Scottish Rural Development Programme 2014-2020: ex-post evaluation - main report

20. Focus Area 6B

Introduction

This chapter answers the evaluation question related to FA 6B.

CEQ 17: To what extent have RDP interventions supported local development in rural areas?

Contribution to FA 6B

Public expenditure

Two schemes were programmed to contribute to FA 6B – LEADER and Improving Public Access (IPA).

In addition, some money from the 2014-2020 Programme budget was used for on-going commitments from the 2007-2013 Programme for the RP and LMO schemes.

The AIR 2023 reports that circa €109.4 million was spent under FA 6B by the end of the Programme, see Table 20.1. Points to note include that:

• the vast majority of expenditure realised under FA 6B was through the LEADER programme (circa €96.1 million, 87.9%) – this was programmed against Measure 19 (Support for LEADER local development).
• IPA achieved a realised expenditure of circa €7.2 million (6.6% of total expenditure under FA 6B) – this was programmed under Measure 7 (Basic services and village renewal in rural areas).
• the remainder of the expenditure realised under FA 6B related to LMO and RP with this expenditure uncured up to and including 2018.

Table 20.1: Summary of public expenditure realised under FA 6B

Scheme	Expenditure	Percentage of total public expenditure realised under FA 6B	Proportion of total scheme public expenditure realised under FA 6B
LEADER	€96,165,512	87.9%	100.0%
IPA	€7,274,246	6.6%	100.0%
RP	€3,478,550	3.2%	1.4%
LMO	€2,522,810	2.3%	8.6%%
Total	€109,441,118	100.0%	7.5%

Source: Scottish Government, Annual Implementation Report, 2023.

Performance indicators

A summary of the outcomes achieved under FA 6B is provided in Table 20.2.

Table 20.2: Summary of performance against FA 6B

Outcome	Description	Result
O1	Total public expenditure	€109,441,118
O2	Total investment	€113,738,794
O3	Number of actions/operations supported	1,242
O15	Population benefitting of improved services/infrastructures	261,821
O18	Population covered by Local Action Groups (LAGs)	2,100,000
O19	Number of LAGs selected	21
O20	Number of LEADER projects supported	1,168
O21	Number of cooperation projects supported	83
O22	Number and type of project promoters	969
O23	Unique number of LAG involved in cooperation projects	44

Source: Scottish Government, Annual Implementation Report, 2023.

There are three target indicators under FA 6B, two related to LEADER and one to the IPA scheme.

The LEADER focused target indicators are the percentage of the rural population covered by local development strategies and the number of jobs created in projects supported by LEADER. Points to note include that:

• the 21 LAGs supported by the SRDP 2014-2020 cover a rural population of 2,100,000.
• this is equivalent to 86.76% of the total rural population and meets the target set for the percentage of the rural population to be covered by local development strategies (LDS).

In relation to the target indicator – the number of jobs created in projects supported by LEADER, points to note include that:

• in total 523 jobs (headcount) were created by supported projects - the target to create 551 jobs during the 2014-2020 Programme was almost achieved by the end of the Programme period (94.92% achieved).
• there was limited data available on the gender of people who took up the new jobs - 25 (female), 44 (male), and 454 (data not available or unknown).

On advice from the EC regarding the jobs created where the gender of the person employed was not available or unknown these have been artificially allocated to either the female or male category.

This was done using the proportions of jobs created where the gender was known. This means that of the 454 jobs created where the gender of the person employed was not available or unknown 164 were allocated to the female category and 290 were allocated to the male category.

Overall, a majority of the jobs created by LEADER activities were taken up by males, as follows:

• female – 189 or 36%.
• male – 334 or 64%.

The third target indicator related to the IPA scheme and is the percentage of the rural population benefiting from improved services/infrastructure.

For the IPA this indicator related to support for new and upgraded paths for public use. By the end of 2023:

• the projects supported by the IPA scheme had benefited 261,821 people - this is equivalent to 10.82% of the rural population benefiting from improved services/infrastructure.
• the target of 10.14% of the rural population was achieved by the end of 2020.

Wider commentary at a SRDP level

LEADER

Table 20.1 shows that the LEADER programme had a realised expenditure of circa €95.8 million by the end of the SRDP Programme - this represents 87.9% of total expenditure realised under FA 6B.

LEADER was a long-established programme and predated the 2014-2020 SRDP programme period. Over time it has firmly established itself as a grassroots method of delivering support for rural development through the implementation of LDS which helped to address the challenges each local area faced.

LEADER aimed to promote economic and community development within rural areas. It was a bottom-up method of delivering support for rural growth, aimed at: increasing the capacity of the local rural community and business networks by building knowledge and skills; encouraging innovation and co-operation; and attempting to tackle local development objectives through a community-led local development (CLLD) approach.

SG estimate that some 500 people were involved in delivering the LEADER programme in Scotland.

SG was the Managing Authority and Paying Agency for the LEADER 2014-2020 programme in Scotland. It managed the budgets, monitored delivery, and reimbursed Accountable Bodies for eligible expenditure. In the vast majority of cases, a local authority was the Accountable Body.

At a local level LEADER in Scotland was coordinated, managed, and delivered by the 21 LAGs, and there were signed Service Level Agreements (SLA) and Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in place for each LAG. LAGs were responsible for the strategic direction and implementation of LEADER, including managing the distribution of funds by selecting projects which fit with the LDS.

The Accountable Body sat between the LAG and SG and was responsible to the LAG for the operational administration of LEADER (for example, maintenance of accounts and financial procedures, maintaining details of project commitments, expenditure and claims, employing staff on behalf of the LAG to support delivery).

Budget size per LAG varied considerably and LAGs typically had three or four members of staff. Each LAG comprised a mix national, regional, and local representatives from across the public sector, private sector, and third sector – each LAG typically had at least 10 members.

While certain organisations were represented on all LAGs (for example, the relevant local authority), it was up to the LAG to decide its membership, albeit they typically set out details of the minimum percentage of non-public sector representation. National organisations, for example, NFU Scotland, Scottish Enterprise, and VisitScotland sat on some LAGs but some experienced capacity constraints to service multiple LAGs for the duration of the LEADER programme (and also experienced employee churn). Some LAGs experienced wider challenges in terms of recruitment and retention of LAG members over the programme period.

While NFU Scotland sat on some LAGs, farmers were more focused on agricultural aspects of the SRDP than on LEADER. The enterprise support and farm diversification element of LEADER did engage some farmers via supported projects – a good example would be the development of glamping pods on farms. LEADER extended beyond the agricultural sector – LAG meeting minutes, for example, demonstrated how local people and community groups/organisations participated in, and benefited from, local action through representation on LEADER LAGs.

There were various opportunities for those involved in delivering LEADER to come together to: receive updates from other LAGs and from SG; hear from invited speakers and presenters; undertake project visits; and share experiences and good practice more generally. This included through regular LAG Chair, LAG Co-ordinator, and Accountable Body meetings.

In the 2014-2020 SRDP, indicator data confirms that the 21 LAGs and associated LDS covered circa 87% of the population of rural Scotland (2,100,000 people) while in the previous programme it was about 90% coverage.

The vast majority of the LEADER programme budget was used to support project activity in line with the LDS objectives and priority themes.

At a local level, this could equate to no less than 75% of the total programme budget, and within this, a proportion was to be ring-fenced for certain types of projects – a minimum of 10% was ring-fenced for each of the following: enterprise support, farm diversification, and cooperation projects. This was latterly changed to 20% for enterprise and farm diversification combined (rather than 10% each) and to 5% for cooperation projects as it proved challenging for some LAG areas to hit the original targets due to local circumstances and the impact of Brexit and the pandemic.

Data provided by SG from the Local Actions in Rural Communities System (LARCS) IT system shows that:

• LEADER supported 1,703 projects.
• the most common project type was ‘community project’, albeit projects could realistically be assigned to multiple categories.
• the revised ring-fenced targets were met.

Table 20.3: Summary of performance against FA 6B

Project type	Number of projects supported	Percentage of total number of projects supported	Percentage of expenditure
Community projects	1,027	60%	68%
Farm diversification projects	178	10%	10%
SME projects	431	25%	18%
Cooperation projects	67	4%	5%
Total	1,703	100%	100%

Source: Scottish Government.

Note: It is not clear why the 1,703 differs from the 1,168 reported in Table 20.2.

The remainder of the LEADER programme budget was used to cover costs associated with administration and animation (for example, staffing, marketing, evaluation), and could not be greater than 25% of the total budget. Scheme evaluation evidence suggests that administration and animation support was vitally important to: increase awareness of LEADER among potential applicants; to build a strong pipeline of project proposals; improve the quality and breadth of project proposals coming forward; and provide advice, guidance, and support to the LAG and to grant applicants and recipients.

LEADER, through approved LDS, supported a diverse range of projects and activities at a local level to help:

• drive community action on climate change.
• enhance rural services and facilities, including transport initiatives.
• enhance natural/cultural heritage, tourism, and leisure.
• support food and drink initiatives.
• build co-operation with other LAGs in Scotland, UK, and Europe.
• exchange learning and knowledge with each other, realise their potential, build opportunities for all.

The projects supported by LEADER funding were relevant and specific to each local rural area and this spanned economic, social/cultural, and environmental activities. An SG official reported that the LDS provided a useful reference point for LAGs, including the rationale for investment and facilitated the support (and delivery) of a wide range of projects in line with agreed objectives, priority themes, and outcomes.

SG officials interviewed as part of previous enhanced AIRs (2016 and 2018) and as part of the ex-post evaluation confirmed that the LEADER Programme and LAGs experienced several challenges, including:

• a delayed start to the LEADER programme - many LAGs were not established until 2016 and it took time for momentum to be achieved in terms of project awards, funding committed and expenditure, and ability to report on outcomes and impact.
• there were wider cumulative delays in the LEADER programme becoming fully operational – largely arising from the time taken to close the 2007-2013 LEADER programme and the time taken to finalise guidance for the LEADER 2014-2020 programme and for the IT system to go live.
• the wider political context of Brexit also caused delays – it was difficult for LAGs to build momentum following the UK EU Referendum in 2016, as no new LEADER funding awards could be made for a period of six months.
• it took some LAGs longer to build interest and demand for enterprise support and farm diversification support (farm diversification was new activity in the 2014-2020 LEADER programme) and for cooperation projects – as shown in Table 20.3 demand was strongest for community projects.
• the process evaluation of LEADER (see below) reported that enterprise support and farm diversification applications may have been more onerous for LAG staff or that these applicants may have tended to apply for smaller grants than community funds.
• processes, procedures, and IT systems were generally considered overly bureaucratic – this placed an increased administrative burden on both staff teams and applicants for grant funding, particularly for smaller organisations without prior experience or resources to navigate the requirements effectively.

The afore-mentioned issues and challenges were reiterated in several individual LAG commissioned LEADER evaluations, and in the internal process evaluation of LEADER 2014-2020 in Scotland (SG, 2018).

SG (and local LEADER evaluations) reported that the COVID-19 pandemic also had a knock-on effect on delivery and achievement of output targets. On the one hand, an SG official commented that the LARCS IT system for LEADER reduced some of the administrative burden on staff teams and enabled better financial oversight and reporting.

For example, staff teams could see how much of their area’s budget allocation had been committed and realised on project activity, administration, and animation at a glance. However, they also said that some applicants were not able or willing to engage with the LARCS, and this placed additional administrative burden on the local LEADER teams who in some cases had to manually enter or update the necessary information and data.

LEADER was designed to draw on supportive and synergistic relationships with other parts of the SRDP, in particular with the SRN. SG officials reported that the SRN was good at promoting LEADER, and that the LEADER programme also supported trans-national cooperation by LAGs, such as with Northern Ireland and other non-UK Member States.

LEADER had a Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy against which LAGs were required to report against – this covered a wide range of indicators. Each LAG updated LARCS to set out achievements against its indicators, albeit this has not been aggregated up in any way at a national level.

SG officials confirmed that each LAG conducted its own internal or external evaluation of its LDS. SG did not share a standard template with LAGs to enable a consistent approach to evaluation. Rather the local LEADER evaluations were different in terms of scope, scale, methodology, and timing. While these evaluations typically provided a clear picture on the overall impact of LEADER at a local level, the SG has not undertaken activity to explore whether any of the data and findings could be brought together to provide a coherent and compensative picture on the impact of the LEADER Programme at a national level.

That being said, SG officials reported that each local level LEADER evaluation should have included a set of common questions to help provide some impact data at a national level. These questions related to how LDS have, for example, improved local facilities and services, contributed to inclusive growth, undertaken low carbon actions, enhanced biodiversity, landscape, heritage and environments, and strengthened partnership working and created networks. While the individual evaluation reports were available, aggregated findings at a national level were not readily available.

The internal process evaluation of LEADER (2018) examined the impact of LEADER 2014-2020 on rural Scotland, and more specifically the economic, social, cultural and environmental impact of LEADER. The process evaluation included:

• analysis of administrative data on the LARCs – whilst projects were asked to report against various outcomes that would help to capture economic, social, cultural, and environmental impact, data at the time of the process evaluation was very limited due to the low volume of completed projects. No conclusions could be made at that time on impact solely based on data collected on LARCs. Note: at the time of the ex-post evaluation, there was no aggregated data available from LARCS.
• the collection and analysis of qualitative data generated through focus groups in four LAGs and selected based on the status of their projects, budget, and types of projects – to help provide some insights on impact.

Given the timing of the process evaluation, coupled with the delayed start to the LEADER programme, the process evaluation provided a snapshot of progress and impact (and lessons learned), rather than a comprehensive impact evaluation.

The focus groups undertaken as part of the process evaluation highlighted some examples of the impact LEADER has had on community life, traditions and heritage, social infrastructure and cohesion, and the provision of services for cultural and leisure activities. For example, it concluded that:

• in terms of environmental impact, LEADER projects have helped to preserve the environment and engage people with natural heritage.
• in terms of economic impact, LEADER has helped to create new employment and training opportunities by investing in tourism, crafts, farm diversification and in small businesses.
• in terms of social and cultural capital impact, LEADER projects for example, facilitated basic services for cultural and leisure activities for the rural population, and supported the development of clubs and community hubs to provide facilities for local groups and bring people together.
• supported projects (sometimes indirectly) helped the local rural community and business networks to build knowledge and skills and encourage innovation and cooperation to tackle local development objectives.

Despite the positive impact LEADER has had, the process evaluation report highlighted challenges faced by applicants for grant funding. These challenges largely related to the governance of LEADER and on financial administration, but also on the application effort per se, the lack of LEADER staff and the focus on innovation, which was key criteria to access funding. Wider concerns raised by participants were that the payment claims process and the perceived discrimination of small organisations. Additionally, a lack of funding flexibility, transparency and communication were perceived as challenges.

The role of the LEADER approach post-Brexit (SRUC, 2020) presented findings from research to help better understand the evolution of the LEADER approach and its impact in rural/coastal Scotland since the early 1990s, and to identify options for the future post-Brexit. This research drew on evidence from various sources including:

• an international evidence review of the evolution and impacts of LEADER.
• analysis of available LEADER project data for Scotland since 1991.
• interviews with 24 national and regional stakeholders (in the UK and Europe) and a workshop discussion with 15 Scottish LEADER staff.
• LAG and project case studies that illustrate a range of experiences and outcomes.

Key conclusions from the SRUC report included that:

• since the outset of LEADER in Scotland in the early 1990s, there has been a continual increase in the geographical coverage of the LEADER programme over time.
• the total population of the eligible area has almost tripled since LEADER II - this has expanded the scope and impact of the LEADER programme and shifted the focus from remote rural areas to include some more heavily populated rural regions.
• there has been an increase in LEADER budgets over time, with the EU contribution having increased by a factor of seven or eight since LEADER I - despite this, the per capita spend has remained relatively similar across programmes (due to expanding coverage and population of the eligible area).
• there has been variation between programmes in the number of projects, with LEADER II delivering the highest overall number (2,326) - considerable variation in intervention rates, with some LAGs particularly successful at achieving very high levels of match funding.
• there has been a substantial increase in mean grant size (and mean project costs) - the mean grant awarded increased from £12,183 under LEADER II to £68,923 (at 2019 equivalent values) in the current programme – almost a six-fold increase over a 20 year period. Early programmes in particular funded a number of projects under £1,000, with LEADER+ funding over 600 projects with grants of under £5,000.
• in more recent LEADER programmes, staff have been required to spend more time on administration, while local animation was a particular focus of earlier programmes.

The research interviews and workshops with LAGs and project case studies revealed several strengths and challenges of LEADER, as described below.

Key strengths included:

• the power of the bottom-up approach (delivered via the LAGs and the LDS) for delivering local actions to address local needs, often in innovative ways.
• the ability of LEADER to empower communities in taking action to improve resilience, particularly in places which may normally not be eligible for financial investment and other support.
• the potential for LAGs to include diverse perspectives and skills, and the wide-ranging support from LEADER staff that leads to local community capacity-building.
• the impressive breadth and depth of projects supported by LEADER, many of which would not have been delivered otherwise, and many of which that have had long-lasting impacts and led to other projects or initiatives.
• the direct creation of jobs and safeguarding of other roles as a result of LEADER projects, as well as delivery of training to nearly 60,000 people in the 2007-2013 programme alone.
• the role that LEADER projects can play in long-term, strategic community economic and social development.

Challenges identified included:

• the negative impacts that the increasing administrative complexity associated with LEADER have had on the reputation of the programme for potential applicants.
• the demands placed on LEADER staff teams to deal with the various administrative aspects of their work.
• difficulties for new applicants with no experience of LEADER in ‘getting on the LEADER ladder’.
• the uncertainty or ‘hiatus’ that occurs between LEADER programmes and the challenges (for example, loss of knowledgeable and experienced staff) associated with that uncertainty.
• variations in the application requirements and standards of service between the LAGs.

Looking forwards, participants in the research generally agreed that: the bottom-up approach and the LDS should be retained; the LEADER ‘brand’ should be refreshed; there should be continued emphasis on innovation but not as a requirement for every project; administrative requirements should be simplified; a tiered approach to projects should be explored; there should be adequate time and budget for animation and capacity-building; and the top-down and bottom-up aspects of LEADER delivery should be balanced more appropriately.

Similar strengths and weakness were identified in local LEADER evaluations which EKOS had sight of as part of the ex-post SRDP evaluation.

Improving Public Access

The IPA scheme was a sub-scheme within the larger AECS and was delivered between 2015 to 2022. The IPA scheme was jointly administered by NatureScot and the SG RPID. NatureScot managed the application process and issued contracts while RPID was responsible for processing claims and payments and undertaking inspections.

The IPA scheme was introduced as part of the AECS as a successor scheme to the 2007-2013 RP scheme which included a sub-scheme related to ‘Area Access Management’.

Table 20.1 shows that IPA had realised public expenditure of circa €7.2 million which represents 6.6% of the total expenditure realised under FA 6B.

The IPA scheme supported the development of new and upgraded paths in rural Scotland that would cater for a wide range of uses and user groups. The original rationale for the scheme was that support for paths and related infrastructure projects would help to encourage responsible public access and integration with land-use and land management.

Support for paths also aids health improvement and increases physical activity among path users and fosters social and economic opportunities through enhanced outdoor access.

More specifically, the IPA scheme aimed to:

• improve links and connectivity.
• improve path conditions.
• improve barrier-free access in rural Scotland.

The IPA scheme could support a wide range of organisations, including local authorities, public bodies, non-governmental organisations (NGO), private companies, tourist organisations, farmers, and land managers.

The IPA scheme ran annual competitive grant funding rounds between 2015 and 2018. There were no funding rounds in 2019 and 2020, and then the scheme then ran funding rounds in 2021 and 2022 that were wholly domestically funded.

Applications submitted to the IPA scheme were subject to a two-stage assessment process comprising stage 1 (eligibility checks) and stage 2 (scoring and site visit). SG officials reported that the two-year gap in the IPA scheme operation during 2019 and 2020 provided a timely opportunity for NatureScot to undertake a review of delivery to date. This was with a view to making improvements for the last two years of the SRDP scheme and to inform future plans for rural development policy and support more generally.

The scope of IPA scheme review, which was undertaken by NatureScot during 2019 and 2020, was to: assess the efficiency of the scheme; quantify the achievements delivered through completed IPA contracts; and identify recommendations for IPA as a future option within agricultural/land-use support mechanisms.

The scheme level review involved taking stock of the application and assessment process, quantitative and qualitative analysis of data captured during the application process and in contracts agreed (including any variations), and an assessment of scheme deliverables. The review was also informed by stakeholder interviews and surveys, including engagement with a range of stakeholders, such as: NatureScot case officers; RPID area office co-ordinators; National Access Forum; NFU Scotland; IPA contract holders; a land managers survey; and a local authority survey (141 responses were received to the various surveys).

NatureScot updated the IPA review report (June 2024) to incorporate data from the 2021 and 2022 funding rounds and to provide a comprehensive overview of the scheme delivery period as a whole. No additional stakeholder engagement was undertaken to feed into the updated report.

We report below on the co-financed period – that is, the funding rounds 2015 to 2018. Note: the monetary values were presented in the report in Pound Sterling not Euros.

In terms of interest and demand for IPA support, the review report notes that:

• 245 applications were submitted between 2015 and 2018 and 135 applications (55%) were approved and progressed to contract – demand for support was strong overall, see Table 20.4.
• a large proportion of applications submitted to the IPA scheme were rejected – the main reasons were ineligible applications (for example, due to errors related to capital items or because the contractual licence or the submitted map did not meet the scheme requirements) or achieved below the threshold score for support^[26] – other applications were withdrawn by applicants for a variety of reasons.
• the total value of the 135 approved contracts was £7.82 million (note: data was reported in Pound Sterling not Euros), with an average value of circa £55,000.
• the number of contracts that were not signed or withdrawn after signing was relatively low, though the total value of these contracts was considerable – the main reasons included failure to complete works in the allowed timescale, not obtaining planning permission^[27], or not securing additional funding where IPA capital item rates were insufficient to cover costs.

Table 20.4: Summary of IPA applications received and contracts delivered (2015-2018)

Year	Applications submitted	Contracts delivered	Value (£ millions)	Path (m)
2015	28	16	0.72	11,670
2016	64	34	1.5	31,704
2017	55	36	2.2	45,907
2018	98	49	3.4	68,373
Total	245	135	7.82	157,654 *

Source: NatureScot, Improving Public Access Scheme Evaluation 2015-2022, updated June 2024

* This equates to circa 158 kilometres.

The following narrative relates to the IPA delivery period to 2022 (as the data for 2015-2018 was not readily available in the updated review report):

• the 181 IPA contracts spanned delivery in 21 access authority areas, with significant clusters in Aberdeenshire, Dumfries and Galloway, Highland, and East Lothian. Several authority areas which comprise significant rural land, however, had no contracts delivered at all. This included Aberdeen City, Angus, Clackmannanshire, East and West Dunbartonshire, Falkirk, Orkney, and Shetland.
• the data from the scheme level review noted that the main applicants included landowners and tenant farmers, but that some community groups also benefitted from scheme funding. Dumfries and Galloway Council accounted for the most contracts delivered by local authorities.

At the time the updated IPA review report was published (June 2024), £10.4 million IPA contract payments had been made (85% of total contracts value), and a further two contracts totalling £228,000 were to be processed – giving maximum payments totalling £10.6 million (87% of total contracts value). The rates of non-payment for IPA were much higher than the 5% anticipated level of non-payment from other options within AECS. Note: Table 20.1 presents the actual public expenditure realised by the end of the Programme.

The scheme review reported that a range of path-related capital items were included in contracts’ Schedules of Works. An unbound surface for new paths featured in 55% of approved contracts, 37% included semi-bound surfaces, and 18% involved upgrading existing paths. Further, timber bench seats, stock fencing, A3 information panels and fingerposts were included in at least half the agreed contracts. Waymarkers, self-closing gates, stock gates, culverts, drainage ditches, bridges and picnic tables were included in at least one-quarter of agreed contracts.

The 181 IPA contracts delivered 255 km of pathwork of which 145.3 km was unbound path, 85.7 km was semi-bound path, 21.8 km was upgraded path and 2.2 km was boardwalk. Wider deliverables across the 181 IPA contracts were:

• 70.6 km drainage ditch and 858 culverts.
• 663 directional signs, 488 seats, 298 self-closing gates and 292 information signs.
• 82 bridges totalling 0.6 km in length.
• 0.5 km timber aggregate steps.
• 94.4 km stock fencing and 210 stock gates.
• 187 trees made safe and 14.8 m brashing to create a safe path corridor.

Stakeholder feedback captured as part of the IPA scheme review is summarised below.

The review concluded that stakeholders were supportive of the scheme and of the contribution the scheme made in rural areas. Stakeholders reported that funding for paths and access through rural development funds provided an invaluable mechanism for:

• ensuring that the public can enjoy and benefit from being in the outdoors and closer to nature.
• giving land managers a mechanism to develop or improve access management on their land and provide public benefits alongside operating a productive land-based business.

Stakeholders consulted as part of the scheme review recognised the value of the IPA scheme in enhancing public access to rural Scotland and expressed widespread support for its continuation.

Further, points to note from the various surveys (land managers, local authorities) undertaken as part of the IPA scheme review included that:

• awareness of the IPA scheme was good but could be improved further.
• while guidance on the scheme was available some said it was difficult to find - spread across various NatureScot and SG web pages, including under AECS.
• the list of eligible capital items were generally considered comprehensive, although some additional items were suggested for future inclusion - offering fixed rates for capital items was also favoured.
• the payment rates offered were considered inadequate to cover costs for some remote, island and upland projects.
• there was scope to increase understanding of planning consent requirements for projects - many applicants were reluctant to apply for planning permission until their IPA application had been approved, causing project delays. There was also a request for clearer guidance on planning consent requirements.
• the time taken between claim and payment was said to be considerable, and in some cases and caused cash flow issues and financial difficulty.
• interest in submitting future applications was high - 63% indicated they would be interested in applying to the IPA in the future, and a further 20% said they might consider applying in future.

The review report presented a series of short-term recommendations to help provide better pre-application guidance and advice for applicants. This included:

• to make the process of designing a path project easier and to a higher and fit for purpose standard.
• to minimise the number of errors in applications and to make application supporting documents easier and quicker to assess.
• to create a dedicated “one stop shop” IPA funding scheme section on the RPID website (that is, separate to AECS pages), with enhanced guidance including capital item drawings for guiding construction and installation to meet capital item requirements.
• provision of a dedicated pre-application advisor to answer queries and provide advice.
• provision of either a downloadable map template with a standardised legend; or ideally RP&S web-embedded mapping tool linked to the schedules of work and contract issue.
• provision of training, learning, and sharing good practice events and opportunities for applicants to learn more about path design and construction.

The review report also contained a series of longer-term recommendations to help inform the further development of access funding. As well as a recommendation for further research, now that the paths have been built/improved, to assess benefits delivered by IPA, including:

• path and infrastructure longevity (design/build/management).
• public benefits – quality of experience, user levels and types.
• costs analysis – full project costs and relationship to fixed payment rates.
• spatial mapping and gaps analysis.
• contribution to core paths planning and strategic route developments.

The SRDP supported IPA scheme is currently closed to new applications. The scheme closed before NatureScot and RPID had a chance to take forward the recommendations in the review report. SG officials confirmed that the recommendations will be used to inform funding support for improving public access in the future.

EKOS conclusions and recommendations

The NatureScot review of the IPA scheme largely focussed on how the scheme operated in practice (process-related issues), what was delivered by the scheme (inputs, activities, and outputs), and recommendations to improve the scheme going forward. It was less concerned with benefits, outcomes, and impact. That being said, the IPA scheme review report provided useful evidence collated from a variety of secondary and primary research sources on scheme performance.

The existing evidence suggests that the IPA was a popular and valued scheme – this was evidenced by the volume of applications submitted, in the number and range of projects (and organisations) supported, and from the feedback provided from various stakeholders with a direct role and/or interest in the scheme.

While the IPA contracts spanned 21 access authority areas – there were several authority areas which comprised significant rural land which either did not apply or had an application rejected.

The most common reason for applying to the IPA scheme was to improve access for the local community. This was followed by providing improved access as part of a wider project, providing improved access for visitors, and to manage an access issue. The 135 IPA contracts delivered have therefore helped to support local development in rural areas by addressing a variety of access-related issues.

The IPA contracts delivered a wide range of path-related capital projects. A significant number of the contracts were on, or linked to, a core path. Key deliverables included 255 km of pathwork of which 145.3 km was unbound path, 85.7 km was semi-bound path, 21.8 km was upgraded path and 2.2 km was boardwalk^[28]. The review report also quantified wider outputs relating to, for example, bridges, signage, drainage, etc. The IPA review did not include an economic impact analysis of the support – it was therefore not possible to provide comment on the levels of additionality of the IPA support. That is, what proportion of the contracts (and therefore deliverables) would have been delivered in the absence of SRDP support. Nor did the review capture wider benefits and impacts delivered by the IPA to any great extent – for example, public benefits such as quality of experience, user levels and types.

The bottom-up approach at the very core of the LEADER programme, which includes coordination and delivery through LAGs and guided by LDS, has supported a large and diverse range of projects which can be expected to contribute to community and enterprise-led development in rural areas, and legacy impacts. The various research reports and evaluations referenced above provided some evidence on the ways in which LEADER has supported local development in rural areas and on impact. However, the process evaluation was undertaken at too early a stage in the delivery period, and there was not a consistent approach to impact evaluation of the LEADER programme at a local level. Other data on LARCS has not been aggregated at a Scotland level.

This is not to say the LEADER programme has not supported rural development or not created impact. The SRUC report (LEADER approach post-Brexit) concluded that LEADER has supported an impressive breadth and depth of projects, many of which would not have been delivered otherwise, and many of which that have had long-lasting impacts and led to other projects or initiatives. Further, the local LEADER evaluations which EKOS had sight of as part of the ex-post evaluation also provided a wealth of evidence and insights on, for example:

• the overall efficiency and effectiveness of local approaches to LEADER, including governance, management, and delivery arrangements.
• the extent to which LDS aims and objectives were achieved.
• added value and legacy of the LEADER programme.
• the views and experiences of unsuccessful and successful grant applicants (including benefits and impacts arising from projects supported).
• what worked well and what worked less well.
• examples of good practice and lessons learned.
• suggestions for replacement CLLD programmes.

Had aggregated data from LARCS and local LEADER evaluations been readily available (or indeed a national level impact evaluation of LEADER), this would have provided much more evidence to help fully answer this CEQ.