17.20.  The fact that much more ‘expensive’ projects are now to be covered by pro-forma appraisal makes it all the more important for DARD to ensure that the training is appropriate to the performance required of staff. Indeed, it is vital to ensure from the outset that the necessary appraisal standards are being met. For these reasons, the Committee believes that additional review procedures will be required.

17.21.  The Committee therefore recommends that economists scrutinise a higher percentage than the proposed 5% of pro-forma appraisals, and suggests scrutiny of at least 20% of projects from £50k to £100k and at least 50% of those from £100k to £150k. If resources allow, a 50% check of all project appraisals in the early stages of each programme would provide reassurance for the Department.

17.22.  The Committee also recommends that DARD reviews its training policy as soon as possible, and suggests this could be appropriate as soon as the economists’ scrutiny has been in operation for three months.

17.23.  The Committee also noted that it was DARD’s stated intention, according to the procedures manual, for the Rural Area Co-ordinator to arrange for the 5% of pro-forma appraisals carried out by his or her staff to be forwarded to the economists for quality assurance. Such a system lacks sufficient independence and Co-ordinators could be accused of ‘cherry-picking’ their best appraisals. In order to protect themselves, a more transparent system would be preferable.

17.24.  The Committee therefore recommends that the economists should choose the required number of project appraisals from a list of all projects provided by the Co-ordinator. In so doing, the economists should ensure that they obtain at least one appraisal from each active project officer. This would quickly satisfy the Department that all its project officers were performing appraisal to the required standard and allow early remedial action should problems be identified.

17.25.  The Committee further recommends that a similar procedure is developed for appraisals carried out by staff from the RDC and the partnerships delivering the LEADER+ and NRRTi programmes.

18.           Consideration of Management and Marketing within appraisal

18.1.    PAC’s conclusions (4.10 and 4.15) referred to audit criticism of the Department’s failure to ensure that marketing issues and management needs, within projects, were addressed at appraisal stage. In both cases, the Department had provided assurances to the PAC that proper procedures were now in place.

18.2.    Further assurance was provided to the Committee in the Department’s written submission, [62] which said that all full appraisals would consider the management, structure and responsibilities of the group and, where appropriate, a marketing assessment. The Committee had a slight concern that these issues may not be fully considered in the pro-forma appraisal approach. However, this was allayed when the Committee received a copy of the pro-forma to be used. It clearly contains sections for completion on management and marketing issues, and on ‘risk assessment’.

18.3.    The Committee therefore concluded that the Department has met its own commitments in these areas. The Committee would strongly urge DARD to ensure that management and marketing issues are also addressed within appraisals conducted by the LEADER+ and NRRTi partnership groups.

18.4.    The RDC also provided assurances [63] that their operation manuals will ensure that appraisal and business plans effectively address marketing issues in economic projects. However, it is not clear from their appraisal pro-forma (included in the operations manual) that this is the case. While "marketing" is included as a possible cost within a project, the need for marketing is not assessed in this part of the appraisal. Other papers provided by the RDC suggest that a group’s ability to manage a project will be assessed, particularly during an assessment visit by RDC staff.

18.5.    In view of the PAC’s findings, the Committee believes that it is important for the appraisal documentation to contain this information.

18.6.    The Committee therefore recommends that the RDC amends its procedures to incorporate assessment of marketing and management needs within the appraisal pro-forma.

THIRD TERM OF REFERENCE–
RATIONALISATION OF PROGRAMME STRUCTURES

19.       Context

19.1. Paragraph 46 of the PAC Report referred to a survey of a number of bodies involved in rural regeneration. Those responding to this survey had commented upon the duplication of roles and responsibilities between different providers in the Programme.

19.2.    The PAC’s conclusion 4.23 welcomed the DARD Accounting Officer’s comments that the Department was seeking to rationalise the programme’s structures. It was the PAC’s view that this would help reduce confusion, waste and overlap, as well as leading to savings in administration costs.

20.           Committee’s Expectations

20.1.    The Committee’s expectations in this regard were straightforward:

n     That the Department would have acted in such a way as to rationalise structures;

n     That the Department would make every effort to clarify fully the roles and responsibilities of the providers of various aspects of the Rural Development Programme; and

n     That DARD would ensure cross-departmental and cross-agency co-ordination was in place.

21.           Department’s Actions to Rationalise Structures

21.1.    Firstly, the Committee acknowledged the complexities of the Rural Development Programme, caused by the different EU funding lines for component parts of the programme, and the EU requirements associated with each funding opportunity.

21.2.    Few, if any, would suggest that funds available from Europe should not be accessed for the benefit of Northern Ireland, particularly funds earmarked for hard-pressed rural areas. Indeed, the Committee would criticise the Department if it did not do all in its power to maximise this funding.

21.3. However, the Committee’s belief was that the RDP customer should not need to understand the complexity of European funding, or to suffer because of it. It is the Department’s (and its agents’) role to ensure that this is avoided, and that the customer is informed of, and fully understands, his or her responsibilities.

21.4.    The Committee noted DARD’s assertion [64] that it had simplified the programme as much as possible, for example by condensing the complex EU Rural Development Regulation (8 ‘indents’ in Article 33 of this Regulation) into three broad themes: capacity building, local regeneration projects and programmes, and sectoral regeneration projects and programmes. However, this is precisely what the Committee would expect from any Department. The themes themselves then need to be fully understood.

21.5.    The Committee noted the Department’s recognition of the need for structural rationalisation and welcomed the reduction in numbers of delivery groups and partnerships from 33 in the last ‘round’ (24 LEADER II Groups and 9 Area Based Strategy Groups) to 17 in the new ‘round’ (12 LEADER+ groups and 5 Natural Resource Rural Tourism Initiative partnerships).

21.6.    The Committee also thought it entirely sensible that DARD would not attempt to set up its own ‘area-based strategy groups’ in this programme, choosing instead to deliver its ‘area regeneration’ aspects:

"in accord with the District Council/PEACE II partnership Strategy Groups currently coming on stream" [65] .

21.7.    The Committee further acknowledged that it was a mandatory European requirement that the LEADER+ Programme must be delivered by Local Action Groups and that further rationalisation would have been hard to achieve in terms of group numbers, assuming a LEADER+ Programme was to be put in place in Northern Ireland.

21.8.    The Committee believed that this reduction in delivery partnership numbers will almost certainly ensure that more of the available funding is actually delivered to final beneficiaries, rather than on administration costs. Members therefore welcomed this move.

21.9.    One concern for Committee members centred on the Department’s clarification [66] that applicants may not apply for funding for a project under more than one element of the RDP, or under any other EU-funded programme. In principle, the Committee welcomed this as a move towards greater clarity for project promoters, and rationalisation of delivery structures. The Committee also welcomed the commitment to the provision of advice (by RDD or RDC) when a project may appear to be eligible for more than one programme. The Committee noted, however, that this appeared to rule out the joint funding of projects by DARD and District Council PEACE II Partnerships. Despite the intention to deliver part of the RDP "in accord" with these partnerships, the Committee was concerned that this may still result in ‘competition’ for projects between DARD and the partnerships themselves, thus losing the clarity that might otherwise have been achieved.

21.10.  The Committee noted the RDC’s stated intention [67] to ensure its actions complement those at local district council level. The RDC was also involved in meetings with local district and sectoral partnerships to ensure complementarity and clarity over the programme period. Members also noted and endorsed the Department’s intention [68] that its three area co-ordinators would:

"form liaison groups of delivery agents at local level and seek to develop a uniform ‘one stop shop’ response to help applicants".

21.11.  The Committee therefore recommends that DARD should instigate and maintain the closest possible links with other delivery bodies at local level, and through these links ensure that RDP programmes are not in competition with others for the same projects.

21.12.  Another aspect of the complexity of the Rural Development Programme, as the RDC pointed out, [69] is the real complexity of issues facing rural areas. The Committee therefore welcomed the RDC’s assertion that the range of structures developed for this programme:

"promotes a high level of involvement in programme management from a wide range of stakeholders" and that they "assist in reaching the highest possible number of socially excluded groups".

21.13.  The RDC reported that it had gone through a "major change process" to prepare for the new programme and had spent 18 months refocusing its efforts to address the concerns highlighted in the NIAO and PAC reports.

21.14.  Other comments, believed by the Committee to be important, were those made by the Rural Community Network [70] . That organisation, which articulates the voice of rural communities, endorsed:

"the integrated approach now envisaged within the Rural Development Programme across social, cultural, economic and environmental initiatives". The RCN also said that new co-ordination arrangements "will facilitate rural development to move in the direction of being a process rather than a series of individual projects. This is the concept which RCN strongly supports in the light of structural changes required to address the crisis in rural areas". The RCN concludes that: "there is no doubt that considerable time has been spent during the planning stages of the new programme to get a good strategic fit between the different components which make up the new RDP".

21.15.  The Committee must conclude that there is evidence that DARD, and the RDC, have acted to rationalise the programme’s structures and that these actions will contribute to a more efficient and effective delivery of the programme.

22.           Clarification of Roles and Responsibilities

22.1.    Earlier in this report, the Committee commented on the ‘signpost document’ produced with help of PR consultants. This is undoubtedly a step in the right direction, albeit that it may not have overcome problems regarding participation of certain groups. The Committee has also commented positively on the ‘road-shows’ held throughout Northern Ireland. Similarly, the video adds to the professional publicity campaign, aimed at bringing the programme to the attention of all rural dwellers.

22.2.    The Committee concluded that these were all positive actions in terms of clarification of roles and responsibilities.

22.3.    The Committee also welcomed the concept of a single point of contact (rural area co-ordinators) for those with ideas who would be channelled in a suitable direction and given the required advice. [71] Information and contact details for these co-ordinators was clearly contained in the ‘signpost document’ and should also be available from other DARD sources. The Committee believed that it is vital for these co-ordinators to play a positive, encouraging rôle.

22.4.    The Committee recommends that the rural area co-ordinators must be prepared to engage with, and assist, all-comers, especially those new to the rural development ‘field.’

22.5.    One aspect of role clarification is to ensure that the delivery agents are all fully informed about their own and each other’s roles. This may appear to be a fundamental requirement but one which is not always easy to achieve.

22.6.    The Committee was content that DARD, RDC and RCN all demonstrated in their submissions that they are clear on their respective roles. This was, at least in part, due to rationalisation. For example the RDC stated [72] that, previously, it had:

"straddled all parts of the programme. Now, we are focused on the community and the collective sector". The RDC also "believes it is the only organisation involved in managing not-for-profit community projects under the RDP".

22.7.    The RCN was clear [73] that it:

"through the Rural Support Networks, will undertake capacity building programmes for individual community groups and will build on the community ‘networking’ infrastructure".

22.8.    The Committee also acknowledged the independent view of the East Down Community Network [74] that, for the first time, the Programme clearly defines the roles of all the key rural development agencies and that local people can grasp the concepts more easily than before, and not left to "flounder in the maze that was the last round of EU funding".

22.9.    The Committee concluded that these were positive demonstrations of greater overall clarity within the programme, and a good foundation to provide clarity to the programme’s target ‘customer base’.

22.10.  One of the criticisms, or at least uncertainties, about earlier phases of the RDP was the definition of a ‘group’. The Committee asked DARD to elaborate on this during evidence taking [75] and an official said:

"The Department does not state what size a group must be, whether it should be a formal co-operative group or one that has been created to bid. It is the idea that is critical..We are not saying that a group should consist of five people or 10 people. It will need to be formally constituted, and it will need to display the skills to deliver the project. However, we are not being prescriptive as to size and scale".

22.11.  The Committee welcomed this attempt to provide a flexible definition, but saw it as further evidence that the Department must have in place the resources necessary to enable new groups to feel able to come together and to receive assistance on formal constitution and the development of the skills sought by the Department.

22.12.  The Committee noted, from documents obtained when it was updating its evidence [76] , that the Department had, in fact, decided on a lower size limit of 8 individuals, needed to constitute a group. This appeared to the Committee to be an arbitrary figure, for which no evidence had been presented, but members considered that it was better to have this defined rather than not.

22.13.  Another Committee concern regarding rationalisation was about diversification projects for farmers. Within DARD’s documentation, when calling for applications from prospective LEADER+ groups, there is a clear indication that support can be given to farm diversification projects, but not to projects of a type that may be supported by a separate programme that was being implemented by the Agri-food Development Service.

22.14.  This appeared, to the Committee, to leave prospective beneficiaries uncertain as to the more appropriate funding route. This was precisely the sort of dilemma that rationalisation was supposed to avoid. In response to a question on this, DARD stated [77] that it was aware of these complications, and that a group had been set up to prepare explanatory material. The Committee has already commented on this apparent lack of readiness regarding the participation of farmers. While members would welcome the maximum amount of opportunities being made available, they believed that the Department should have foreseen such a complication regarding diversification. It cannot be helpful to have more than one funding route for what farmers would understand to be a single ‘diversification’ sector.

22.15.  The Committee recommends that farmers are given the greatest assistance in accessing diversification funding from the most appropriate source and that, in any future programme, DARD should ensure that there is only one scheme for each sector.

22.16.  The Committee also discovered an interesting issue regarding clarity and rationalisation. Discussions arose, during evidence, about the correlation between the RDP and mainstream agricultural support, including the ‘Accompanying Measures’ under the ‘Rural Development Plan.’ There is real potential for confusion around the terminology used.

22.17.  Officials were clear, in giving evidence [78] , that no so-called ‘modulation’ monies had been put into the Rural Development Programme nor was there any intention to do so. They advised that such funding would be transferred into environmental-type approaches and would thus be channelled back to farmers. DARD had earlier stated [79] that its rural development programme work would be complementary to agricultural support and to farm family support measures which were to be proposed under the PEACE II programme.

22.18.  Farmers often hear that ‘rural development’ is the ‘second pillar’ of the Common Agricultural Policy. They know that modulation monies are being redirected to measures in the ‘rural development plan’ and yet the officials say that the rural development programme is a separate matter.

22.19.  So, if the Committee’s understanding is correct, the Rural Development Plan contains programmes that are only accessible by farmers (such as the Less Favoured Areas, Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Countryside Management Schemes). The Rural Development Programme is, as officials put it, directed at broader rural communities, with farmers a particular target grouping amongst those communities.

22.20.  The Committee believed that the difference between the two can be explained and that this explanation should have been included in the signpost document, in order to provide clarification to the farming community and others. The Department might also have considered using different terminology for at least one of its ‘Rural Development’ aspects. For example, the "Rural Development Plan for Farms", or the "Rural Development and Regeneration Programme" might have at least helped avoid confusion.

22.21.  The Committee recommends that DARD should consider amending its terminology to highlight the differences between the Rural Development Plan and Rural Development Programme.

22.22.  The Committee recommends that DARD should improve public understanding by regularly publishing a breakdown of expenditure under each of the rural development schemes.

23.       Cross-Departmental Co-ordination

23.1.    During evidence-taking [80] the Committee asked officials about the potential for the RDP to be duplicating something that should be done by other Statutory bodies. Their answer was very clear, assuring members that DARD would not be allowed to duplicate activity.

23.2.    Mr Payne, the farmer who made a submission to the Committee, felt that consideration should be given to a ‘cross-agency think-tank’ that could discuss ways in which duplication might be avoided. However, the Department, in giving evidence about the Natural Resource Rural Tourism Initiative (NRRTi), [81] gave a clear indication that such a forum already existed.

23.3.    This is the inter-departmental committee on rural development (known as the Rural Development Steering Group (RDSG)) which is chaired by the DARD Deputy Secretary responsible for the RDP. The Committee welcomed the existence of the RDSG as a cross-departmental co-ordination device and members would urge DARD to ensure that it is proactive in ensuring avoidance of duplication or agencies working at cross-purposes.

23.4.    The Committee did not explore, in any depth, the role of RDSG, or its operation in practice. However, the NRRTi example is a useful one on which the Committee can base its judgement. The RDSG manages this initiative, the implementation of which directly involves three separate agencies, through a sub-group. The close co-operation at this level, and between the DARD co-ordination offices and NRRTi partnership groups on the ground, is intended to ensure that the involvement of a number of agencies does not impact adversely on the public.

23.5.    In its response to the Inquiry [82] , the NI Tourist Board confirmed its close working relationships with the other agencies including DARD. The NI Tourist Board viewed the NRRTi as a model for joined-up policy, and one which would avoid duplication of roles and responsibilities.

23.6.    The Committee believed that this was an entirely proper objective for DARD and the other agencies, and welcomed the principle demonstrated by the ‘holistic approach’ of joint responsibility and maximum clarity. Members will be interested to see if the approach adopted for NRRTi is successful in practice. If so, the Committee believes that there is great potential for similar actions across the rural development area, given the various agencies’ responsibilities within the rural economy.

23.7.    Finally, in this section, the thorny issue of the difficulty in obtaining planning permission for projects in rural areas was raised in evidence. [83] The officials’ response was that they must recognise the authority of the Planning Service and the district councils, but that they hoped that through partnership, together with the inter-departmental RDSG and new planning proposals, these issues might be "managed".

23.8.    The Committee also recognises the authority of the Planning Service, but is not content that this Service takes regeneration issues fully into account when applying its planning policy. This is a problem that the Committee believed must be tackled. The Committee considered that, when dealing with planning issues, the Department must ensure that its own criteria are appropriate and up-to-date.

23.9.    The Committee therefore recommends that the Rural Development Steering Group should adopt a specific role, perhaps through a bilateral sub-group, dealing purely with cases where important regeneration objectives appear to be at odds with the strict application of planning regulations.

FOURTH TERM OF REFERENCE -
RESOURCES TO BE ASSIGNED FOR PROGRAMME DELIVERY

24.       Context

24.1.    The Committee decided to include this aspect in the Terms of Reference in order to make a judgement on the potential for DARD’s (and others’) commitments, made as a result of audit and PAC criticism, to be compromised through lack of resources.

24.2.    The Committee also wanted to establish whether or not the Department had reviewed the way it delivered the programme to take account of any of the criticisms made against it.

24.3.    Finally, the Committee felt it important to establish the context of the Rural Development Programme within the Department’s priorities, in terms of the specific RDP budget relative to the overall DARD budget allocation.

25.           Committee’s Expectations

25.1.    The Committee expected that the Department would, in a corporate sense, ensure that the resources necessary to ensure the proper delivery of this programme, including compliance with all the relevant guidance, would be identified and provided to the Division responsible for the RDP. It also expected that DARD would ensure appropriate resourcing of its main delivery agents.

25.2. Furthermore, the Committee would have expected that Division to have taken a very close look at itself, in terms of its own structures and delivery arrangements, in order to ensure that they remained the most appropriate to the current circumstances surrounding the RDP.

25.3.    Finally, the Committee had no real expectations regarding the RDP budget, except that members understood that Rural Development was becoming more important in the European context and could well account for a bigger ‘slice’ of the DARD overall budget than before.

26.       Reviews and Identification of Resource Requirements

26.1.    Firstly, the Committee believed that staffing of DARD’s own Rural Development Division was an important factor to get right. The Committee therefore welcomed the Minister’s evidence [84] that:

"An internal review which was carried out by the Rural Development Division identified the need for 21 additional staff to ensure the orderly closure of the last RDP and the implementation of the new one. This is in addition to the 48 staff working in the division in the 2000-01 financial year with a running cost of £1.4 million. Approval has been given to fill the 21 new posts".

26.2.    It could be argued that an internal review may have been less objective than an independent one. However, the Committee made the assumption that a reasonable and persuasive case must have been made for the additional staffing, given that corporate approval for an increase of almost 50% in the division’s staffing levels had been secured.

26.3.    When the Committee updated its evidence early this year, it asked the Department to give the current position regarding these 21 new posts. DARD’s response [85] was very positive:

".we indicated that we would be seeking an additional 21 staff to give us a total of 69 staff. As at 8 February 2002 we had 70 staff. An external review of the RDD staffing position has been commissioned and is expected to start this month".

26.4.    The Committee therefore concluded that the Department had corporately ‘risen to the challenge’ and had provided the human resources that the division believed were necessary. It is a consequential conclusion that the Committee would not expect "under-staffing" to be raised by DARD as an issue or as an excuse for any shortcomings that may be identified in future audits. That position may, of course, change depending on the outcome of the further staffing review mentioned by DARD.

26.5.    The Committee did, however, question the timeliness of this further review. Although the first review was internal, and the proposed review external, DARD had told the Committee that all of the component parts of the programme were not yet fully operational. It may therefore be questionable as to whether any review could, at this stage, assess the Division’s requirements any more accurately than the one which recommended 21 additional posts.

26.6.    The Committee recommends, however, that any further recommendations regarding staffing, from the external review, should be implemented without delay. It is also essential that all new staff must be properly trained to do the job.

26.7.    The Committee was also interested in the comments of the Rural Development Council and Rural Community Network in terms of resources they would need to ensure implementation of the new programme.

26.8.    The Committee welcomed the RDC’s assurance [86] that it had carried out a "full review of staff" and that it had "restructured accordingly". The RDC went on to say that budgets had been prepared for the full programme period and that they awaited DARD approval. Importantly, the RDC stated that it was content it would be able to deliver the expected programme outputs if the budgets were approved.

26.9.    During the updating of evidence, DARD advised the Committee that it had approved the budget for the RDC to deliver the Local Regeneration Programme (non-profit-taking) subject to detailed annual consideration. This was confirmed by the RDC as having occurred on 15 November 2001 and a copy of the approval letter was supplied by the RDC.

26.10.  The Committee would anticipate, in the same way as it did with the Department, that the RDC should now be able to deliver as promised. There was one slight concern that the ‘annualised’ approach where DARD considers RDC budgets might cause limitations on the RDC’s ability to deliver its objectives. However, the RDC did not raise this as a particular issue with the Committee and it may prove perfectly workable.

26.11.  The Committee would, however, recommend that DARD should approve the RDC’s annual budgets as early as possible in advance of the relevant year, in order that the RDC may plan its activities most effectively.

26.12.  The Committee noted also the view of the Rural Community Network, which was that the resources available to the programme are "reasonable within the current remit of the programme". The RCN said that it would require a "small number of extra staff" to deliver its programmes. Members assumed, in the absence of any RCN concerns to the contrary, that sufficient resources would be provided to that organisation to allow for the additional staffing.

26.13.  The RCN raised an important point in its final response to the Committee [87] which was to the effect that DARD should hold funding in reserve to meet any shortfalls which might emerge through further "needs assessment". This is consistent with the Committee’s earlier recommendation regarding the availability of funds throughout the programme period.

26.14.  The Committee would expect DARD to approach this sensibly and objectively, and to be flexible enough to reallocate funding to areas where significant benefits were being accrued, from those areas that were proving to be unsuccessful.

26.15.  The RDC was quite certain that it had the systems in place and the capacity to deliver additional programmes should more funding be made available to it during the programme period. The Committee agreed with the RDC’s assessment that the £10m it expected for its Local Regeneration Programme was "not a lot of money" when the numbers of projects over six years was considered.

26.16.  The Committee agreed that this should be a factor for DARD to consider, during its mid-term reviews, particularly if the RDC programmes were proving more beneficial than others.

DARD Structures and Delivery Arrangements

26.17.  One factor, which was less clear to the Committee, was whether or not there had been any review of the Department’s own delivery structures. During oral evidence [88] , therefore, the Committee asked whether the evaluations of previous phases of the programme, and consultation regarding the new phase, had given a ‘clean bill of health’ on the division’s staffing structure. The Minister’s response was that there were no comments to suggest that the present structures were not working.

26.18.  The Minister went on to explain that there were central policy and financial management units to deal with policy and co-ordinate the implementation of the programme, and three regional co-ordination offices (in Ballymena, Newry and Omagh) that will interface directly with project promoters and co-ordinate local delivery.

26.19.  The Committee acknowledged the principle that DARD seems to espouse, that ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’ However, the Committee wished to stress the importance of DARD allocating its resources to ensure that lessons learned from the past are applied in the new round. Of particular importance, therefore, will be the central unit’s role in ensuring that policy is applied consistently and correctly throughout the three co-ordination areas. The Department should also be prepared to consider alternative delivery arrangements, rather than to assume it is already operating ‘best practice’.

26.20.  The Committee also believed that it may make sense for DARD to consider further internal rationalisation, to bring together the business areas that are currently separate, but which have linked objectives. These would include Rural Development Division, Rural Enterprise Division and those Divisions responsible for implementing the Rural Development Regulation Plan. This may allow for economies of scale and for policy efficiency, and the Committee would strongly urge the Department to take a corporate look at this possibility.

27.       Rural Development Programme within the overall Department Budget

27.1.    In evidence [89] , albeit prior to its securing the additional staff mentioned earlier in this Report, the Department advised the Committee that:

"in terms of staff numbers, the RDP is relatively small and its administration costs amount to less than 2% of the Department’s running costs budget".

27.2.    From figures supplied by the Department regarding its Service Delivery Agreement for the 2002/03 financial year, the Committee could also see that ‘Rural Development’ accounts for less than 7% of the Departmental Expenditure Limit within that year’s budget.

27.3.    It is clear from these figures that the Rural Development Programme remains a relatively small ‘cog’ in the much bigger Departmental ‘wheel.’ This may have to change in line with the apparent move in EU policy towards rural development and away from traditional support for mainstream agriculture. Realistically, much more funding would be required.

27.4.    It seems to the Committee that the amounts of money involved, even £80 million of public spending over 6 years, are not likely to make a huge impact on the difficulties faced by rural areas, however welcome they might be.

27.5.    Finally, a real fear for the longer term, and one raised by the RDC, is how the Rural Development Programme will be funded beyond 2006 when it is widely expected that EU funding will ‘run out’ in Northern Ireland, certainly in terms of the ‘Objective 1 status’ hitherto enjoyed. This phase of rural development cannot be seen as the final element in a rural recovery programme. The Committee would argue that it is, in fact, still in its early stages and that there is much work to be done.

27.6.    It should prove possible to operate a rural support programme from within national funds only. However, this will require a policy decision within the Assembly and the ground must be well prepared for such a decision, particularly in the face of other pressures such as health, education and transport.

27.7.    The Committee therefore recommends that the Department, and others, must address future funding as a major concern well before 2006.

<< Prev       Next >>