6.        Statements of Intent

6.1.      The Committee acknowledged, and endorsed, the fact that the programme’s intention (to improve participation) was very clearly stated in the draft (now published) strategy, in the published ‘signpost document,’ in papers calling for bids to become LEADER+ Local Action Groups and in DARD’s written and oral evidence.

6.2. Examples expressing this intention are:

"In rural areas, local people, including farmers and their families must be encouraged to become involved and participate fully in rural development" [8] .

"It is the Minister’s intention to actively promote and monitor the engagement of women, young people, long-term unemployed and farmers participating in the programme" [9]

6.3.      The Committee also welcomed the evidence from both the Rural Development Council [10] (RDC) and the Rural Community Network [11] (RCN) that they have similar objectives and that their desire is to ensure that participation is consistent across the programme.

6.4.      The Committee particularly welcomed DARD’s stated recognition of the difficulties facing farmers and the description of the programme’s potential to offer opportunities to farmers to add value to the farm as an economic unit [12] .

6.5.      The Committee was, therefore, content that it was the stated intention of DARD and its main delivery agents to ensure participation of under-represented groups, including farmers and farm families.

7.           Concerted and Co-ordinated Actions – Awareness and Information Provision

7.1.      The Minister, in evidence [13] , acknowledged the perception, about previous Rural Development Programmes, that some people were not aware of what was available, or did not fully understand the projects. It was for this reason that DARD engaged a firm of PR consultants to assist in the preparation of easily understood documents and a publicity campaign aimed at bringing the new RDP to the attention of all rural dwellers.

7.2.      The Committee had no difficulty with this approach. Indeed, any attempt to simplify a complicated message is to be welcomed. It is also a fact that Civil Servants are not, as a rule, trained in areas such as PR that require particular expertise. The Committee was, however, concerned that PR style should not outweigh substance in the programme.

7.3.      The Committee was provided with copies of the so-called ‘sign-post’ document and of the video used by DARD during the Programme’s launch in November 2001 and in later public events. Compared to the published Strategy Document, Committee members agreed that the ‘sign-post’ document is a clear, jargon-free read. Having covered the aims, objectives and answered some frequently asked questions, it distils the Programme into five elements and provides actual examples, from earlier programmes, appropriate to each element. Importantly, it also identifies the relevant contact point for each element.

7.4.      The video is very professionally produced, and the Committee was content that it should meet its purpose, assumed by the Committee to be one of providing background and context for the programme, illustrating what can be achieved and providing a stimulus, even inspiration, for participation. It was important, the Committee felt, that the video should be widely seen by the rural population.

7.5.      DARD had also anticipated that it would run a series of information seminars. Within the papers accompanying the Programme’s launch was a schedule detailing 17 of these seminars, which were to be held throughout Northern Ireland’s rural areas. DARD subsequently reported [14] on the actual outcome of these, confirming that all 17 had taken place and that over 2000 people had attended in total. These meetings, according to DARD, generated over 600 ‘expressions of interest’ proformae and were considered to be a success.

7.6.      The Committee welcomed the seminar approach to providing information and particularly endorsed the fact that all the main organisations involved in the programme’s delivery attended each event and that there was particular provision for the farming community, through attendance by the Department’s Rural Enterprise Division.

7.7.      The Committee asked about how these events were advertised and DARD confirmed that they trailed one week in advance in "provincial and some local" newspapers. That seemed to be a reasonable approach, although the Committee would, on a point of detail, have expected advertising in the farming press, given that farmers were to be a target group.

7.8.      The targeting of the specific venues appears to have been mainly geographical, rather than on a sectoral basis. However, the Committee was pleased to learn that a further series of 30 meetings had been held with groups of, or representative of, farmers and that, through these, DARD had met with around five hundred farmers. The Committee also welcomed the DARD assertion that the process was not yet complete, and its undertaking to hold yet further information events.

7.9.      In the information provided by the RDC [15] , that organisation confirmed its participation in these ‘road-shows’ and added that they had been supplemented by a number of follow-up and targeted events. The RDC gave a very comprehensive account of these targeted workshops and events. They included women’s and farming groups, as the RDC had promised to the Committee, and the further list supplied to members (of bodies to whom the RDC issued applications packs) was both extensive and inclusive.

7.10.    The Committee must therefore conclude that both DARD and the RDC have fully met commitments made to the Committee with regard to the provision of information about the Rural Development Programme.

7.11.    The Committee’s only recommendations in this regard are that the Department and the RDC maintain their thorough approach to promoting the programme, particularly targeting those under-represented groups, and that promotional material is updated at the first opportunity to reflect successes in the current, rather than previous, programmes.

8.           Concerted and Co-ordinated Actions – Eligibility, Readiness and Ability to Apply for Funding

8.1.      The Committee established that there had been many positive actions taken, and improvements made, in these areas by DARD and its agents, and the Committee was content to endorse these. Unfortunately, there remained a number of aspects that detracted from these improvements and that will remain as obstacles to full participation. Where possible, the Committee has made recommendations to the Department in an attempt to overcome, or at least reduce, the effect of these obstacles.

8.2.      Firstly, the Committee warmly welcomed the changes made, from previous programmes, that now allow profit-taking collectives and co-operatives to be eligible for funding, and for the LEADER+ Programme to allow funding for individual aspects of farm businesses [16] .

8.3. Members were also pleased about DARD’s explicit acknowledgement that farm relief and farm management services may be supported under the RDP [17] . The Committee also noted the Department’s written commitment [18] that:

"Rural Enterprise Division, in co-operation with Rural Development Division, will encourage farmers to consider the opportunities in the programme and assist farmers to develop plans to access the programme".

8.4.      In considering the evidence before it, however, the Committee identified what it saw as a possible ‘gap’ in provision of capacity building and early project planning support to farmers and farmer groups who were new to the RDP area. The Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU) view [19] was that where farmers were interested in the RDP, they must be aided through the process. The Committee agreed entirely with this view.

8.5.      New and emerging community groups clearly have access to such services from the Rural Community Network, whose focus is on ‘pure’ community development issues. The UFU thought it likely that the RCN would provide such support to farmers (together with on-going mentoring) but the RCN said that while it may analyse the needs of farmers, funding would have to come from DARD’s sectoral programmes.

8.6.      In fairness to the RCN, they are very clear on where their priorities lie. Central to the RCN’s involvement in ‘capacity building’ is its:

"further support for the infrastructure of sub-regional Rural Support Networks which will further develop the capacity of community groups in rural areas, encourage the inclusion of marginalised groups as those mentioned – farming community, women, young people and long-term unemployed - and in addition many other groupings not mentioned such as those with disability and other groupings under the Equality Legislation".

8.7.      The RCN went on to say that it would be wrong to overstate their role or ability to engage all marginalised groups.

8.8.      The RDC suggested that additional help, from Rural Enterprise Division (R.E.D), for example, might increase the number of (non-profit-taking) collective proposals coming forward to the RDC for grant assistance [20] . Farmers are indeed ‘sign-posted,’ in DARD’s publication, to the Rural Enterprise Advisors (REAs) but when the Committee asked whether or not the Advisers were resourced to provide such support, the Department’s answer was somewhat ambiguous [21] .

8.9.      The REAs were reportedly working with around 50 existing groups, some of whom had advanced to specific project proposals. However they were not resourced to provide support beyond this programme, leaving new or emerging groups without support. DARD went on to advise that the REAs are currently investigating the provision of a ‘Group start-up’ course, for farmers’ groups, starting in March or April 2002. This training would include information on how to constitute a group, an issue highlighted earlier to the Committee as being important to farmers.

8.10.    While it welcomed the future provision of such a course, the Committee was disappointed that it would come much too late for the first call for projects, both from non-profit taking groups (closed on 1 February 2002) and from profit-taking groups (set to close a few weeks after the final evidence session, on 8 February 2002).

8.11.    This evidence led the Committee to the conclusion that there was indeed, and still remains, a serious gap in provision of start-up and early project assistance and guidance for farm-based groups. The Committee believes that the Department, if it genuinely wished to encourage farmer participation, should have anticipated this need and made provision to satisfy it long before a grant scheme was opened.

8.12.    The Committee recommends that the two DARD Divisions (Rural Development and Rural Enterprise) co-operate closely and immediately to design and deliver early development services to farmers’ groups that are on a par with those available to community groups through the Rural Community Network, in order that such groups are given the ability to secure grant assistance through the Rural Development Programme and the skills to use it effectively.

8.13.    The Committee’s conclusions about the readiness of farmers’ groups to participate meaningfully in the programme were confirmed when DARD officials provided an update [22] on the position of two schemes that had opened shortly after the RDP’s launch in November 2001. The first, the RDC’s scheme for non-profit-taking groups, closed as expected on 1 February 2002. The second, DARD’s scheme for profit-taking groups, (including farmers’ groups) had not closed as those:

"who were engaging in this for the first time said that it was insufficient time".

8.14.    The officials went on to estimate that there had been over two hundred applications received to date, perhaps three hundred in round terms, and of these more than twenty were from applicants with farming interests. However, when the Committee considered additional information on applications, as supplied by the RDC, members found that the RDC scheme had 216 applications, of which, judging purely by the applicant name, at least 12 were farm-based.

8.15.    The only conclusion that the Committee could make from this was that DARD had had very little response to its scheme in terms of applications, and virtually no response from farmers’ groups. It seems that profit-taking groups were not prepared, or able, to access a scheme which was open to them for the first time. This serves only to re-enforce the Committee’s recommendation above, if this important new element of the programme is to become a success. DARD clearly has work to do.

8.16.    The evidence of slow early uptake provoked another concern to the Committee. Members had been advised by the RDC [23] that there will be intense competition for limited funds among a range of groups such as farmers, women, young people, disabled and so on. The Committee’s fear would be that those groups who are inexperienced, and are not yet able to access funds, will lose out to the ‘usual suspects’ who are experienced and proficient at applying for funds and managing projects.

8.17.    The RDC originally told the Committee [24] that there would be at least two calls for proposals and that if any group was under-represented in the first call, particular emphasis could be given to targeting that group in subsequent grant rounds. When the Committee had sight of the RDC’s "How to Apply" leaflet, members noted that there will "be a number of calls for applications over the first three years of the programme period (2001-2003)" to ensure "accessibility to groups at all stages of development". The Committee was pleased to note that the RDC had met its commitments to the Committee, and members endorsed the principle of multiple calls for projects.

8.18.    The Committee therefore recommends that DARD commits to a series of calls for projects under schemes it administers, over at least a four-year period, and ensures that funds are ‘ring-fenced’ for these calls. This will ensure that ‘early stage’ profit-taking groups are given appropriate opportunities as they mature.

9.           Straightforward Application Process

9.1.      The UFU stated [25] that farmers can be discouraged from participating because of the complexity in accessing funding. It could be argued that this is one of the greatest barriers to participation by any group or individual who is unfamiliar with grant schemes.

9.2.      The Committee had welcomed and endorsed the recognition, by the Rural Development Council [26] , of the need for a simplified application form, given that many people in rural communities would find that a complicated form might be an "alienating experience". The Committee particularly welcomed the RDC’s stated intention to send out a simple application form to establish eligibility, in order not to waste people’s time in filling out a detailed form. The RDC also forecast a two-stage process, wherein development assistance could be offered to further advance the project and the capacity of the group. This seemed, to the Committee, to be a perfectly reasonable approach. The RDC further acknowledged that people needed hands-on technical support to submit applications, and that it was insufficient simply to advertise.

9.3.      The Committee was therefore disappointed to discover that, when the RDC’s first call for applications was actually made, the process involved two full application forms, both of which were to be completed, and the first of which was computer-based, requiring access to the DFP web-site. Within the applications pack, an example of which was provided by the RDC, the Committee noted that all six of the RDC’s schemes allowed for development assistance "for the implementation of projects". There was, however, no sign of a ‘simple’ form. Indeed, although they are clearly laid out, the first of the two forms had 19 sections to complete over 26 pages, while the second had another 42 sections in 27 pages. This could not be described as simple.

9.4.      It would appear that the RDC has not met its commitments to the Committee in this regard, although, in mitigation, the Committee acknowledged that the applications process was mandatory, and common across all measures of the NI Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity and the PEACE II Programme.

9.5.      On a more positive note, the Committee was content that the RDC appeared to be responsive to its clients’ needs in terms of the application process. When the RDC became aware that clients were having difficulty with the DFP web-based process, they produced a detailed applications pack, including paper copies of both forms [27] .

9.6.      There was much to be commended in this pack. Each of the six schemes had its own ‘measure leaflet’ and there was a very helpful "How to Apply" leaflet. The measure leaflets provide helpful information on that measure’s aims and objectives and describe potential projects. The ‘How to Apply’ leaflet explicitly offered help in filling either application form and advice on any part of the application. That was in line with the commitment made to the Committee, as described above.

9.7.      Indeed, the Committee was impressed to note that the RDC’s approach had been commended by the independent Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) in whose newsletter (issue 73) the RDC’s pack was described as "one of the best guides and Grant Application packs that we have seen yet".

9.8.      It was clear to the Committee, therefore, the RDC had the structures in place to respond to clients’ needs and provide the assistance necessary to help the maximum access to funding. That would appear to be borne out by the 216 applications received by the RDC in its first round, although the Committee has no way of knowing how many of these were from new applicants.

9.9.      The Committee had not explored the Department’s approach to applications prior to the launch of the first schemes and adoption of the DFP ‘common approach.’ When the Committee sought the Department’s views in January 2002, the response [28] acknowledged that the application form was complicated and potentially off-putting. DARD went on to explain that the scale of information was required by "Managing Authorities to meet Structural Funds management and control obligations".

9.10.    DARD went on to say that while part of the process is internet based, it had made a paper-based version available, and stressed that its Rural Area Co-ordination staff would give advice on form completion if approached. In those aspects, the Department’s approach could be said to mirror that of the RDC. However, in the ‘sign-post document,’ prospective applicants are referred to the three Area Co-ordination offices, with more information available on a dedicated web-site.

9.11.    These Co-ordination offices, when approached, would issue a pack to prospective applicants. One such pack, obtained by the Committee, contained a leaflet on the "Local Regeneration Projects" scheme under the NI Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity. The leaflet listed the eight measures under which proposals could be considered and referred to detailed measure sheets being appended to the pack. Unfortunately, they were not appended to the pack supplied to the Committee, nor was there any explicit offer of help, to prospective applicants, regarding completion of the form. There was, however, an offer of assistance if applicants did not have access to the internet.

9.12.    The Committee therefore concluded that the information provided by the RDC regarding application forms and measures under which to apply, was better than that provided by DARD.

9.13.    The Committee was interested to learn, from DARD’s final oral evidence [29] that a group, led by the Agri-food Development Service, had been set up to prepare explanatory material, and was hoping to provide:

"a flow-chart, booklet or decision tree to simplify the programmes so that farmers will interpret the system more easily".

9.14.    The officials also acknowledged that there is a:

"steep learning curve for new organisations, groups and individuals as people become accustomed to different methods of operation and gaining entrance to the schemes"

while explaining that the UFU had approached the Department to discuss what help can be given particularly:

"to get new groups in".

9.15.    The Committee, as in the case of new ‘start-up’ assistance, was of the view that DARD should have had explanatory material, such as flowcharts or decision trees, prepared before the programme was launched and specific schemes opened. Indeed, the Committee would argue that when the Department engaged PR consultants, who helped produce the video and booklet, this was the opportunity to produce simplified material that was specifically targeted at previously under-represented groups, including farmers.

9.16.    It is also a matter of concern to the Committee that the UFU had to approach DARD to discuss the provision of help to farmers, rather than an approach being made in the other direction, and much earlier on in the process. Farmers were to be a targeted group. Surely, DARD should have explored all aspects of participation with farmers’ representatives before schemes were opened?

9.17.    The Committee must, therefore, conclude that the Department did not, in the case of farmers, fully meet its own objectives in the use of PR consultants, as outlined by the Minister [30]

"the remit of the PR consultants is to work out a clear and simple way of allowing people to access those schemes".

9.18.    The Committee recommends that DARD must immediately put in place whatever resources are necessary to ensure that prospective applicants to DARD-administered schemes (particularly those in the four target groupings) are provided with simple, clear information to enable easy interpretation of the schemes.

9.19.    Another conclusion must be that the complicated application process constitutes a major obstacle to participation, particularly by new and inexperienced groupings. It does not make sense to the Committee that such an extensive process should be necessary where applicants seek only a small amount of funding. The Committee concludes that, in the interests of encouraging participation and reducing ‘red tape’ DARD must act to address and overcome this obstacle.

9.20.    During Committee deliberations, one member advised that he was aware of a meeting of the Causeway Coast Lamb Group on 28 February 2002. DARD officials spoke at that meeting and their message, according to the member’s information, was that even if they were permitted to make applications on behalf of farmers’ groups for Rural Development Programme funds, they believed that they were not competent for such a task. The officials added that it would require the skills of a specialist consultant to enable groups to apply for funding.

9.21.    Such a message, delivered by Department officials, is at best unhelpful, and at worst will discourage involvement of the very people DARD wanted to include. It may not be the case that a consultant is needed. It is probable that consultants did not complete most of the 216 applications to the RDC. However, if DARD staff, who are familiar to, and trusted by, farmers, believe they cannot provide the necessary assistance, then it is clear that a pro-active approach is needed in order to ensure that somebody can. It is unthinkable that people should have to engage consultants in order to secure what may be quite small amounts of money.

9.22.    The Committee therefore recommends that DARD develops, and widely publicises, dedicated ‘form-completion' assistance for farmers, and that this assistance is based in locations familiar to farmers. If DARD has insufficient personnel to provide this service, then consideration should be given to sub-contracting the work to others.

9.23.    The Committee also recommends that the Department and its agents lobby the Department of Finance and Personnel in order that some easement in the burden of application is secured. It should not be beyond the abilities of officials within the "Managing Authorities" to negotiate with the European Commission and establish a ‘threshold’ of grant sought, under which a much simpler application form would be acceptable.

10.           Appropriate Programmes with Accountable Delivery

10.1.    Two less obvious, but important, potential obstacles to participation are the type of scheme being promoted and the ‘devolved’ delivery of certain programmes by partnership groups.

10.2.    An example of the potential pitfalls in programme type must be the proposed "Sectoral Programmes". The Department attempted to ‘sell’ these programmes to the Committee as one of the main opportunities to improve participation by under-represented groups. [31] DARD used its (then) current work with rural women’s groups as an example of what could happen. Interestingly, DARD said that proposals would come forward from interested parties and would be identified by its own staff in the field.

10.3.    The Committee was concerned that there may be a danger that if there are no proposals submitted by the under-represented groups ‘on the ground’, there will end up being no sectoral programme to meet their needs.

10.4.    As an example of this danger, the Committee noted the Rural Community Network’s hope, expressed in its original written submission [32] , that it would deliver a programme targeting farm families. In its later evidence [33] , the RCN stated that it had expected its Tackling Social Exclusion programme to include support to women’s groups and networks, young people and farmers (three of the four participation target groups). However the RCN went on to say that these would now be dealt with under ‘Sectoral Programmes’ stating that:

"We understand that farm families may become a Sectoral Programme within the Rural Development Programme. RCN will therefore not be operating a grant programme for farm families".

10.5.    If farm families themselves do not develop a sectoral programme themselves, will this mean that they will not have access to a suitable programme at all, despite being identified by the RCN as requiring help?

10.6.    The Committee accepts that there will be interested parties that have good ideas for sectoral programmes and members agree that these should be encouraged. However, it cannot be said with any certainty that good ideas will emerge, particularly from those under-represented groups. The Committee believes that in such a scenario the Department must be pro-active and develop schemes to ensure inclusion of these groups.

10.7. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that DARD should adopt a ‘top-down’ approach, in tandem with its usual one of ‘bottom-up’, to ensure that meaningful and inclusive programmes are available to, and accessible by, each of the four target groupings.

10.8.    Finally, in this ‘section’, the delivery of significant elements of the RDP by partnership groupings holds its own dangers in terms of participation. Using farmers, once more, as an example, the UFU made a point that struck a chord with Committee members. They argued [34] that without the involvement of the farming community, partnerships (such as those established under the LEADER+ programme) are not able to fully represent the entire local community, nor will they benefit from farmers’ expertise. The UFU went on to say that new partnerships must have at least two farmer members of their boards, who are there to put forward farming interests.

10.9.    The Committee does not necessarily agree with board ‘quotas’ for such wide-ranging partnerships, nor that farmer- members’ contribution should be exclusively about farming interests, but members agreed whole-heartedly with the basic premise about representing the entire rural community. Programmes operating in specific geographical rural areas will all have a significant farming ‘constituency’.

10.10.  The Committee therefore felt it important to examine the issue of board representation, not only of farmers, but also of other target groups. After all, DARD’s own definition of participation included "membership of partnership groups". The Committee, when updating its Inquiry, was able to test this area as the partnership selection process had been completed in two areas: LEADER+ and the Natural Resource Rural Tourism (NRRT) Initiative. DARD had provided information to the Committee on these programmes as part of the normal scrutiny process.

10.11.  DARD’s response [35] to the Committee’s additional questions provided the Committee with assurances on farming representations:

"The five successful NRRT partnerships and the twelve successful LEADER+ groups all have some farming representatives on the Boards. In some cases these may be farming union representatives, in others they are individual farmers".

10.12.  The Committee was therefore satisfied that the basic requirement regarding representation had been met, and was confident that each of the Boards would benefit from the farming expertise. Members would further anticipate that, as long as the farmer-members are equal partners in these groups, then the business plans currently being developed should incorporate measures appropriate to, and accessible by, farmers and their families.

10.13.  The Committee believes that this is particularly important in the LEADER+ Programme where, as officials stated [36] :

"farms are classified as microbusinesses and farmers can apply under LEADER+".

10.14.  The Department’s response did not, however, read so well in terms of representation of the other three groupings. Firstly, it acknowledged that gender balance was a problem and explained that DARD had asked some partnerships to address this deficiency. DARD did, however, recognise that "there was a real difficulty for groups in getting women involved". This would be a concern to the Committee. As in farming, partnerships cannot represent their whole rural constituencies without a suitable mechanism to articulate the views of half the population. Women have many skills and a high level of experience that would certainly be relevant and useful to such partnership groups.

10.15.  The Committee recommends that DARD pursues this matter fully with each of the partnerships, and that it should explore, with them, innovative ways in which greater female involvement can be achieved.

10.16.  The Committee was disappointed in DARD’s response regarding the other two groups. They said:

"We have not at this stage gathered information on the representation of other groups such as young people and the long-term unemployed and would anticipate their involvement being more likely at project and subsidiary programme level as the work rolls out over the next 2 years".

10.17.  This is not acceptable to the Committee, given the Department’s desire for a wide definition of participation. It is immaterial that DARD expects the main involvement to be at other levels. In fact, this might suggest that DARD does not consider that young people, or the unemployed, could make a useful contribution to the partnerships.

10.18. Participation must be measured and monitored at all levels. It should not have been difficult to establish the ages of the members of each of the successful partnerships, in order to gauge the representation of young people. Similarly, if the Department has established that there is farmer-representation in each partnership, then it must have records of each member’s occupation, and the representation of the long-term unemployed would have been easily demonstrated.

10.19.  The Committee therefore recommends that the Department should maintain a formal record of the levels of participation, of each of the four target groups, in these partnerships, and that DARD should work closely with each partnership to address any serious deficiencies in participation.

10.20.  This brought another point into focus. While devolved decision-making has many merits, and indeed is a mandatory EU requirement in the LEADER+ Programme, it in some ways denies control of the overall programmes to the Department. There must be a clear mechanism whereby the Department can ensure that partnerships pay more than ‘lip service’ to the issues of participation. This would involve starting out ‘on the right foot’ and continued monitoring. In this regard, the Committee looked carefully at how the LEADER+ and NRRT programmes were implemented by DARD.

10.21.  In the LEADER+ Programme, documentation issued by DARD, when calling for applications to become Local Action Groups, made it clear that the target groups were to be a priority:

".the strategies drawn up by Local Action Groups should include a focus on the following target groups." (listing all four). The documentation shows that women and young people were an EU required priority while the other two were added by DARD. So far, so good.

10.22.  This demand was backed up by the selection criteria. DARD included, as its first scoring criterion, an assessment of the extent to which the strategy will enhance the job opportunities of each of the four groupings. Indeed, this is given the second-highest ‘weighting’ of the fourteen criteria. The Committee welcomed this pro-active approach.

10.23.  The Committee also endorsed the fact that the level of resources allocated to a partnership was partly dependent on the score against these criteria. Criteria relevant to participation accounted for 15% of the possible score. The Committee is therefore content that the Department built in appropriate incentives for partnerships to target the under-represented groups.

10.24.  These incentives would have been most effective in a fully competitive situation where, for example, twenty or thirty applicants were seeking the twelve available partnership ‘slots’. However, in reality, there were only thirteen applications. It would, therefore, have been quite possible for a prospective partnership to have ignored the need to focus on the four target groups and still to have been successful with its application.

10.25.  The Committee’s conclusion, with the benefit of hindsight, is that targeting of the priority groups would have been better included as an eligibility, rather than a selection, criterion.

10.26.  The participation requirement was not apparent in the NRRT programme, although, to be fair, this aspect of the overall RDP was not highlighted by DARD as one which will play any significant role in increasing participation by under-represented groups. However, it could be argued that, as an integral part of the RDP, some attempt should have been made to encourage participation by the four target groups.

10.27. Certainly, it is quite possible that applicants from within the target groups might apply successfully to these partnerships. The documentation only specified, however, that partnerships must monitor uptake, of support they offer, by men and women and take action to address any imbalances where they appear. Of itself, the Committee would welcome this approach, but would contend that it should have applied equally to the other three groups.

10.28.  The Committee believed that the requirement for partnerships to take action to address imbalances is a useful precedent, and one that should be read across to other parts of the programme.

10.29. Although monitoring will be explored more fully in the next section, the Committee recommends that DARD must require full monitoring and reporting, by the partnerships in both NRRT and LEADER+ Programmes, of grant uptake by all four target groups. These programmes have not yet reached project application stage, and this requirement should need little amendment to the other conditions that DARD will apply.

<< Prev       Next >>