structure such as that anticipated in the SNRN sits comfortably with contemporary thinking about collaborative learning by land managers as comprising good extension practice. As with monitor farms, farmers often find their peers good sources of information and innovative ideas. There was very strong recognition by survey respondents of the potential of doing more in developing connections between actors and stakeholders. Rather than trickling down information to different stakeholders, the network could and arguably should be helping different actors come together to build capacity. In doing so, the NRN would be contributing both directly and indirectly to the knowledge transfer and exchange which underpins the improvement sought in the delivery of RDP outcomes (a focus for many NRNs) and the improvement of those pathways and networks.

We fully endorse the need for an adequately funded network that provides multidirectional communication channels amongst rural stakeholders at multiple scales. Thus there is a case for national level debate and discussion on key themes (which will broaden and embrace ERDF and ESF issues in the new programme), but there is also a need to operationalise local networks for collaborative learning and delivery as this is likely to be essential to deliver desired outcomes and impacts.

6. Engaging more effectively across the full range of rural constituents is a priority for the new SNRN. The branding and identification of the SNRN should be strengthened and more distinct to improve recognition and clarify its wider relevance.

The funding of a single external agency to deliver major parts of the SNRN has produced a network which has become associated with the rural communities and rural development agenda of the contractor rather than with the totality of the SRDP. Given that the RPID/SEARS capacities with respect to rural development outwith the land based sectors are somewhat modest, the SCVO contract can be seen as providing some kind of balance. Whilst this may have been a necessity and beneficial in getting the rural communities part of the SRDP more informed and engaged, the case for having a more broadly based SNRN in the future is strong. Promoting the SNRN as an integral part of the SRDP through the overall communications approach should be prioritised. Accordingly we recommend that the SNRN has a mission to promulgate engagement across the full range of rural constituents and engages more fully with the land-based sector.

7. The design and establishment of the SNRN and the basis of its engagement with rural constituents should be founded in sound analysis of their needs.

In conducting this evaluation the limited extent of any evidence base either in terms of needs analysis or monitoring data was clearly evident. Stakeholders welcomed the process of consultation and contributed very positively regarding needs. Whilst this report goes some way towards addressing this, further research into the needs which the NRN could support is an essential part of an effective design process. As part of that process careful consideration should be given to establishing appropriate performance indicators and benchmarks against which performance in meeting identified needs may be measured.

8. The SNRN should be developed as a ring-fenced, in-house agency guided by an advisory board of stakeholders. The mission should be to maximise the effectiveness of stakeholder engagement, to maximise the quality of projects submitted and to provide a 'network of networks centre' acting as a wider gateway to the RDP and rural development including links to relevant EU networks.

A number of different models are used in different European countries from in-house NRNs to consultant run NRNs.

We recommend that the SNRN be developed as a ring-fenced, in-house agency, which should be less concerned with directly providing accurate information regarding the programme (this is the function of the SRDP communications team) and more engaged with a mission to maximise the effectiveness of stakeholder engagement, to maximise the quality of projects submitted and to provide a 'network of networks centre'. This should act as a wider gateway to involvement in the RDP and rural development and include links to the relevant EU Rural Networks for Rural Development, Rural Evaluation and Rural Innovation. We do not wish to undo the good work undertaken by a range of rural organisations in communicating with their members, but we do want this hub organisation to create synergistic benefits among actors where such gains are possible. It should be guided by an advisory board that after a trial period could develop to become a management board. This opportunity might ensure commitment of key organisations. The board would have representation from all key stakeholder groups in rural Scotland.

9. By virtue of being located 'in house' the new NRN should play an enhanced role in strengthening SRDP communications.

The current links between the NRN website and SRDP communications are limited not least by the heavy dependency on and credibility of the Scottish Government website as the 'authoritative' source and understandable nervousness regarding third party communication of definitive guidance or instruction. The stronger in house links in the proposed NRN model would allow a more directly linked approach providing wider SRDP communications whilst signposting the Scottish Government site as the definitive source. This would enable communication of the policy objectives, programme progress, good practice examples etc. to be linked with a view to improving programme delivery and outcomes. In delivering this function the NRN would therefore enhance and bring greater coherence to SRDP communications.

10. The National Network Unit should adopt a flexible resourcing approach to meet the range of needs.

The majority of in house delivery models involve the use of a small group of specialist and appropriately qualified staff, which is essential in addressing the differentiated functions of the NRN. Such a team is necessarily compact and cannot therefore be expected to cover all the required competencies in house.

In order to meet the diverse range of needs and demands placed on a National Network Unit it is recommended that a policy of flexible resourcing be adopted e.g. through secondment of specialist staff or, where appropriate outsourcing of services or contracting specialists. The involvement of a communications specialist appears to be essential.

11. The SNRN should promote good practice in rural development in more interactive ways, particularly peer-to-peer learning, good practice events and collaborative projects.

In the absence of an NRN that gave breadth of coverage and network support across the whole of rural Scotland other organisations have given excellent coverage on specific topics of interest to their narrower constituency. We value their contributions and the diversity of opinion that they embody.

The SNRN manager should be tasked to create a hub organisation that enhances the scope for effective learning about the possibilities offered by the SRDP and related European Programmes, relevant networks and other sources of knowledge and best practice. Rather than being solely a cascade for information about the SRDP and rural development, the SNRN should aspire to promote good practice in rural development in more interactive ways, particularly peer-to-peer learning, good practice events and, if collaborative projects emerge as a more significant feature of the new programme, in means of maximising their chances of success. We recommend more of a collaborative learning approach to rural development and less of a transfer of technology approach. There is an extensive catalogue of good practice in other countries and a supporting technical and academic literature to draw on. Scotland is not without good practice, but this needs to be built on in more effective ways.

12. More formal networking arrangements and training support are required for LEADER to improve delivery, outcomes and the exchange of good practices.

There has been a lack of networking between project beneficiaries and LAG members in the current programme and this has been detrimental; not least to the sharing of good practice. The SG LEADER manager should take steps to establish more formal networking practices within the SNRN for LEADER Co-ordinators, LAG Members and Project beneficiaries. It is also recommended that networking between LEADER Co-ordinators and with the managing authority becomes more formalised with clearer objectives and parameters with regard to management and technical delivery issues. We further recommend that more targeted LEADER networking would be beneficial in meeting the requirements to provide technical assistance to LAGs in order to develop inter-territorial and transnational co-operation and to undertake the monitoring and evaluation of their local development strategies. External experts could provide training and advice on technical issues and methodologies relevant to delivery, cooperation and monitoring and evaluation.

13. Improve the selection and communication of good practice examples to help improve RDP outcomes.

A number of respondents were critical of the selection of good practice examples under the 2007-2013 SRDP. We note the requirement that the new NRN collects examples of projects covering all priorities of the Rural Development Programme. Good practice examples should be selected in consultation with local RPID or SEAR's informants and should be selected on the basis that they are likely to deliver excellent outcomes.

14. The new NRN should take a more explicit supporting function on innovation and innovation systems in rural areas.

Again, we note the burgeoning literature on rural innovation and the implementation of rural innovation partnerships and therefore stress the importance of the NRN connecting to this rapidly developing field of knowledge. We recommend that a number of innovation support teams are developed covering sectors and enterprises (including community enterprise).

Summary of Chapter 4: Recommendations
1. The communications plan for the 2014 - 2020 SRDP should be developed, implemented and monitored to ensure that all relevant staff understand the policy objectives and the mechanics of their delivery.
2. The Scottish Government should communicate SRDP policy objectives and the delivery arrangements to potential beneficiaries in a concise and carefully targeted manner using appropriate communication tools and based on an understanding of their needs.
3. In order to help staff deliver and communicate the new RDP, appropriate needs-focused training should be provided.
4. The acknowledgement of the European Union contribution should be strengthened and supported by monitoring action.
5. An adequately funded National Rural Network should be established focused on communicating with the range of Scotland's rural stakeholders and their existing networks, strengthening the connections and fostering knowledge transfer to improve Rural Development outcomes.
6. Engaging more effectively across the full range of rural constituents is a priority for the new SNRN. The branding and identification of the SNRN should be strengthened and more distinctive to improve recognition and clarify its wider relevance.
7. The design and establishment of the SNRN and the basis of its engagement with rural constituents should be founded in sound analysis of their needs.
8. The SNRN should be developed as a ring-fenced, in-house agency guided by an advisory board of stakeholders.
9. The new NRN should play an enhanced role in strengthening SRDP communications.
10. In order to meet the diverse range of needs and demands placed on a National Network Unit, it is recommended that a policy of flexible resourcing be adopted.
11. The SNRN should promote good practice in rural development in more interactive ways, particularly peer-to-peer learning, good practice events and collaborative projects.
12. More formal networking arrangements and training support are required specifically for LEADER to improve delivery, outcomes and the exchange of good practices.
13. The selection and communication of good practice examples to help improve RDP outcomes should be enhanced.
14. The new NRN should take a more explicit supporting function on innovation and innovation systems in rural areas.