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

4 Investment Priorities for Rural Development (Q3)

4.1 This chapter provides an analysis of responses on proposals for investment priorities for the SRDP 2014-2020. The consultation document listed the investment articles from European legislation that were relevant to those priorities (articles 15-40) and asked respondents which articles they saw as priorities.

Question 3: Given the need to prioritise spending in the future programme which articles do you see as a priority for use within the next programme? Please explain your views.

4.2 Altogether, 132 respondents (36 individuals and 96 organisations) made a comment relevant to Question 3. Of these, 71% indicated one or more articles which they thought should be prioritised in SRDP 2014-2020. The remaining 29% highlighted issues which they wanted to be prioritised, without referring to a specific article. Within this group were 16 'campaign' respondents who stated that "At least 50% of the SRDP 2014-2020 should be allocated to agri-environment." These respondents were all presumed to be in support of Article 29 (agri-env-climate).

4.3 Respondents highlighted a wide range of issues and specific articles as priorities. There were just a small number of articles which attracted little or no support. Given the level of detail in the responses, the analysis presents only a broad indication of where respondents' priorities lay. However, all comments will be read and considered by the Scottish Government in the development of the new programme.

Variation in priorities by respondent type

4.4 A comparative analysis was undertaken of the comments from the eight largest groups of respondents to the consultation.^[5] The analysis showed that there was variation between groups in the articles they prioritised, with respondents tending to give priority to articles which related to their own particular interests or perspectives (e.g. forestry, farming, conservation). See Annex 3 for details of priority articles by respondent type.

Highest priorities

4.5 When considering the comments of all respondents together, the following six articles were commonly identified as priorities:

• Knowledge transfer and information actions (Article 15)
• Advisory services, farm management and farm relief services (Article 16)
• Farm and business development (Article 20)
• Basic services and village renewal in rural areas (Article 21)
• Agri-env-climate (Article 29)
• Co-operation (Article 36).

4.6 In their comments, respondents emphasised that SRDP funding should be targeted at projects that are mostly likely to deliver public benefit and long-term sustainable impacts (in jobs, communities, business growth, etc.) rather than private, short-term, commercial interests. In particular, the articles selected for inclusion in the programme should (among other things):

• Reflect local economic development and regeneration priorities
• Tackle structural changes in rural communities
• Promote innovation and competitiveness and improve performance in small rural businesses (including, but not limited to, farm businesses and crofts)
• Support implementation of the Scottish Land Use Strategy
• Address inequalities
• Improve diet and health
• Improve recreational access to land
• Support biodiversity
• Mitigate climate change
• Avoid duplication with other European funds.

Lowest priorities

4.7 There was little / no support among respondents for the following five articles to be regarded as priorities:^[6]

• Restoring agricultural production potential damaged by natural disasters and catastrophic events… (Article 19)
• Risk management (Article 37)
• Crop, animal and plant insurance (Article 38)
• Mutual funds for animal and plant diseases and environmental incidents (Article 39)
• Income stabilisation tool (Article 40).

4.8 These were thought to be commercially-oriented articles which offered poor value for money in terms of public benefit. It was suggested that it may be more appropriate for SRDP funding to be used for training in risk management.

Gaps

4.9 In their comments, respondents sometimes also identified priorities which they thought were not covered by any of the articles.^[7] These included:

• Community capacity building (including local infrastructure projects such as footpaths, tourism offices, village halls, etc.)
• Training for unemployed young people in rural communities and related issues of out-migration by young people
• Conservation and management of the historic environment
• Creation and management of small (community) woodlands
• Maintenance and improvement of upland farmed landscapes (particularly peatlands)
• Support for farmers whose land had been designated as SSSI^[8] and SPA^[9] (which has effectively prevented the land from being farmed)
• Poverty reduction.

Other issues

4.10 Respondents raised a very wide range of other detailed issues in their comments on Question 3. In some cases, respondents simply asked for clarification or further details about what was covered under specific articles. Examples of other issues raised include:

• The appropriateness of what should or should not be covered under certain articles: (e.g. "Article 15: this could be used to invest in a range of rurally based training and skills development, not limited to land management"; "Article 18: investment in physical assets (but not drainage)")
• The level of funding which should be made available under certain articles: (e.g. "LEADER should not be tagged to the 5% minimum as the document hints, but raised as high as is possible")
• The balance in the focus of the articles: (e.g. "…there is a very large emphasis on forestry - the articles do not represent a balance of the important Scottish habitats")
• Why certain articles should be prioritised: Respondents prioritised a wide range of articles in addition to the six listed above in paragraph 4.5. Many provided detailed reasons about why they saw specific articles as important for rural development investment in Scotland.
• General comments about the focus of the programme: (e.g. "…so called 'slipper farmers' should not receive payments, this money (saved) could go towards modulation / new entrants").