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

24. National Rural Network

This chapter answers CEQ 21: Has the NRN contributed to achieving the objectives laid down in Art. 54(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013?

Response

The Action Plan for the SRN sets out four objectives required by Art. 54(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013. To achieve these the SRN developed specific objectives which have remained unchanged since the enhanced AIR 2018. There is an Annual Action Plan which sets out the activities for the SRN and an Operational Plan that sits under the Action Plan and sets out what the SRN will do to meet its objectives.

Further, the SRN took part in two meetings per year with the other UK NRNs which helped assist with information exchange, and there was also participation at the EU level and many one-to-one contacts with other Member State counterparts.

Implementation of the action plan and actions taken 2018-2020

In February 2019, SRN officials attended and contributed to the 13th NRNs meeting in Athloine, Ireland. SRN members led workshop sessions at the event and contributed insights at discussions regarding innovation and development of sustainable rural and island communities.

In 2019 working with the Scottish LAG Chairs committee and with input and support from stakeholders, SRN organised and hosted a parliamentary event, “LEADER: Past, Present and Future” attended by the Minister for Rural Affairs and the Natural Environment, Mairi Gougeon, MSPs, LAG Chairs, and CLLD stakeholders.

Working with a LEADER funded project, Rural Youth Project, SRN funded a delegation of young people to take part in a learning journey to the Netherlands in 2019 to explore different approaches to nature friendly farming and development of sustainable rural communities.

In September 2019, SRN supported and funded the development and delivery of the Rural Enterprise Futures event. The aim was to share knowledge and good practice and explore opportunities to develop the rural economy. The event was attended by LAGs, Fisheries LAGS (FLAGS), enterprise agencies, rural stakeholders, including academia and policy officials. A keynote speech was delivered by the Cabinet Secretary.

In November 2019, SRN funded a Scottish delegation made up of Scottish Rural Action members from the north, south and west of Scotland and a member of the SG Rural Communities policy team to attend the European Rural Parliament in Candás, Asturias, Spain.

In addition, the SRN has undertaken networking and engagement at a UK and EU level. This included further national/Ireland NRN meetings held in Birmingham and Wales and learning visits to LEADER funded projects to share good practice.

The enhanced AIR 2018 set out the lessons learned by the SRN (principally from operating in the previous programming period) which informed current delivery. This material has not been repeated here.

The remainder of the response is aligned to the four objectives of the Regulation. The findings set out below come from the enhanced AIR 2018 unless otherwise stated.

Objective 1: Increase the involvement of stakeholders in the implementation of rural development

During interviews with SRN staff the evaluation team were informed that the overall level of SRN activity had increased since 2018, and that 2019 and 2020 involved considerable engagement with a wide range of stakeholders. Stakeholder activity continued to be linked to SG Programme for Government themed years (for example, Year of Young People in 2018). The SRN worked in collaboration with stakeholders to deliver a range of events. An event of significant success was the international OECD Rural Innovation Conference held in Scotland in 2018, with almost 500 people across the world attending. This was reported by SRN staff during the evaluation as very resource intensive – planning and preparation took nine months and follow-up on event outputs was undertaken to help inform the following OECD conference in South Korea.

The period 2018-2020 saw the SRN deliver various workshops and conferences which were hosted with LEADER LAGs to try and maximise the remaining funds in the LEADER programme. The SRN coordinated and hosted the quarterly LAG meetings which usually involved guest speakers from a LAG to share good practice and examples of project activities supported. The SRN also became more proactive in its approach to LAGs offering support with monitoring, evaluation and horizon scanning activities.

All social media channels continued to be very active, particularly covering the implications arising from Brexit. In 2020 things slowed down in part due to the uncertainty on resources and the future of the SRN. Social media campaigns were widely used to reach stakeholders and there was a substantial increase in the number of Facebook users (growth of 42% between 2018 and 2019). More resources were utilised in this area and SRN staff reported this as working well.

An Annual Communications Review provides relevant statistics and was first prepared in 2018 to help collate and report on all communications activity in one place.

Objective 2: Improve the quality of implementation of the RDP

According to SG officials, the extra resource (compared to the 2007-2013 programming period) has been key to improving the quality of the implementation of the SRN activities. They reported that this has facilitated greater levels of partnership working and the SRN is more responsive to stakeholders’ needs.

Regular meetings were held with FAS, Scottish Forestry, SAC Consulting, and NatureScot to ensure that activities were complementary and did not overlap. This included cross-promotion of activity where relevant.

SRN staff reported that social media had been very helpful in supporting more proactive relationships with LEADER. However, it was hard to quantify whether the SRN has brought more people to the SRDP, as this metric was not recorded.

The main SRDP website is hosted on the Rural Payments and Services website, and the SRN is less prominent as the focus is agriculture and land use. The SRN has focused more on LEADER, partly as a result of the obligation to do this in the Regulation. The evaluators were told by SRN staff that the SRN has helped to improve the quality of the implementation of the SRDP in various ways, such as:

• continued promotion of LEADER via good news stories, case studies and cooperation opportunities via social media, newsletters and events including specific social media campaigns (for example, short supply).
• chain campaign in run up to Christmas with dedicated hashtag (#SupportLocal).
• signposting to SRDP schemes via the website and social media.
• creation of video content promoting schemes across the SRDP (although LEADER features heavily) and promoted across communications channels. More in-house production of video and photographic content has created efficiencies of cost, production timescale.
• making the sign-in process to access the website easier.
• continued efforts to refine the SRDP Communications Plan, with recent adaptations to reflect how people engage with channels (for example, shorter video content, use of Instagram). There is an ongoing users’ review of the website to improve navigation and user experience; this is part of the broader SRN self-evaluation process. There has also been work with the LEADER communications group, with the SRN pushing for more outreach to Ministers, to attract greater media coverage.

However, there have been some frustrations in terms of helping to improve implementation of specific elements of the SRDP. For example, anticipated work with KTIF on innovation did not work out as planned. At the start of each year the SRN would write to all schemes to ask what they would like SRN to do in terms of messaging and success stories, social media, etc. but avoid duplication and cross-over with the schemes. The FAS progressed considerable work around agricultural learning events and case studies and SRN did not want to duplicate this work – as the FAS delivery worked well and was sufficient. Therefore, the focus naturally tended to focus on LEADER and CLLD.

The SRN has continued to create content to inspire learning and sharing of good practice, especially on helping with the implementation of the SRDP and supporting rural communities to engage in rural policy development (for example, through platforms such as the Rural Parliament and the OECD event).

The enhanced AIR 2016 noted that several additional judgement criteria were specified to be used when forming an answer to CEQ 21. One criteria concerned what the SRN has done to increase the capacity of SRDP beneficiaries. Qualitative information collected by interviews with administrators indicated that this was best illustrated by changes in LEADER; the SRN has funded various stakeholders to attend events run by EIPs, European Network for Rural Development (ENRD), etc. Related to capacity, following SRN involvement, a simpler LEADER application process was devised to make it easier for potential applicants to submit interest in accessing funding for project activity through an initial light touch expression of interest form.

Objective 3: Informing the broader public and potential beneficiaries on rural development policy and funding opportunities

The SRN has been quite proactive in informing the public with social media, national and international events. The SRN has also hosted parliamentary events. Care has been taken to work in cooperation with other parts of the SRDP; for example, FAS has good social media accounts and deals more with farmers as potential beneficiaries of the SRDP, while the SRN has focused more on the wider rural aspect of the SRDP.

SG officials provided the evaluators with various examples of how information about the SRDP was promoted to the public by the SRN. This included:

• hosting the 11th OECD Rural Development Conference (442 delegates from 27 countries), which attracted wide press coverage
• hosting a Ministerial parliamentary event celebrating LEADER, with a key-note speech from the Minister.
• as a member of the LEADER Communications Work Group, the SRN continually advocated that LAGs engage with Ministers, MEPs, MSPs etc. to promote LEADER-funded projects. This resulted in several LAGs hosting Ministers at project launches, celebration events, etc. which in turn attracted media coverage.
• scoping and facilitating a funding workshop - a range of subject-matter specialists were involved to highlight alternative funding methods to enhance RDP funded projects.
• co-hosting Scottish Rural Parliament, Stranraer 2018 - the SRN was fully involved in the development of the programme which included promoting the benefits of RDP to the general public (for example, through visits to a variety of LEADER funded projects).

In terms of informing potential beneficiaries, the SRN has:

• increasingly engaged in social media activity to signpost people to funding opportunities, innovation (not just RDP), good practice and promote community and individual resilience. There has been an increase in subscribers to newsletters and web page viewers which indicate increased reach.
• promoted SRDP funding opportunities to existing beneficiaries (for example, LEADER for farm diversification projects).
• promoted case studies sharing good practice, funding opportunities and support.
• provided a dedicated funding webpage.
• published a weekly funding newsletter available to subscribers.
• represented the SRN at LAG funding workshops to raise awareness of RDP schemes, including use of flyers to signpost interested parties.
• proactively engaged with LAG coordinators to identify opportunities to support development of cooperation, promotional opportunities to raise the profile of schemes and the impacts on rural communities.

The enhanced AIR 2018 mentioned further methods of informing the general public and potential beneficiaries of SRDP opportunities which have not been repeated here. Much of this was done electronically and metrics on this are collected.

The communication efforts undertaken represent a substantial improvement on the previous programming period in which, according to the ex-ante evaluation, effectiveness was judged to have been compromised by design and delivery flaws. The recommendations made by the evaluators on the communication plan (2013) appear to have been taken seriously.

Objective 4: Foster innovation in agriculture, food production, forestry and rural areas

See Chapter 33 (CEQ30) for more information on the Rural Innovation Support Service (RISS), including an infographic with key facts and figures. RISS was funded by the SRN and led by the Soil Association Scotland (in partnership with other organisations), and provided farmers, foresters, and crofters in Scotland with a collaborative way to explore their business ideas.

The evaluators were told that innovation at the scheme level could have been better; problems included schemes which straddled primary production and the processing industry where operators could not be brought together very easily due to support eligibility issues. There have been cases where people have used the plan developed within RISS to then apply for funding from other parts of the SRDP (including schemes such as KTIF, FPMC and LEADER). Others approached banks for funding rather than schemes under the SRDP.

The SRN has promoted some innovative initiatives to other Member States. For example, a community abattoir on Mull was of interest to Estonia. Danish MPs and Swedish academics also showed interest in the innovation activities undertaken in Scotland, as have MEPs who were particularly interested in how innovation has been fostered. Ireland is another Member State which showed interest in learning from this approach. A workshop was hosted in Brussels (May 2018) which brought academics and businesses together to showcase what Scotland has been doing in the innovation field.

In addition to RISS the SRN promoted innovation in the following ways:

• hosting knowledge exchange visits, preparing and developing a relevant programme of project visits, liaising with stakeholders to deliver successful events. For example, Danish LAG members from the Jammerbugt-Vesthimmerland region were interested in the food development and sustainable growth fields and short supply chains.
• taking forward grant funding for the Woodland Croft Project – a project to encourage diversification of crofting through woodland planting with support and advice for existing and prospective woodland crofters.
• developing SRN operational planning to utilise on-line tools to help make project management of individual work streams more robust.

The Soil Association Scotland, which administered several KTIF projects, noted that the SRN has had a positive and significant impact on developing and supporting grassroots innovation across Scotland. This has been achieved through the RISS which is funded through the SRDP Technical Assistance budget. This helped to drive innovation in Scotland by bringing together different sectors and actors along the supply chain to find innovative ways to improve environmental and economic performance.

According to the Soil Association Scotland, farmers and other land managers often have the best ideas for improving their business but are often time-poor. RISS brought together groups with a common interest in solving a problem or developing a new opportunity. RISS provided a facilitator to bring the right people (for example, supply chain expert, vet, researcher, etc.) to work with the group of farmers and land managers to explore their ideas and develop an action plan to put good ideas into practice.

By 2020 RISS had supported the creation of 42 groups covering a wide spectrum of innovative ideas such as:

• finding cost effective, sustainable ways to dispose/recycle farm plastic waste.
• establishing a sustainable, profitable and long-term supply chain for organic rapeseed.
• addressing the declining profitability of hill sheep farming.
• getting more local veg into Scottish schools.
• creating a land matching service for new farmers SRN and evaluation.

SRN and evaluation

Beyond these Regulation objectives, and in pursuit of general effectiveness of SRDP activities, the SRN has acted on several fronts to increase the awareness of evaluations.

First, an internal evaluation of the SRN (2020) was undertaken. Recommendations within the report were embraced and acted upon, where resource and capacity allowed – for example, more proactive engagement with wider SRDP schemes, expanding delivery methods, etc. SG officials told the evaluators that the SRN continues to undertake continuous improvement by reflecting on what can be done differently and what expertise is needed to do things better.

Second, the SRN helped to scope and design an evaluation toolkit for LAGs which has been promoted through Yammer groups. LEADER bodies were funded to attend monitoring and evaluation learning groups. The SRN also promoted the FARNET guidance to LEADER staff through Yammer and at meetings. The focus then shifted towards evaluation of local LEADER programmes and of LDS.

Practical advice was provided to colleagues in Brussels about how to monitor and evaluate LEADER because the advice provided by the EC was considered too remote from practice to be implemented. As noted in Chapter 20 (FA 6B) a set of common questions were to be included in local LEADER evaluations to help capture and report on impact at a national level in a consistent way. This data has, however, not been aggregated from individual evaluation reports.

Third, the SRN produced short and accessible summaries of evaluations of the SRDP undertaken for the EC for dissemination by social media and eNewsletter and to reach a wider audience.

Views of SRN by other parts of the SRDP (schemes)

SG officials responsible for each of the SRDP schemes were asked how the SRN had affected their activities. Relationships varied – the SRN appears to mainly assist one scheme (LEADER) in ways that probably meet all its Regulatory objectives, while for most of the other schemes the SRN has focused on one objective (communication) and has generally played a marginal role.

The evaluators were told that the SRN played an important enabling role and supported the delivery of LEADER – for example, by connecting people together and hosting workshops for LAGs, and promoting LEADER projects. A formal governance structure was put in place and the SRN and LEADER held regular joint meetings with LAG Chairs which the SRN helped to facilitate.

The SRN provided LAGs with a communication toolkit. Delivery took longer than anticipated, partly due to trying to understand what the LAGs really wanted; a survey later found that the usage (of the toolkit) was quite low, implying that it had not delivered what was needed/wanted. Clearly understanding specific needs is important; improvement is always possible.

According to the KTIF team, the SRN was envisaged as an innovation broker linking to the KTIF, but this did not happen in practice. The establishment of the RISS, however, led to some improvement. Further, farmers in Scotland tended to communicate directly with the FAS rather than the SRN. Farmers did not appear to link into with the SRN – and while there have been attempts to address this, none have been that successful.

For the FGS, there was modest involvement with the SRN; some case studies have been provided to the SRN to promote the FGS more widely. There has also been some work with the technology transfer groups. The SRN is able to reach out to a much wider group of people, though it takes time to build momentum. There was no direct link between the SRN and LFASS, albeit the SRN promoted the LFASS on its website.

SG officials responsible for the AECS stated that its direct communication with farmers was through the Rural Payments Agency system rather than SRN; farmers and their agents sign up to their preferred communication channel and there were regular updates on the scheme. However, the SRN also send communications out through its own channels. There was no criticism of the SRN’s communication activities – rather the Rural Payments Agency and SRN activities were considered complementary.

The SRN undertook signposting activity in relation to the FPMC scheme. For example, the SRN advertised FPMC deadlines for applications, signposted potential applicants to the FPMC team, promoted case studies, etc. Further, the SRN tried to encourage uptake of the cooperation element of the FPMC – however, the sector is quite competitive, and uptake was limited.

Views of external stakeholders

In the enhanced AIR 2018, one external stakeholder presented a more negative view of the SRN, stating categorically that the SRN has not contributed to achieving the objectives of the SRDP and has not improved the quality of its implementation.

The feedback was that the role of the SRN appears to be to function as the SG PR department for the SRDP, and in this respect it has probably increased awareness of the Programme, although generally only within the usual stakeholder bubble, rather than with the general public. According to this stakeholder the use of the word “network” is somewhat of a misnomer as the SRN has operated entirely in a top-down manner, it functions to distribute PR rather than facilitate genuine bottom-up input.

However, the internal evaluation of the SRN concluded that overall, the SRN has contributed towards the goals specified for it in legislation, although it can be observed that some areas have been better addressed than others.”