| Home | Committees | Membership | Publications | Legislation | Chronology | Commission | Tour | Search |
COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT Preparation for the
8. appraisal of projects in the new strategy 8.1 The NIAO report on the rural development programme recorded a range of concerns regarding the structure of the Department’s appraisal process. The NIAO conclusions were based on the examination of 15 community-based projects from the early phase of the programme. Eleven of these projects involved support in excess of £1 million. To put this in context the Rural Development Programme has now supported over 3300 projects and the vast majority of these have received funding not exceeding £50,000. 8.2 In the early stages of the programme projects were assessed on the basis of business plans. As pointed out in paragraph 3.14 (ii) of the NIAO report in late 1995, Rural Development Division instructed its regional offices that economic appraisals were to be carried out on all projects, completed to standards laid down in HM Treasury guidelines. 8.3 The Division’s current policy is that all projects which receive funding in excess of £1000 must be subjected to an economic appraisal. For projects with non-promoter funding of under £50,000 a simple appraisal is under taken using a proforma. Where funding of £50,000 or more is involved a more comprehensive appraisal is required and generally consultants are appointed to undertake the task. It is these latter projects which are referred to as the "larger" projects in the Memorandum of reply to the PAC report. 8.4 All full appraisals consider the management, structure and responsibilities of the group and where appropriate a marketing assessment. 8.5 The Department’s economists oversee this process. They see a sample of proforma based appraisals and all appraisals for projects seeking funding of £50,000 or more. Appraisals for projects costing £1 million or more are also submitted to DFP for final approval. 8.6 This same approach will be adopted for the 2001 to 2006 programme. In addition the Department is making provision to involve its accountants in the process should the need arise. 8.7 The procedures manuals for the various elements of the programme are currently being drafted. The manuals will record the requirement for economic appraisals as described in the foregoing paragraphs and make reference to the appropriate Treasury and DFP guidance. 8.8 For the new programme a different approach will be taken in relation to the use of consultants for preparing economic appraisals. Previously the Department provided funding to project promoters to employ consultants to undertake appraisals. It is now considered that a more independent appraisal will be obtained if the funders employ the consultant and this approach will be adopted for the new programme. This will also allow more direct monitoring and control of the quality of the appraisals provided by consultants. 8.9 The Department will follow the guidelines set down by the Government Purchasing agency for the appointment of consultants and all appraisals prepared by consultants will be quality assured by the Department’s economists. 8.10 LEADER local action groups and NRRT partnerships will have a grant ceiling of £50,000, so they should not need to employ consultants to undertake appraisals. 8.11 It is the responsibility of project officers, whether in DARD, the RDC or partnership groups to ensure that economic appraisals are completed in accord with Programme policy. For projects receiving funding of under £50,000 the project officers have to ensure that the proforma appraisal has been properly completed before the grant application is submitted to the assessment panel. 8.12 Training on the appraisal methodology is afforded to all staff in Rural Development Division and the Rural Development Council who are involved in the process. The Department will also make this training available to LEADER local action groups and NRRT partnerships. 9. rationalising programme structures 9.1 As part of its review of the Rural Development Programme, the NIAO conducted a postal survey of a number of the main representative bodies involved with rural regeneration – the Area Based Strategy groups, LEADER II local action groups and district councils – to gauge their opinions on the structure and delivery of programme. The NIAO records in paragraph 5.32 of its report that the survey suggested there is a need for structural rationalisation and a greater co-ordination between bodies involved in the programme. 9.2 The Department has sought to create a flexible programme which will provide as wide a range of opportunities for rural dwellers as possible within the legislative constraints which provide the basis for the programme. Much of the programme is co-funded through EU Structural Funds programmes, specifically the Programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity, PEACE II, LEADER + and INTEREG III. As a consequence the Department has had to take account of EU requirements and the need for separation in developing the different elements of the programme. 9.3 The Department has endeavoured to simplify the programme as much as possible, for example by condensing the 8 indents under Article 33 of the Rural Development Regulation (which is the legal basis for EAGGF funded actions under both the programme for Building Sustainable Prosperity and PEACE II) into the three broad themes of capacity building, local regeneration projects and programme and sectoral projects and programmes. 9.4 The Department recognises the need to give project promoters clear guidance on where to direct applications for support under the programme and has commissioned a private sector public relations firm to assist with the preparation of a simple guide to the programme. 9.5 The Department has also recognised the need for structural rationalisation. Under the 1994 to 1999 Rural Development Programme there were 24 LEADER groups and 9 Area Based Strategy groups. Under the 2001 to 2006 programme around 10 to 12 LEADER + local action groups and 5 partnerships to deliver Natural Resource Rural Tourism (NRRT) are envisaged. At this stage the Department does not envisage creating any new area based strategy groups and intends to deliver this aspect of rural development in accord with the District Council/PEACE II Partnership Strategy groups which are coming on stream. 9.6 It is a specific requirement of the LEADER + programme that it is delivered by means of local action groups. The partnerships which will lead on NRRT will cross district council and county boundaries reflecting the geography of the areas targeted. 9.7 Applicants will not be able to apply for funding for a project under more than one element of the programme or under any other EU funded programme. In the event of a project appearing to be eligible under more than one programme the Department’s Rural Area Co-ordination staff or RDC staff will provide advice. 10. resources 10.1 The Rural Development Programme is administered in DARD by Rural Development Division (RDD). In the financial year 2000 to 2001 RDD had on average 48 staff (full time equivalents). RDD running costs were £1.4 million. 10.2 In November 2000 RDD carried out an internal review of its immediate staffing needs taking into account the requirement for the orderly closure of the 1994 to 1999 Rural Development Programme and the further work needed to implement the 2001 to 2006 programme. That review identified the need for an additional 21 posts. Approval to fill these new posts was given in March 2001. 10.3 The deployment of staff within the Division will be much as it was for the 1994 to 1999 programme. There will be a Central Policy and Financial Management Unit to deal with all the policy aspects of the Programme and to co-ordinate the implementation of the programme. There will be three regional Area Co-ordination offices (based in Newry, Omagh and Ballymena) which will interface directly with project promoters and co-ordinate local delivery through interaction with the RDC, RCN, LEADER + groups, NRRT partnerships, other departments and agencies and partnership organisations, communities and private sector interests which are involved in local regeneration activity. PARTICIPATION OF UNDER REPRESENTED GROUPS IN THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME APPENDIX EXAMPLES OF THE PARTICIPATION OF WOMEN IN THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL CASE Women’s Group covers the Strabane District Council and neighbouring cross-border area working to develop the capacity of women to fulfil their potential. Group members are involved in completing an innovative audit of their area which will allow them to identify ways in which they can help people fulfil their potential and make some contribution towards investing in human capital. Group members will be actively involved in completing the audit (with assistance from RDC) and will embark on an accredited training course to facilitate this. CASE’s management committee includes women who are unemployed, looking after the home or family, pursuing full and part-time education and those employed full and part-time. The Group has recently secured funding to run workshops/classes dealing with social inclusion. Acorn Women’s Group, based in Augher, currently developing a childcare project; Blossom Trust, based in Keady, currently developing a project to deliver services to adults with learning disabilities. Granaghan Women, based in Swatragh implemented a small project to provide a pre-fabricated building for IT training, craft classes, health education, etc. to complement their pre-school provision. Rural Community Network Capacity Building supports to women’s networks RCN has been involved in the design and delivery of strategic development workshops with a number of the women’s networks including the Mid-Ulster Women’s Network, Omagh Area Women’s Network and Fermanagh Women’s Network in association with the Women’s Resource and Development Agency. RCN have links to international Women’s Networks including Women’s European Platform, US Women’s Groups and Eastern European Women’s Groups. Community Based Regeneration Projects Lakeland Community Care (LCC) – a rural community development initiative involving four small communities; Teemore, Belcoo, Garrison and Derrygonnelly which have come together and formed a company to offer day care and domiciliary support to elderly people who live in these rural areas. A general manager and a small core of full-time staff manage the company. However, it is providing part-time employment for 150 local women (between 15-30 hours work per week per person). Leyland Fashions provides flexible employment suited to women with family commitments. The RDP has concentrated on creating employment opportunities for rural women and to increase their skills base. Country Markets – a market development for locally produced food, craft and giftware supporting employment for local women in rural areas. Mid-Ulster Women’s Network under the MVDP ABS received funding of £20,000 from the RDP to secure premises for the provision of training, education for additional opportunities in preparation for rural women to return to work. The Acorn Women’s Group, based in Augher, Co Tyrone have received funding to put in place a forest school at Aughadarragh (3 miles from the border) that will offer pre-school, after-school and out of term childcare provision for up to 40+ children. Claudy community and business Resource Centre – multi-purpose social and community centres including childcare facilities. Project will create 14 new jobs that will be attractive to women. Area Based Strategies Moyola Valley Development Partnership – Fourteen playgroups and two after school clubs have received grants for a combination of training, equipment and refurbishment of premises. South Armagh ABS. The strategy has directly engaged with women’s issues through the provision of financial assistance towards the following groups:
Erne East ABS has provided funding support for four new business proposals for local women:
Western Sperrins ABS has provided funding support to Sharon Wauchob Designs for the manufacture of designer clothes. Leader II Coleraine Local Action Group for Enterprise has funded a number of projects which benefited women. These include Community Education for around 70 rural women. Funding went to many individual women to help set up businesses e.g. child care, self catering business, pet grooming, kennels, securing around 13 full-time jobs and 9 part-time jobs for women. Rural Area Partnership in Derry has funded a number of Women’s Health Information Days and courses through women’s groups in the area. Funding has been offered to a women’s group which hopes to set up a childcare network in the rural area. North Antrim Leader Ltd (NAL) has funded training for Glens Home Crafts, a group of 52 Aran knitters (all women) from the North Antrim area who will earn in a spare time capacity. This cottage-based industry has been in existence for 10 years but now they wish to expand and develop to satisfy the export demand. NAL also contributed to funding for a child day care facility in Larne that benefited working mothers from the rural areas around Larne, Ballygally and Carncastle. Magherafelt Area Partnership Ltd have funded 2 women to set up activity holidays, one a textile holiday package (making quilts etc) and another a language holiday (teaching English as a foreign language). Cookstown Leader Action Group provided funding to Cookstown Women’s Group to run a ‘Positive Steps’ course targeting women in rural areas who are economically inactive. They provide training in IT, business, confidence building, etc and provided childcare and transport facilities. They also provided funding for a partnership of women ‘Farmhouse Collection’ to undertake training in craft skills. Armagh District LEADER’s special initiatives were aimed primarily at Women. These initiatives were:
Craigavon Rural Development is promoting training, mentoring, marketing and distribution which they are targeting towards a "Rural Women into Business" initiative in conjunction with the local enterprise agency. They have also funded women in businesses e.g. B&B, Equestrian Centre for disabled, garden ornament business and strawberry growing business. interreg ii community economic development measure Cross-Border Rural Childcare Project The project promoters are the Northern Ireland Pre-school Playgroup Association/Irish Pre-school Playgroup Association (NIPPA/IPPA). It is an Action Research and Development project, providing better quality and accessible child care provision to disadvantaged rural areas along both sides of the border. The rural areas targeted on the Northern side are Belleek, County Fermanagh, Donemana and Clogher Valley in County Tyrone. A range of childcare services meeting locally identified need is being provided. ANNEX 7 COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE TO: 12 June 2001 Thank you for your contribution, and that of your officials, to the Committee’s Inquiry into the next phase of the Rural Development Programme, at the meeting on 25 May 2001. I indicated at the time, that we may have further questions and these are as follows. Terms of Reference 1: How DARD and the Rural Development Council will encourage full participation in the new strategy by under represented groups; particularly the farming community. 1. The Committee notes that no targets have been established with regard to increasing participation. While recognising that such targets are likely to be difficult to establish, should an attempt not be made to at least establish some form of quantitative indicators? 2. Your intention to monitor participation issues is noted, but the process has not been finalised. Can you give a timescale of when monitoring procedures for this important element of the RDP will be in place? Terms of Reference 2: How DARD will ensure full and proper appraisal of all projects developed through the new strategy, including an assessment of staff training in appraisal, the use of consultants in appraisal and inclusion of marketing and management requirements in appraisal. 3. You state that there is provision under the new RDP to allow for DARD accountants to get involved "should the need arise". Under what circumstances do you see this need arising? What will be the remit and powers of the Departmental accountants should they become involved? 4. The Committee notes that training on appraisal will be offered to relevant staff. Will this training be compulsory and how will management set about reviewing and quality - assuring staff’s appraisal work? Terms of Reference 3: How DARD will rationalise programme structures within the new strategy, to avoid duplication of roles and responsibilities and competition with other agencies, and to ensure clarity for the strategy’s customers. 5. The RCN indicated that it believed there was still opportunity for better dialogue and integration within DARD in order to optimise Rural Development opportunities and even suggested that a Rural White Paper was required to determine a new direction for the countryside. To what extent has the ethos of ‘rural proofing’ been adopted within the Department? Have you identified room for more integration between sections in the Department? 6. What role will the Rural Enterprise Division play in the delivery of the Programme? I would be grateful if you could provide a response as soon as possible, preferably within the next two weeks. ANNEX A8 COMMITTEE for AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM: 27 June 2001 You wrote to me on 12 June with regard to a number of further questions about the implementation of the 2001 to 2006 rural development programme. The questions and my responses are set out below. I hope the Committee finds this additional information of assistance. BRÍD RODGERS Question One Q. The Committee notes that no targets have been established with regard to increasing participation. While recognising that such targets are likely to be difficult to establish, should an attempt not be made to at least establish some form of quantitative indicators? A. It is my intention to actively promote and monitor the engagement of women, young people, long term unemployed and farmers participating in the programme. I do not intend to establish targets as participation in the programme depends largely on the proposals that are made to the Department. Question Two Q. Your intention to monitor participation issues is noted, but the process has not been finalised. Can you give a timescale of when monitoring procedures for this important element of the RDP will be in place? A. The Department hopes to be in a position to publicly launch the new Rural Development Programme during September. New procedures will be in place before programme delivery commences. Question Three Q. You state that there is provision under the new RDP to allow for DARD accountants to get involved "should the need arise". Under what circumstances do you see this need arising? What will be the remit and powers of the Departmental accountants should they become involved? A. The Departmental accountant’s role is to provide advice for consideration by the project assessment panels. The advice of the accountant will be sought if the project staff of RDD or its agents, the Department’s economists or the assessment panels consider that additional accountancy advice is needed on any aspect of an appraisal or business plan. Question Four Q. The Committee notes that training on appraisal will be offered to relevant staff. Will this training be compulsory and how will management set about reviewing and quality - assuring staff’s appraisal work? A. It will be a requirement that all staff involved in the appraisal process receive appropriate training. The quality of work related to appraisals will be overseen by the Department’s economists who see a sample of project appraisals for grant of up to £50,000 and appraisals for all projects involving grant of more that £50,000. Question Five Q. The RCN indicated that it believed there was still opportunity for better dialogue and integration within DARD in order to optimise Rural Development opportunities and even suggested that a Rural White Paper was required to determine a new direction for the countryside. To what extent has the ethos of ‘rural proofing’ been adopted within the Department? Have you identified room for more integration between sections in the Department? A. The preparation of a rural White Paper would involve a number of government departments and therefore would have to be considered by the Executive in the context of the Programme for Government. However, what I am committed to is the concept of Rural Proofing, and to this end I propose to establish a Rural Proofing Unit within my Department. Unfortunately the outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease has severely hampered progress but I will be returning to this issue over the next few months. The Department acts as a corporate body and works to maximise co-ordination across its activities. Given the growing prominence of the non-agricultural sectors of the rural economy, it recognises the need to ensure clarity in relation to roles and responsibilities. Working groups at both policy and implementation level have been meeting and will continue to meet with the objective of ensuring co-ordination and complementarity across the range of activities being funded under the 2000-2006 Structural Funds. Question Six Q. What role will the Rural Enterprise Division play in the delivery of the Programme? A. 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. ANNEX A9 COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT REQUEST FOR UPDATE FROM THE COMMITTEE TO: 18 January 2002 You will recall that the Committee embarked on an Inquiry, in March 2001, into the preparation for the next phase of the Rural Development Programme (RDP), as a follow-up to the report on the Programme published by the Public Accounts Committee. Written and oral evidence was taken from the Department and other organisations, and this process was completed in late June 2001. The Committee decided to concentrate on bringing its other Inquiry, into aspects of the Livestock and Meat Commission, to a conclusion and has only now been able to return to the RDP. The Committee discussed the Inquiry at its meeting today and members acknowledged that much has occurred regarding the launch and implementation of the Programme since June. Members were content that the Inquiry remains relevant and important, but agreed that they must seek updates on a number of matters raised in evidence, and take account of the new Programme’s implementation to date, prior to reaching their conclusions. A number of issues are set out as questions which are attached, and I would be grateful if you could arrange for a response to them to be forwarded to the Clerk. In view of the nature of some of these questions, I feel it would be appropriate to seek a response within two weeks of the date of this letter. Members also felt that the Committee’s collective understanding of the new Programme, and of the Department’s approach to it, would be better informed if the relevant officials could make a short presentation to the Committee. It was unfortunate that only three members were able to attend the Programme’s launch in November. They have advised the remaining members that a video had been produced and the Committee has agreed that it would be helpful if this could form part of the presentation. The officials should also be in a position to provide clarification on some of the points raised in this letter. Members agreed to reserve a ‘slot’ on the agenda for their meeting on Friday 1 February and I would be grateful if officials could confirm their attendance to the Clerk as soon as possible, or suggest an alternative date. I believe it is important that the Committee ensures that its findings are current and that the Department is given the opportunity to demonstrate that it has met commitments given to the Committee and to others. I trust that the Department will co-operate fully in this regard. Yours sincerely IAN R K PAISLEY QUESTIONS TO THE DEPARTMENT ARISING FROM EVIDENCE GIVEN TO THE INQUIRY Terms of Reference One – How DARD and the RDC will encourage full participation in the new strategy by under-represented groups, particularly the farming community. 1. The oral evidence and written submissions to the Inquiry appeared to identify a potential stumbling block for the participation of farmers’ groups, particularly those new to the Rural Development Programme. Neither the RDC nor RCN appeared to be certain about who would offer early project planning support. The RDC’s opinion was that additional capacity building support (which may come from the Rural Enterprise Division) could increase the number of collective proposals coming to the RDC from farm groups. RCN said that it would analyse needs of farmers and others but that funding would come from the sectoral programmes. Can DARD confirm whether or not the Rural Enterprise Advisors (to whom farmers are ‘signposted’ in the published document) are sufficiently resourced and skilled to provide capacity building support (including information on how to constitute a group) or whether it is the intention that the RCN will provide services to all new or inexperienced groups, including farmers’ ones? 2. The Committee noted the RDC’s intention to provide a "simple application form to establish eligibility" and to have a two-stage applications process. The RDC explained that a complicated application form can be an alienating experience for people and that field staff and others would provide hands-on support to clients with the form. This issue was not fully explored with DARD. Can DARD advise the Committee of its intentions regarding the project applications process for the parts of the programme to be delivered by Rural Development Division? 3. The Department has kept the Committee informed regarding the implementation of two important elements of the RDP, namely the NRRT Initiative and the LEADER + Programme. Having acknowledged the Department’s definition of "participation" as including membership of partnership groups, it would be appropriate to establish whether or not the successful partnerships, which will deliver these programmes, have demonstrated inclusion to date. In documentation for both these elements, which DARD supplied to the Committee, there was a requirement of prospective partnerships to demonstrate that their membership reflected the main public, private and voluntary sector interests in the area concerned. The UFU suggested to the Committee that, in many rural areas, partnerships could not be said to represent the whole community unless they included farming interests. Can DARD provide information to the Committee on whether the four successful NRRT partnerships (announced on 14 November 2001) and the twelve successful LEADER + groups (announced on 17 December) all demonstrated that their membership reflected agricultural interests? If any did not, can DARD comment on whether, given the relative importance of agriculture in the area concerned, the Department’s requirements in this regard have been met? Any further comment on participation by women, young people and the long-term unemployed within these partnerships would also be helpful. 4. In the Department’s submission of 27 June, DARD clearly stated its intention to monitor participation in the programme of women, young people, long-term unemployed and farmers. It was also stated that new monitoring procedures would be in place before programme delivery commences. Given the Programme’s recent launch, the Committee would ask DARD to provide evidence that such monitoring procedures are now in place. 5. The Committee has noted the list of information seminars to be held at a number of venues throughout Northern Ireland. Assuming these all took place, can DARD supply any information on the attendance at the seminars? Can DARD also advise whether or not there was specific targeting of invitations to the seminars (e.g. to farmers’ or women’s groups) and whether they were advertised widely in the press (including the agricultural press). Terms of Reference Two – how DARD will ensure full and proper appraisal of all projects developed through the new strategy, including an assessment of staff training in appraisal, the use of consultants in appraisal and inclusion of marketing and management requirements in appraisal 6. The Committee received assurances from the Department that Procedures Manuals, which would set out the requirements for economic appraisals, will be available to staff in advance of the new programmes being launched. Can DARD provide evidence that these manuals are in place for the various different elements of its Rural Development Programme, and that the requirements for economic appraisal are clearly set out in each? The Committee would not intend to publish the Department’s manuals but submission of copies (preferably electronically) would provide the clearest indication to the Committee that DARD’s assurances had been met. 7. The Committee noted, from documents provided by DARD, that the call for applications from prospective NRRT partnerships was specific about the requirement for all projects to be subject to an economic appraisal. However, this was not the case when the call for prospective LEADER + Local Action Groups was issued. Indeed, applicants were asked to provide, as part of their application, details of the procedures that they proposed "for the appraisal and selection of projects and the criteria to be used." Can DARD comment on this apparent discrepancy? 8. In DARD’s submission of 3 May, the intention was stated to apply a "grant ceiling" of £50,000 to LEADER + Groups and NRRT partnerships. This would mean that neither type of body should find it necessary to employ consultants to undertake appraisals. In the calls for applications, in neither programme documentation does there appear to be any reference to a grant ceiling. Can DARD confirm that the ceiling of £50,000 remains their intention? Terms of Reference Three – how DARD will rationalise programme structures within the new strategy, to avoid duplication of roles and responsibilities and competition with other agencies, and to ensure clarity for the strategy’s customers 9. Within the documentation issued by DARD 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, being implemented by the Agri-food Development Service. This would appear to leave prospective beneficiaries uncertain as to the more appropriate funding route. The Department’s ‘signpost document’ simply states that micro-business development (i.e. LEADER +) "includes small farms and farm diversification projects." Can DARD comment on this apparent lack of clarity for what is a target sector? Terms of Reference Four – what resources (financial, people and other) DARD will assign to the Strategy’s delivery and how they will be assigned 10. During the evidence session on 25 May 2001, the identified need for 21 additional staff (over and above the then current figure of 48) was highlighted. The Committee heard that approval had been given, in March 2001, to fill the 21 posts. Can DARD advise the Committee on the current position regarding these posts? 11. In the RDC’s submission to the Inquiry (3 May) that organisation advised that it had prepared budgets for the full programme period and awaited DARD’s approval. The RDC went on to state that it was content that it could deliver its aspects of the Rural Development Programme if the submitted bid was approved. Can DARD confirm whether or not it has approved these budgets? ANNEX A10 COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT WRITTEN UPDATE FROM: 14 February 2002 Further to my letter of 31 January responses to the questions annexed to your letter of 18 January are attached. I hope the Committee finds this further information of assistance and I look forward to seeing the report on the Committee’s Inquiry. BRÍD RODGERS Q. Can DARD confirm whether or not the Rural Enterprise Advisors (to whom farmers are ‘signposted’ in the published document) are sufficiently resourced and skilled to provide capacity building support (including information on how to constitute a group) or whether it is the intention that RCN will provide services to all new or inexperienced groups, including farmers’ ones? Farmers are signposted to the Rural Enterprise Advisors as a source of information on how to avail of funding under the programme. The Rural Enterprise Advisors are not resourced to provide capacity building support beyond the scope of their own current programme – but through their liaison with Rural Development staff they can guide towards other potential sources of help. Rural Enterprise Advisors already work with around 50 existing groups and have been helping these groups build their capacity over a period of time. Rural Enterprise Advisors continue to mentor these groups as they consider strategies to avail of rural development funding. Some of these have advance to specific project proposals. Rural Enterprise Advisors are currently developing a Diversification Challenge programme which will be of benefit to farmers wishing to diversify from mainstream farming. This challenge programme will complement the funding support for diversification under the various Structural Funds and Community Initiatives. While Rural Enterprise Advisors have insufficient resources to capacity build a large number of new groups on an individual basis, they are currently investigating the provision of a Group Start-up course for farmer groups, this spring (March/April). It is the intention to deliver the course to group representatives on a collective basis and in a number of locations throughout Northern Ireland. The Group Start-up course should include:-
The RCN provides capacity building training programmes for those interested in understanding and becoming involved in community development. Farmers can avail of this training although places are limited. Q. Can DARD advise the Committee of its intentions regarding the project applications process for the parts of the programme to be delivered by Rural Development Division? The application form is complicated and potentially off-putting. We are however linked to a mandatory two-part Structural Funds application process. Part "A" of the application form collects information common to all Structural Funds applications and Part "B" gathers information more specific to the type of grant and measure. The scale of information sought is unavoidable, and required by Managing Authorities to meet Structural Funds management and control obligations. Much of the information has to be collected at application stage. To assist the applicant, the Department provides guidance notes with its application forms. While the application process is internet-based, the Department has arranged for a paper version to be made available on request. Rural Area Co-ordination offices will give advice on form completion if approached. Q. The UFU suggested to the Committee that, in many rural areas, partnerships could not be said to represent the whole community unless they included farming interests. Can DARD provide information to the Committee on whether the four successful NRRT partnerships (announced on 14 November) and the twelve successful LEADER+ groups (announced on 17 December) all demonstrated that their membership reflected agricultural interests? Any further comment on participation by women, young people and the long-term unemployed within these partnerships would also be helpful. Farming Interests 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. Other Interests Generally women are not as well represented as we would wish and in some cases we have asked groups to address this deficiency. However we have to recognise that there tends to be a real difficulty for groups in getting women involved. 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 two years. Q. The Department stated its intention to monitor participation in the programme of women, young people, long-term unemployed and farmers. It also stated that new monitoring procedures would be in place before programme delivery commences. Given the programme’s recent launch, the Committee would ask DARD to provide evidence that such monitoring procedures are now in place. Rural Development Division is currently setting up a central database to meet its detailed monitoring requirements, and this will record and monitor participation by priority groups, such as women, and young people. We are still awaiting Commission agreement on some of the indicators, for example for LEADER+. The baseline study which has been commissioned for the Natural Resource Rural Tourism may also generate further indicators. Q. The Committee has noted the list of information seminars to be held at a number of venues throughout Northern Ireland. Assuming these all took place, can DARD supply any information on the attendance at the seminars? Can DARD also advise whether or not there was specific targeting of invitations to the seminars (e.g. to farmers’ or women’s groups) and whether they were advertised widely in the press (including the agricultural press)? Seventeen information seminars were held at venues across the Province. The events were held in conjunction with the Rural Development Council and the Rural Community Network. The Department’s Rural Enterprise Division also provided representation at each event in order to disseminate information on funding opportunities to the agricultural sector. Over 2000 people attended these events. The events were advertised one week in advance in provincial and some local newspapers. Some 660 ‘expressions of interest’ proforma were subsequently received. Rural Development Division staff have subsequently had a series (around 30) meetings with groups of or representatives of farmers. Over 500 people have participated. This is an ongoing process and over the next 12 months we will be holding further information events, targeting specific groups as necessary. Q. Can DARD provide evidence that these (procedures) manuals are in place for the various elements of its Rural Development Programme, and that the requirements for economic appraisal are clearly set out in each? The general structural funds manual prepared by DFP is now published on the Internet at the DFP web site. This includes a specific EAGGF section and a section on economic appraisals. A call for projects has been announced for the Building Sustainable Prosperity Programme element of the RDP and the internal procedures for that element of the programme are in place. These include instructions and guidance on the economic appraisal arrangements. These procedures will be forwarded to the Committee shortly. The Committee has confirmed that these internal procedures will not be published. We are still working on our detailed procedures for LEADER + and Natural Resource Rural Tourism. Calls for individual project applications will not be made for some months. The Local Action Groups are preparing their business plans and NRRT Partnerships are currently preparing local strategies. They will receive instructions on the requirement for economic appraisals in their operating guidance which is also being drafted and which will be in place before projects get underway. Q. The specific call for applications from prospective NRRT partnerships was specific about the requirement for all projects to be subject to an economic appraisal. However, this was not the case when the call for prospective LEADER + Local Action Groups was issued. Can DARD comment on this apparent discrepancy? All projects will require an economic appraisal. The guidance issued to prospective Local Action Groups was a general guide to help groups submit an application to act as a delivery agent under the LEADER + programme. It was not intended to detail the full requirements of the Programme. The document issued at the time of seeking bids from prospective NRRT partnerships was a general consultation document. The LAGs and NRRT Partnerships will receive instructions on the requirements for economic appraisals in their operating guidance which is being drafted and will be in place before individual projects are assessed. Q. Can DARD confirm that it is still the intention to impose a grant ceiling of £50,000 on LEADER + groups and NRRT partnerships? Under LEADER + a maximum grant ceiling of £50,000 will apply. Under NRRT the grant ceiling will be £50,000 for community based projects and £150,000 for other projects, although in some specific circumstances a partnership may be able to offer a higher amount of grant with the prior written approval of the Department. Q. Within the documentation issued by DARD when calling for applications from prospective LEADER + groups, there is a clear indication that support can be granted to farm diversification projects, but not to projects of a type that may be supported by a separate programme, being implemented by the Agri-food Development Service. This would appear to leave prospective beneficiaries uncertain as to the more appropriate funding route. The Department’s ‘signpost document’ simply states that micro-business development (ie LEADER +) "includes small farms and farm diversification projects". Can DARD comment on this apparent lack of clarity for what is a target sector? The Department is very aware of these complications. A group has been set up led by the Department’s Agri-food Service to prepare explanatory material. We are hoping to provide a flow chart, booklet or ‘decision tree’ which will simplify the programmes so that they may be more easily interpreted by farmers. The presentation style has not yet been decided and we may keep several versions to suit different ways of looking at the process. What we are doing here is endeavouring to ensure that as many doors as possible are open to farm families against the complicated background of EU restrictions. Q. Can DARD advise the Committee on the current position regarding these (21 additional) posts? The number of staff in post given to the Agriculture Committee on 25 May 2001 was 48 and 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. Q. In the RDC’s submission to the Inquiry (3 May) that organisation advised that it had prepared budgets for the full programme period and awaited DARD’s approval. The RDC went on to state that it was content that it could deliver its aspects of the rural development programme if the submitted bid was approved. Can DARD confirm whether or not it has approved these budgets? The Department has approved the budget for the Rural Development Council to deliver the Local Regeneration Programme (non-profit taking) subject to detailed annual consideration. Rural Development Division ANNEX A11 COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 5 March 2002 Your e-mail of 27 February 2002 to Alison Morrow refers. Firstly it should be noted that the procedures are a working document that will be revised and updated regularly throughout the period of the Programme. As you quite rightly point out in both written (3 May 2001) and oral (25 May) evidence, DARD stated that projects under £50,000 would be covered by a pro-forma economic appraisal and that those over £50,000 would have a more comprehensive appraisal, generally carried out by consultants. This was the case at the time. However DFP have since issued revised guidance that full Economic Appraisals should be completed for projects over £250,000. In conjunction with Economics and Statistics Division DARD has made a policy decision that Economic Appraisals should be completed for projects over £150,000. The policy remains that all projects will be subject to an economic appraisal with a proforma being used for grants from £1,000 up to and including £150,000. RDD is in the process of drafting a proforma for grants up to £1,000, which we will ask Economics and Statistics Division to clear. The discrepancies in the wording of the Economic Appraisal proforma are being corrected. Alison Morrow will amend the procedures in light of the above, can you please advise if you wish to receive a copy of the revised procedures. ROISIN LILLEY ANNEX B1 COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE LETTER SEEKING SUBMISSION TO: 20 March 2001 You may be aware that the Committee has agreed to undertake an Inquiry into the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s preparation for the next phase of its Rural Development Programme. The Inquiry relates to the recent findings and recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and Terms of Reference adopted by the Committee during its meeting on Friday 9 March 2001 are attached. The Committee agreed that it should place a public notice (in the three main regional newspapers) and issue a press release announcing this Inquiry, but that a number of organisations, including yours, should be approached directly to seek written submissions. The Committee is also seeking submissions from the Rural Community Network and the two farmers’ representative bodies. You will see from the Terms of Reference that the Rural Development Council is specifically mentioned in terms of encouragement of under-represented groups. This stems from the PAC conclusion 4.5: "We look to both the Department and the Rural Development Council to ensure, as far as possible, that under represented groups such as the farming community, women, young persons and the long-term unemployed fully participate in the programme in future". DARD’s response was to state its intention to encourage participation of under-represented groups in the 2001-2006 programme and to say that there would be sectoral initiatives allowing support to be given to farm families, women and young persons. The Department has provided its draft strategy to the Committee. I would ask you to provide your view of the RDC’s role within the new strategy and to outline your proposals to ensure these groups’ participation in RDC-led activities i.e. precisely how participation is to be encouraged. This would include your definition of "participation". What help will be given to these groups to bring forward proposals, and to implement them? How will the RDC assess whether these groups are participating or not? Has the RDC set any targets for participation? Are the selection criteria for the new RDC programmes yet established, and if so, is due weight given to inclusion of under-represented groups? What lessons in this regard has the RDC learned from its earlier activities and how are these being applied in the new strategy? Your views on the remaining three Terms of Reference will also be welcomed, particularly on the whole process of project appraisal and the use of consultants for appraisal. This is important, given the PAC’s criticisms and the RDC’s involvement in supporting regeneration projects. Has the Department provided guidance on the appraisal requirements in the new programme? Is there an operating manual in place within the RDC for the new programmes? Are staff from the RDC trained in appraisal requirements? How will marketing and management requirements be taken into account when appraising project applications? The PAC’s conclusion 4.23 referred to the Accounting Officer’s comments about rationalising programme structures, in the hope that confusion, waste and overlap would be reduced. Assuming you are aware of the contents of the draft strategy, it would be helpful for you to give the RDC’s views on this. Are there too many component parts of the strategy? Will the strategy’s customers understand what is on offer? Will the RDC be ‘competing’ with other agencies for projects? In following up the PAC conclusions, the Committee wishes to assess the resources which are to be allocated in the new strategy. Have you assessed the financial and human resource requirements for the RDC in implementing the new Strategy? If you have, how do these compare to the resources used in the last programme and those currently available to you? If there are shortcomings in resource availability what effect will these have on the programme’s implementation if they are not addressed? I would be grateful if you could arrange to have your submission forwarded to the Committee Clerk by Friday 4 May. Members have agreed that an Inquiry evidence session involving the Department should take place on Friday 25 May. It is entirely possible that the RDC will be called to give evidence on that date, but a formal invitation would be issued separately. Yours sincerely, IAN R K PAISLEY |