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

5 Strategic Targeting (Q4)

5.1 This chapter provides an analysis of respondents' views on Section 5 of the consultation document regarding the strategic targeting of investments. The consultation document set out the Scottish Government's proposals to target certain investment options to achieve the greatest contribution towards delivering the Government's rural priorities, with geographical targeting suggested for some investment options. Respondents were asked the following question:

Question 4: Do you agree or disagree that we should geographically target our investment to areas where support will make the greatest contribution to our priorities? Please explain your views.

5.2 In total, 106 respondents (16 individuals and 90 organisations) answered Question 4. Of these, 66% agreed with the proposal to geographically target investments and 26% disagreed. See Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: Summary of responses by respondent type (Q4)

Percentages do not total 100% because of rounding.

5.3 The figures in the table above should be treated with caution. In the consultation document this question sat within a section that discussed the wider issue of strategic targeting. However, the question itself focused solely on targeting on a geographical basis.

5.4 Respondents' comments suggested that they were supportive of the principle of strategic targeting, i.e. targeting to achieve specific priority outcomes, but they had strong reservations about geographical targeting.

Views in support of geographical targeting

5.5 Those who agreed with the proposal thought geographical targeting would:

• Result in better value for money
• Avoid the possibility of resources being spread too thinly
• Have the potential to improve people's awareness of funding opportunities, thereby increasing uptake and avoiding expense for those whose applications are unlikely to succeed.

Caveats and disagreement with geographical targeting

5.6 Caveats and disagreements with geographical targeting were that:

• It was not appropriate for all priorities: It was suggested that geographical targeting may be appropriate for some priorities (e.g. crofting), but not for others (examples given included organic farming, forestry or small woodlands). Therefore, respondents suggested there could be an element of geographical targeting, but that strategic investment should not solely be on a geographical basis.
• It could act as a barrier to achieving strategic priorities: The point was made that "lines on maps" can create barriers to larger cross-boundary projects.
• It might result in poor resource allocation: Geographical targeting could result in funding being allocated to areas that do not have the capacity or opportunities to absorb the support. It could also result in poorer quality projects from one area being funded, while good projects from another area are rejected because of lack of funding.
• It could increase administrative complexity: There was a view that a regionalised approach would add a further layer of administration.

5.7 There was a strong feeling among respondents that if geographical targeting were to be taken forward, a degree of flexibility would be needed to ensure the money was well spent.

Other issues

5.8 The issue of geographical / regional targeting was closely linked for many respondents with the issue of regional prioritisation, decision-making and accountability. Some believed that local government was in the best position to administer rural development funding in their own areas, while others thought local decision-making would result in unacceptable inconsistencies and variation in assessment criteria for funding.

5.9 There was a general call for more detail about the proposal. Specifically, respondents wanted clarity on:

• How regional priorities would be set
• How geographical areas would be defined. The point was made that, within administrative areas (e.g. the Highlands), there are often very diverse habitats, agricultural systems, service provision, etc.