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

10 Advice and Support

10.1 This chapter provides an analysis of responses regarding the Scottish Government's proposals to allocate part of the SRDP budget to advice provision, and also to broaden the advice which underpins the Whole Farm Review Scheme. It was proposed that the new SRDP programme provided an opportunity to introduce a new, fit for purpose, affordable advisory service. Respondents were asked the following questions:

Question 19: What support and assistance do you think applicants will need for this application process to work effectively? Please explain your views.

Question 25: Do you agree or disagree with broadening the Whole Farm Review Scheme to include biodiversity, environment, forestry, water pollution control and waste management? Please explain your views.

Question 26: Do you agree or disagree that we allocate SRDP budget to advice provision when we move to the next programme? Please explain your views.

Support and assistance required by applicants (Q19)

10.2 In total, 97 respondents (14 individuals and 83 organisations) answered Question 19.

10.3 In the consultation document, this question sat within a section that discussed applications focusing on agricultural, environmental, landscape and forestry investments only. However, a wide range of organisations responded to this question and offered comments relating to SRDP application processes in general.

10.4 Respondents highlighted the importance of:

• Clear guidance: Respondents wished to have user friendly, well-written guidance; straightforward application forms; and a robust and transparent assessment process. Some suggested that workshops and / or training packages to accompany any new guidance would be helpful. Respondents wanted the guidance to be available as soon as the programme was launched and to be stable for the full duration of the programme.
• High quality (free) advice: From an early stage and throughout the process of an application, respondents wished to see high quality and consistent advice, available locally and free of charge. Face-to-face contact, including site visits and pre-approval assessment visits, was thought to be useful in ensuring time was not wasted on developing unsuccessful applications.

10.5 The key features of the advisory service, which many respondents wished to see, were described in detail in the RSPB response. In addition, there were a variety of comments which recommended learning from the perceived success of the LEADER model.

Broadening the Whole Farm Review Scheme (Q25)

10.6 In total, 90 respondents (16 individuals and 74 organisations) answered Question 25. Of these, 88% agreed with the proposal to broaden the Whole Farm Review Scheme (WFRS) and 10% disagreed. See Table 10.1.

Table 10.1: Summary of responses by respondent type (Q25)

Type of respondent	Individuals	Organisations	Total respondents	%
Agree	14	65	79	88%
Disagree	2	7	9	10%
Other	-	2	2	2%
Total	16	74	90	100%

Views in support of broadening the WFRS

10.7 Those who agreed with the proposal felt that broadening the WFRS would:

• Increase farm business performance
• Improve environmental outcomes
• Achieve wider economic and social benefits, including community impacts
• Reinforce other Scottish policy priorities and strategies, particularly those relating to land use and biodiversity.

10.8 It was suggested that a Whole Farm Review should be completed before an application for SRDP funding could be considered.

Caveats and disagreement with broadening the WFRS

10.9 Caveats and disagreements with broadening the WFRS were that:

• The proposals for broadening the scheme did not go far enough: It was suggested that aspects of climate change mitigation and historic environment conservation should also be included. It was also suggested that forestry schemes should be encouraged to adopt a WFRS approach to assessing wider environmental benefits.
• Substantial resources would be required: Respondents emphasised that substantial resources would be required to ensure provision of appropriate advice. Specifically, the time allowed to conduct a Whole Farm Review would have to be increased.
• It would increase complexity and cost for applicants: There was a view that broadening the WFRS would make the system too complex and expensive, and would result in too much money being spent on consultants.

Other issues

10.10 It was suggested that the success of the (broadened) WFRS would stand or fall on the quality of the advice service underpinning its delivery. Respondents' comments focused on the importance of a comprehensive and high quality advice service using appropriately accredited advisors, available to all, with access to an appropriate mix of generalist and specialist advice and integrated with other extant advisory services. One respondent suggested that the contract for this service should be put out to tender.

10.11 Respondents wanted clarification on the relationship between the WFRS and any future LMO scheme.

The allocation of SRDP budget to advice provision (Q26)

10.12 In total, 103 respondents (18 individuals and 85 organisations) answered Question 26. Of these, 84% agreed with the proposal to allocate SRDP to advice provision and 9% disagreed. See Table 10.2.

Table 10.2: Summary of responses by respondent type (Q26)

Type of respondent	Individuals	Organisations	Total respondents	%
Agree	11	76	87	84%
Disagree	5	4	9	9%
Other	2	5	7	7%
Total	18	85	103	100%

Views in support of allocating SRDP budget to advice provision

10.13 Many respondents emphasised the importance of advice provision because:

• High quality advice is crucial in generating successful outcomes in the context of both small and large applications. It is integral to SRDP.
• High quality advice is as important as financial support.

Caveats and disagreement with allocating SRDP budget to advice provision

10.14 Caveats and disagreements with allocating SRDP budget to advice provision were that:

• Any new provision should not replace advice services currently provided free of charge: Respondents, particularly small businesses, wished to be reassured that any change would not result in services that were currently being provided free of charge being withdrawn. Some thought a distinction needed to be drawn between advice and consultancy with advice being provided for free and consultancy being paid for.
• Current capacity needs to be increased: There was a view that current advice provision is inadequate, both in terms of the range of skills available and the number of advisors. Some respondents thought this could be addressed through the reinstatement of the FWAG service which was thought to offer value for money.

Other issues

10.15 There was a widespread view that the SRDP could not achieve its outcomes without substantial resources being devoted to advice services. Some respondents believed that a budget for advice provision, which ran into tens of millions of pounds, was easy to justify given the scale of the SRDP programme. Others, however, focused on achieving value for money, making best use of current provision and ensuring that lessons were learned from existing schemes.

10.16 Finally, many commented on the balance between centrally organised advice schemes and more locally based schemes. The latter were generally viewed more positively. Examples of advice service models which were thought to work well included the LEADER scheme, the Business Gateway scheme and the Welsh Glastir scheme. Any scheme should build on the lessons learned from existing schemes.