Scotland Rural Development Programme 2014-2020 - Consultation on Stage 1 Proposals : An Analysis of Responses

9 Collaboration

9.1 This chapter provides an analysis of responses regarding Section 10 of the consultation document which pointed out that many of the environmental challenges that Scotland faces require co-ordinated action across more than one holding. There were limited options within SRDP 2007-2013 to take a co-ordinated approach at a landscape scale. The Scottish Government proposed to make changes within SRDP 2014-2020 to address this. The following three questions sought views on these proposals:

Question 22: Do you agree or disagree that it would be helpful to allow third party applications for specific landscape scale projects? Please explain your views.

Question 23: Do you agree or disagree with public agencies working together to identify priority areas that could benefit from a co-ordinated third party application? Please explain your views.

Question 24: Do you agree or disagree with the establishment of a separate fund to support collective action at the landscape scale? Please explain your views.

Third party applications for landscape scale projects (Q22)

9.2 In total, 101 respondents (17 individuals and 84 organisations) answered Question 22. Of these, 90% agreed and 5% disagreed with the proposal to allow third party applications for landscape scale projects. See Table 9.1.

Table 9.1: Summary of responses by respondent type (Q22)

Type of respondent	Individuals	Organisations	Total respondents	%
Agree	12	79	91	90%
Disagree	4	1	5	5%
Other	1	4	5	5%
Total	17	84	101	100%

Views in support of third party applications for landscape projects

9.3 Those who agreed with the proposal felt it would:

• Encourage collaboration among neighbouring land managers and lead to a more integrated approach across multiple holdings
• Promote innovation and achieve economies of scale
• Lead to better outcomes and result in a more effective SRDP.

9.4 Respondents noted that it could often be easier for a third party to apply for funding for landscape scale projects with the support of the individual land owners, since land owners can be reluctant to take on the responsibility and liability for such projects themselves.

9.5 Such arrangements were seen to be especially useful where the public benefit of the project was high but the benefit to the land owner was low. Examples included: ancient woodland and peatland restoration; management of deer and invasive non-native species; and flood prevention and footpath development. These might require action across the boundaries of individual holdings.

Caveats and disagreement with third party applications

9.6 Respondents identified several significant issues which would need to be considered in taking forward the proposal to allow third party applications:

• Funding would need to be provided to enable facilitation and co-ordination
• Local communities should be given the opportunity to participate in decision-making where they are affected by landscape scale projects
• The process needs to be simple. It was suggested that it should not be necessary to create a third party organisation simply for the purposes of applying for funding for landscape scale projects.
• Funding should be restricted to organisations committed to the public good and principles of social inclusion rather than those with private interests
• Formal agreements would need to be drawn up to specify the 'ownership' of actions undertaken on individual lands, and for the allocation of funds to ensure that the works are carried out according to plan
• An incentive may need to be offered to landowners to encourage their participation in collaborative projects.
• There should be greater flexibility in relation to outcomes for such projects otherwise few applicants would be willing to take on the risk.

9.7 While some respondents agreed in principle with the proposal, they urged caution in taking it forward because of the issues of responsibility and liability / risk for the applicant and the issues of ownership and control for the landowner. It was suggested that, if third party applications were permitted, legally-binding agreements will be needed between the applicant, the landowners and the Scottish Government which protected the rights of all parties.

9.8 Those who disagreed with the proposal raised concerns about:

• The possible complications involved in such applications, including the potential loss of control for farmers / land managers over their own land
• The potential for large costs associated with challenging landscape scale projects which seemed at odds with the limited amount of money available.

Other issues

9.9 There was a view that third party applications could only be successful if there was active involvement from the land managers affected by the project. Without this, the long-term sustainability of the investment would be in jeopardy.

9.10 Local authority and Local LEADER Action Group respondents noted that there had been some success in funding cross-boundary projects via LEADER. They suggested this could be adopted as a model if it were adequately resourced. However, the point was also made that past attempts to work across LEADER boundaries had been complicated and plagued by unnecessary bureaucracy.

Public bodies working together to identify priority areas for collaboration (Q23)

9.11 In total, 99 respondents (15 individuals and 84 organisations) answered Question 23. Of these, 93% agreed with the proposal for public agencies to work together to identify priorities for collaboration and 6% disagreed. See Table 9.2.

Table 9.2: Summary of responses by respondent type (Q23)

Type of respondent	Individuals	Organisations	Total respondents	%
Agree	10	82	92	93%
Disagree	4	2	6	6%
Other	1	-	1	1%
Total	15	84	99	100%

Views in support of public agencies working together to identify priorities

9.12 In general, those who agreed that public agencies should work together to identify priority areas for third party applications thought that:

• The proposal was "sensible", given the strategic, high-level perspective that these agencies could provide and their ability to access to up-to-date data
• It would ensure that SRDP delivers public benefits and not just the financial security of individual land owners.

9.13 Some respondents said that public bodies were already working together to identify area priorities, thus there was nothing new about this proposal.

Caveats and disagreement with the proposal for public agencies to work together to identify priorities

9.14 Respondents often agreed in principle with this proposal, but also expressed strong caveats:

• Stakeholders must be involved in the identification of priorities: The identification of priorities for collaboration should not be undertaken by public bodies working in isolation, other stakeholders should also be involved. These would include: land managers and their advisors, local communities, community planning partnerships, third sector bodies and private agencies. It was suggested that the identification of rural priorities should adopt a community planning approach.
• Landscape scale projects identified by local people should not be excluded: Respondents thought the priorities of public bodies should not be seen as more valuable than those identified by local groups / communities.
• Stakeholder support was crucial for success: The point was made that land managers and communities can be suspicious of public bodies creating new priority designations which lead to restrictions on land use or additional costs to land owners. The key to success would depend on public bodies fostering good communication / engagement with stakeholders.

9.15 Some respondents also expressed specific reservations about the role of public agencies:

• Conflicts of interest: There was a view that public bodies have difficulty working in partnership since they are often competing for funding. In addition, there was a perception that public agencies tend not to prioritise certain types of projects, e.g. footpath or cycleway development, since improved access may be seen to be in conflict with biodiversity objectives.
• Lack of resources: There were questions about whether public agencies had the necessary resources to implement such a proposal.

9.16 Respondents who disagreed with the proposal also thought that:

• Public agencies are too influenced by politics
• It is preferable for initiatives to come from those who own / work the land
• Projects led by the public sector may cost more to implement than if led by the private sector. Therefore, this proposal would not be an appropriate use of SRDP funds.

Establishing a fund to support collective action at the landscape scale (Q24)

9.17 In total, 96 respondents (14 individuals and 82 organisations) answered Question 24. Of these, 68% agreed with establishing a separate fund to support collective action at the landscape scale and 20% disagreed. See Table 9.3.

Table 9.3: Summary of responses by respondent type (Q24)

Type of respondent	Individuals	Organisations	Total respondents	%
Agree	9	56	65	68%
Disagree	4	15	19	20%
Other	1	11	12	13%
Total	14	82	96	100%

Percentages do not total 100% because of rounding.

Views in support of establishing a fund to support collective action

9.18 Respondents who agreed often reiterated the benefits of landscape scale collaboration and thought that the creation of a separate fund would help to encourage and facilitate such projects. Respondents expressed a range of views about the purpose of the fund, if it were established, including that it should be used to:

• Raise awareness among land managers and farmers about opportunities for participating in collaborative projects in their area
• Pay for project development costs (e.g. facilitators, ecological surveys, environmental impact assessments, etc.)
• Cover the full cost of collaborative projects.

Caveats and disagreement with the establishment of a fund to support collective action

9.19 Caveats and disagreement with the proposal focused on:

• The lack of justification for such a fund: Those who disagreed with the proposal, and those who were uncertain, commonly said it was premature to create a new fund given the lack of information about the likely uptake of funding for such large-scale projects. There was a perception that a case had not been made in the consultation document for a separate fund. Some expressed doubt that such a fund was needed, suggesting instead that collaborative approaches were likely to cut across different schemes and, therefore, different budget allocations. There were suggestions that a pilot period might be appropriate before deciding to divert money away from core rural development priorities.
• Costs: Respondents thought the costs of such projects would be substantial and likely to be underestimated. Again, there was concern about the possible impact on the availability of funding for other priorities.
• Fairness in decision-making: There was a concern that decisions on funding collaborative projects could be affected by "politics". Respondents emphasised that public funding should be for the delivery of desired outcomes, rather than giving preference to projects simply because they involved collaboration. Concerns about the impact on small applicants compared to large consortia were voiced. Respondents wanted mechanisms put in place to ensure fairness in decision-making.
• Recipients of the funding: There were concerns that this proposal essentially represented a transfer of funds from SRDP to agencies which are already funded by Government to provide support for such activities.
• Administrative issues: There was a view that the creation of another fund would result in additional complication and duplication of administration and monitoring. Some questioned whether it could be effectively administered under the standard assessment process set out in the consultation document, suggesting instead that it should operate more like a challenge fund and be managed at a local level.