| Home | Committees | Membership | Publications | Legislation | Chronology | Commission | Tour | Search |
COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT Preparation for the
ANNEX C3 COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE TO: 22 May 2001 Thank you for your very useful submission in relation to this Inquiry. The Committee considered your paper at its meeting on 18 May 2001 and asked me to write to you with further questions to assist members’ deliberations. 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 is concerned that all marginalized groups are encouraged to participate in the new strategy. Are you fully satisfied that the mechanisms are in place that will allow you to maximise the opportunity presented by the Rural Support Networks to specifically encourage participation by marginalized groups? 2. You make reference to a low level of participation of farm families within non-farm activities. How do you intend to target the farming community so that participation from this sector is increased? 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. Are you confident that you have enough detail on the appraisal procedure for projects under your proposed work programme to move forward? Do you believe there have been improvements in the appraisal procedure? 4. What measures do you intend to take to ensure that participants are aware of the objectives of the projects and the requirements the appraisal procedure places on the projects? 5. You refer to technical assistance and training being available to assist with the more technical aspects of project development. Could you give an example of this? What other assistance or training is given to ensure the efficient day-to-day running of a project? 6. You have specifically indicated the type of training envisaged for Rural Mediation Services. However, your training and assistance for other programmes is less well detailed e.g. for Community Safety, Community Halls Advisory Service and the Programme for Tackling Social Exclusion. Is there adequate provision for training and assistance for these and other of your programmes? It would be helpful if you would outline these. 7. The RDP states that all programmes will be monitored on a regular basis. Are you confident that the relevant Programme Monitoring Committees will have enough expertise to give a balanced judgement on a programme? 8. What role do you see for consultants in giving training or assistance to groups? 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 9. One of the basic foundations of the Rural Development Programme is that there should be an integrated approach that treats rural development as a process rather than a series of individual projects and programmes. Do the mechanisms of delivery established by the Department, the RDC and your own organisation adequately facilitate rural development as a process rather than a series of individual projects? 10. Are you confident that the demarcation in responsibility between your organisation, the RDC and the Department is explicit? Do you believe that people availing of the RDP-sponsored initiatives are also aware of where the responsibility lies for the delivery of a particular project or programme? If not what can be improved to achieve this? In particular what will be done to encourage people who have had no previous involvement in the RDP? 11. Within the Agri-Food Development Service of DARD is a team of 13 Rural Enterprise Advisers whose role is to develop farmers such that they will be in a position to establish new initiatives and business opportunities under the Rural Development Programme. Acknowledging that your focus is not on business development have you liaised with this group in order to encourage participation by farmers and farm families in aspects of the RDP? 12. Have you had any feedback, formal or otherwise, from members of Local Action Groups on the extent and quality of help they have received from the RDC or Rural Enterprise Division? 13. One aspect of the RDP is Micro-Business Development that aims to target women, young people, farmers and farm families and the long-term unemployed. In your review of Peace 1 you have also broadly identified these groups, as well as people with disabilities, as requiring a special focus. Is the Programme flexible enough to allow organisations with responsibility for delivering different aspects of it to consult with each other to ensure a more holistic rather than piecemeal approach? Terms of Reference 4: What resources (financial, people and other) DARD will assign to the strategy’s delivery and how they will be assigned. 14. You say the resources available to the Programme are reasonable given its current remit e.g. approximately £14m has been earmarked for that aspect of the programme that you are involved with - strengthening rural communities. What proportion of this will be applied to RCN-supported programmes? 15. Do you have sufficient personnel to successfully deliver your programmes? How closely will you work with the RDC to maximise the effective use of resources including personnel? Your responses will be very useful and will help the Committee greatly when they come to consider their final report. ANNEX C4 COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM: 2 July 2001 Thank you for the opportunity to give additional comment to our earlier submission and I would also like to thank you for the extension of time which you afforded for this reply. Terms of Reference 1: Full participation of under-represented groups 1.1 RCN has a commitment to include all marginalized groups in the new Strategy however such a statement must be qualified. Each of the Rural Support Networks will set specific goals to include areas of weak community infrastructure i.e. areas or groups which have not benefited from community organisation and participation or have not benefited from funding programmes in the past. Centrally RCN, through Peace II, will give modest support to people with disabilities in rural areas. Mainstreaming of such support will be essential in the long run. While RCN will analyse the needs of women, young people and farmers such programmes will depend on the sectoral funds to be operated through the Rural Development Programme. The specific allocations under the Sectoral Programmes are unknown at this stage. However, we would support the concept of meeting particular needs as they are identified throughout the life of the Programme through these Sectoral Programmes. RCN would also dedicate part of its staff resource to identify the needs of particular marginalized groups covered under Section 75 of the Equality legislation. A rural housing estates programme has been developed in partnership with NIVT, DARD, NIHE and RCN to focus on twelve rural housing estate areas. As mentioned previously the full funding package is not yet in place in relation to this programme but it is anticipated that the Rural Development Programme may contribute up to 50% to such a Programme. 1.2 Farm families 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. However, we will undertake to build on the work carried out under the Active Participation Grants Scheme run under Peace I where we funded a range of farming initiatives in the context of peace building and local collective initiatives. Reports of this programme have been published in ‘Telling it like it is’ a new RCN publication documenting the engagement of marginalized groups under Peace I. RCN has developed strong linkages with the farm organisations undertaking research into gender proofing CAP reform and developed a broad partnership of stakeholders across farming and rural development interests. Increasingly farmers are playing a role in local community activity. Initiatives undertaken by the Rural Support Networks after Foot and Mouth Disease have encouraged greater participation by the farming community. RCN will also play an active role in the EU Rural Monitoring Group as set up to assist representatives on the Monitoring Committees. Conclusion It would be wrong to overstate RCN’s role or ability to engage all marginalized groups in the new Strategy. We will, however, within the limits of a small organisation strive to achieve that end and highlight the shortcomings where need is not being met. Terms of Reference 2: Appraisal of projects 2.3 Appraisals for Rural Support Networks have been conducted within the Peace I Programme through a standardised procedure. The availability of clear strategic and operational plans will now facilitate a more detailed appraisal being carried out. These appraisals will be conducted by RCN staff who have experience in working in many areas of rural community development. Approval and decisions will be taken by RCN Grants Committee under the authority of the RCN Board. This co-ordinated approach, which will allow for a more in-depth analysis of the strategic and operational plans of each of the RSNs, should ensure a more meaningful appraisal programme being conducted. Our view is that if the proposals we have put forward for expression of interest, information workshops followed by full application is followed then there will be improvements in the system. We have also taken care to keep a clear distinction between development work and project assessment. A draft operational manual is being developed within RCN. 2.4 RCN has joined with other elements of the Rural Development Programme to ensure that there is the widest possible publicity for the programme. Publications, conferences and seminars will further disseminate the procedures and criteria under which projects will be expected to apply. Training of the Grants Committee within RCN will be undertaken and where appropriate this will be co-ordinated with training available across the Rural Development Programme and beyond. All management committees will be required to undertake further awareness training on the responsibilities relating to the funding process. As we assess the funding package available to RSNs, each management committee will be taken through a process which will raise issues relating to the objectives of projects and the requirements that the appraisal procedures will place on these projects. Committees have already been made aware of the proposed training and information workshops which they will be expected to engage in during the summer and autumn months and they realise that these are necessary requirements given the level of funding being made available. 2.5 Within the Rural Support Network Programme there is dedicated support from Rural Community Network through a Network Support Officer who as part of her role will look at generic and individual training needs both for management and staff. Already this dedicated support has levered in training in computer, financial and personnel skills. A further programme which will address issues of tackling social inclusion, peace building, equity, diversity and interdependence, finances, equal opportunities and employment practices have been planned for the next twelve months again with participation from committees and staff employed. RCN see the continued learning of Rural Support Network committees and staff as a vital component in ensuring that that capacity is built to maximise the output through the Rural Support Network Programme. As part of the Peace Programme it is our intention to run a Community Halls Advisory Service which will deal with more technical aspects of project development. Such projects may then apply to other parts of the programme, e.g. RDC for project implementation. Other more technical aspects of project development may relate to disability access, health and safety, etc. 2.6 It is understandable that the training envisaged for the Rural Mediation Service was more detailed as this has emanated from a pilot programme which has just been completed. Training and assistance for the other programmes detailed will be developed as the programmes roll out. However, RCN will, as part of each programme, be developing advisory panels which will have as its members key players in each of the measures identified. Through these panels it is anticipated that expertise will be able to assist in the identification of the skills and support required and will be able to signpost to relevant agencies. To complement these advisory panels, RCN will be commissioning scoping exercises in the areas of disability, single identity work and through workshops the key components of a Community Halls Advisory Service. In the case of Community Safety with the assistance of NIACRO, community groups will be helped to conduct community safety audits and from these audits develop integrated community safety plans. It is envisaged that a considerable range of need will be identified through this process. However, RCN is confident that our programme partner, NIACRO, has the ability to deliver many of the training and support functions either directly through their staff or by signposting to relevant agencies. The Community Halls Advisory Service was identified as a priority need by management committees managing community facilities in rural areas. RCN having delivered a £4 million capital programme on behalf of the Millennium Commission throughout rural Northern Ireland, funding 56 community halls over the past 4 years, has gained much staff experience in identifying issues around the development and maintenance of community halls. A number of pilot programmes are currently being conducted to add to this knowledge and a series of workshops have been completed which add further to the picture of what a good service would look like. It is envisaged that RCN staff, both those involved in the Halls Advisory Service and other staff across the organization, may be able to assist with some technical assistance, community audits, developing constitutions, and community relations. A draft outline of what this service can provide is attached to this paper. Tackling Social Exclusion As originally conceived this programme would have included support to women’s groups and networks, young people and farmers. It is now envisaged that these groups will be dealt with under Sectoral Programmes yet to be determined through the Rural Development Programme. While RCN will undertake work with each of these groupings within its core work the programmes on each of these themes will be determined at a later date. Our programme for tackling social inclusion under Peace relates to a specific programme aimed at tackling social exclusion among and between people with disabilities. RCN is aware of the limitations of the programme given the budget available but want to explore how people with disabilities can, through user led initiatives, play a more participative role in their communities. Given the wide range of disabilities and therefore applications which could arrive with RCN the availability of a flexible programme which can allow innovative ideas to develop is very important. It is hoped that the Advisory Panel will play an important part in assisting with the identification of proper training and support needs. RCN staff is currently engaging in an Equity, Diversity and Interdependence Programme and equality training. This programme involves both development and grant giving components as set out in the programme complement of Peace II. It will be essential that the issue of disability in rural areas be considered as a mainstream issue. RCN is clear that this modest programme can only contribute at the margins of such an important issue. 2.7 Monitoring will be a key component of each programme undertaken. During information seminars for Peace II all perspective applicants will be given clear guidelines for the monitoring and evaluation procedures involved if a group’s application is successful. This monitoring will involve quarterly financial reports requiring original invoices and copy bank statements, six monthly evaluation reports and attendance at monitoring and evaluation workshops during the lifetime of the grant. The Rural Support Network programme will have quarterly financial and project management procedures put in place, each handled by a staff member responsible for this part of the programme. This will not be the Network Support Officer. The staff member will ensure that financial returns and project reports are forwarded on standard formats to allow cross checking to be carried out. During the gap fund phase of the programme we are piloting the process through which reports and drawdowns will be implemented and monitored. When issues of concern are identified as part of the monitoring process, Programme Development Co-ordinator will visit the group or RSN to meet with and discuss the issues with management and staff if appropriate. Reports on such visits will be forwarded to the relevant sub-group of RCN. RCN is confident that we have the expertise within the Board and sub-committees to consider the detailed monitoring of our grants. On the wider level of the Monitoring Committees, an EU Rural Monitoring Group has been established which includes farm organisations, fisheries and rural development organisations. This group has representation on the CSF, Building Sustainable Prosperity and Peace II Programmes and is well placed to provide relevant information to the Monitoring Committees. It is essential that the Monitoring Committees receive the reports for these committees in sufficient time to consult with the various interests in order to give a balanced judgement on the programme. 2.8 While there will be a need for consultants to assist groups in training and economic appraisal and project development RCN is committed to a development process throughout all its programmes including Peace II. This process will see groups receiving more assistance on the ground through a range of methods, RCN staff, staff of other agencies and community facilitators. Where RCN is taking on consultants in any of these roles this will be done through an open tender process or from a select list constructed through a transparent and open registry. In other cases RCN may assist the group in drawing up Terms of Reference for using facilitators. It is important that the group will ultimately make the decision about who to use. In this way the group will develop skills which facilitate local decision-making and accountability. Terms of Reference 3: 3.9 As set out the Rural Development Programme has attempted to present greater cohesion across the whole programme and indeed there is a clear logic from capacity building through not-for-profit projects and programmes to co-operatives and profit taking groups with the opportunity for sectoral programmes to be developed throughout the lifetime of the programme. The structural arrangements are clearer than in the last round but so too is the complexity of rural development. Arrangements have been put in place to bring together the Rural Support Networks and Area Co-ordinators from DARD on a quarterly basis. Regular meetings have also been agreed between DARD, Rural Development Council and Rural Community Network. A PR strategy for the programme is being developed by DARD in co-operation with the various players. These 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 the structural changes which are required to address the crisis in rural areas. 3.10 RCN is confident that the demarcation arrangements between DARD, the RDC and RCN are explicit and while it is inevitable that there may be occasional overlap, the structural arrangements for the programme should be able to deal with clarity on these different issues. RCN has now got an extensive database based on previous experience from Peace I, Millennium Halls programme and our current membership of over 500. This network will be used to disseminate information on the programme. RCN will use our magazine - Network News, newssheet – Rural Brief and our website as well as a series of workshops and meetings advertised in the press as a means to communicate with the maximum number of people living in rural areas with the possibilities contained within the Programme. 3.11 Our linkage with AFDS has not been as strong as it might in the past. However, through recent meetings we have developed better linkages centrally and although not all 13 Enterprise Advisers have been contacted those that have, have been very positive in making the linkages between farmers and local community development groups. Our relationship with Family Farm Development has also provided a useful basis to develop better relationships with the farming community. A number of the Rural Support Networks have been particularly active in this area of work and their practice will be shared throughout the twelve Rural Support Network areas during the Programme. 3.12 This is not an area that RCN has evaluated. However, in speaking to a number of Local Action Groups it became clear that these partners did work together but because of the high degree of skills and expertise now developed within Local Action Groups there appeared to be less need for direct help other than signposting where this became appropriate. RCN is a partner in the delivery of the UK wide networking of LEADER II and has worked closely with all the LAGs. 3.13 The engagement of women, young people, farmers and farm families and the long term unemployed justifiably should be a component part of each element of the Rural Development Programme as each part of the Programme will deliver something different. To avoid a piecemeal approach it will be important that a coherence is brought to each of the targeted groups perhaps under the Sectoral Programmes. In addition, networking across the programme through conferences and seminars would indeed be helpful in this respect. Terms of Reference 4: 4.14 Resources It is expected that RCN will receive the following funds under Peace II and Building Sustainable Prosperity. 1.3 m under Peace II Programmes and Grants over 4 years 1.7 m under BSP over 6 years 4 m earmarked for the Rural Support Network Programme over 6 years under BSP These figures are approximate and confirmation is still subject to negotiation. These figures do not include the Rural Housing Estates Programme. 4.15 A small number of extra staff will be required to deliver our programmes. We are committed to work closely with RDC both on Peace II and Building Sustainable Prosperity funded programmes. However, our roles and responsibilities within each programme is quite different if complementary. We are working with the RDC in order to maximise our co-operation in relation to research and policy information work. Early indications are that we will put forward a proposal to work co-operatively on areas which might otherwise overlap on the area of research. Conclusion While the information in this response gives the best picture possible at this point in time and should be seen as a work in progress rather than an end point. In this regard, it would be extremely important that DARD hold in reserve funding which will meet any shortfalls which should emerge during the course of further needs assessment. NIALL FITZDUFF Annex D1 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 Development Council, the Rural Community Network and NIAPA. You will see from the Terms of Reference that the Committee is specifically interested in the 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. Members will be interested in the views of the Rural Community Network in terms of the inclusion of the unemployed, women and young people. The Committee’s main purpose for consulting with the UFU is in establishing best practice for the inclusion of farmers and their families and to ensure that this practice is adopted as the new Strategy is implemented. Your views on the remaining Terms of Reference will, of course, also be welcomed. I would be grateful if you could arrange to have your submission forwarded to the Committee Clerk by Friday 4 May. A short guide to submitting written evidence is attached for your information. It is possible that the UFU will be called to give evidence on 11 May, but a formal invitation would be issued separately. Yours sincerely, Ian R K Paisley ANNEX D2 COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 10 May 2001 Issues for Consideration by the Agriculture Committee on the Rural Development Programme For the past decade rural development has been an area which has not involved farmers and their families as well as might have been hoped, for a variety of reasons. Not least of these is that farmers and their families, despite being the most important economic engine in the rural areas in the province, have not been encouraged to participate and benefit from the rural development programmes that have been in place. A problem does exist in how to get farmers to become involved in rural development, and how to ensure they continue to be involved. The Union strongly believes that rural areas cannot develop without farmer and farm family involvement. Farmers, and their families, are now becoming more interested in rural development and what it can mean for them. This is due to their changing personal circumstances. However, it can in fact be these circumstances that can prevent some farmers being involved. Rural development involvement necessarily requires time, which will naturally impinge on their own work time on the farm, especially as more farmers are seeking work off the farm to provide financial support for their families. It is essential that this practical problem is recognised and mechanisms are put in place to help farmers to become involved. Commitment to be involved in local projects or in Leader groups, or in larger groups is essential from farmers, but again as farmers become more pressured for time this becomes more and more difficult. Yet without the local involvement of the farming community these types of groups are not able to fully represent the entire local community nor will groups benefit from the expertise that local farmers, as businessmen, councillors, etc could bring. At present there is a varying amount of awareness amongst farmers throughout the province as to what rural development means, whom it affects and how they can make use of it. It will continue to be necessary to work at increasing the awareness of rural development amongst the farming community. This is a role not only for the Union, but also for DARD, and all its relevant divisions, established local rural development groups, RDC, RCN and other bodies established to handle rural development money. Farmers can also be discouraged from participating in rural development programmes because of the complexity that exists in accessing funding for projects they would wish to be involved in. The Union would strongly recommend that all Government Departments and bodies involved in the administration of rural development funding provides support, advice and direction about how funding can be used for the benefit for projects to benefit communities across the province. When consideration is taken of the money that will be available through the Community Structure Framework – Building Sustainable Prosperity Programme and Peace II Programme the complexity is further increased. The bodies involved in the distribution of this money to appropriate projects and groups must also recognise the need to include groups involving farmers if projects are forthcoming from this type of group. Under the previous round of funding allocation of Peace and Objective 1, the local District Councils were heavily involved in the administration of these two programmes under the District Partnership Boards (DPB). Some DPBs had a significant farmer involvement, others had little, if any, inclusion of farmers. The Community Structures Framework is going to play a significant role in helping local areas to develop such that when this type of large scale funding comes to an end they are well placed to be responsible for their continued sustainable development. Therefore, it is crucial that the whole local community is represented in these local partnerships, which obviously means that local farming interests must be represented. The Union is of the opinion that when these new partnerships are established it must be a pre-requisite that at least two members on the board are farmers, and are there to put forward farming interests. The Union does acknowledge that all members of a local rural community need to be involved to ensure that the best use is made of rural development monies to benefit the entire community. In the Unions’ opinion one vital aspect of encouraging and increasing the participation of farmers or family members in local rural development groups is that the members of local development groups themselves encourage farmers to participate. The Union does understand that this will possibly necessitate change in opinion or attitude by many groups towards the inclusion of farmers in their local groups. However, farmers and their family members will have a considerable amount of expertise to offer development groups given their own experiences as business men which would make them valuable members to the work of the group. TSN is a concept which is now pervading all policies of Government including those that affect the rural community. However, the Union feels that it is vital that this concept is defined in the context of agriculture so that we can all be clear exactly what it means and how it both relates to and affects policy decisions within the agricultural sector. We have already highlighted that farmers are becoming more interested in rural development. Therefore, where farmers are making the effort to form groups to find ways of helping their local community, they must be encouraged and aided through the process in order to make best use of the funding that will become available. In a previous consultation the Union has suggested that the RDC should consider the development of a PLANET programme specifically for Agriculture, as has been done in other areas of the rural need. Such a programme could provide encouragement to farmers and their families to participate in rural development work for the good of their own position, the local area and the greater community, by providing them with the skills and confidence to participate in their local area. Mentoring of groups from inception to the final delivery of projects will be necessary to also ensure that best value for money is achieved from the funding. This role is likely to be fulfilled by RCN, through the provision of capacity building for groups involved in community and rural development. In the Northern Ireland Executive’s document – ‘Programme for Government’ it is noted that there is a need for a new basis for the rural economy and it recognises that disadvantage that exists within rural areas. The successful regeneration of rural areas for future economic and social prosperity will mean that the whole community must be involved and that has to involve the farming community, to achieve the best possible result. CONCLUSION Farmers must be involved in rural development at all levels in order to ensure that this section of the rural community can benefit just as well as other sections. The practicalities of getting the farming community involved and to stay involved is an area which needs thorough consideration, possibly including ways which will enable farmers to take time to participate. As an important part of local rural communities farming interests must be represented by right on groups handling rural development funds, along with all other interests in the local community development. ANNEX E COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 2 May 2001 The following observations relate to DARD’s objective to increase the participation of the farming community in the Rural Development Programme.
So the trends and current conditions offer a daunting scenario for the Province’s farming community. It is also clear that the community’s traditional link with government’s technical extension service has left farmers indisposed to connecting with anything to do with "rural development" – and indeed, to co-operating with people from beyond their immediate circle in farming. The favoured solution to this current impasse, shared by most of the sector across the EU, is for farms to diversify into non-farming sources of income, to develop products for niche markets, and to cut out the middle-man through direct marketing. All such projected changes carry risks. In addition, and even more importantly, success in any one of them will be presupposed by a radical change in household culture. It is a somewhat poignant paradox to note that the human attributes essential to the traditional survival of farm units – such as stoical individualism and self-denying endurance – are hardly functional in the situation in which they now find themselves. New and very different skills will be called for. How do these reflections bear on the Terms of Reference for the RDP?
Submitted by PROFESSOR SIMON MILLER ANNEX F COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 23 April 2001 As the umbrella body for over 60 rural community organisations in Down and Ards area, we thank you for the opportunity to comment briefly on the next round of the Rural Development Programme. After a long and broad ranging consultation, local communities in this area are enthusiastic about the opportunities in the next round of funding. We have noticed a growing demand on our services from not only community groups, but the farming community in particular and a growing sense of anticipation regarding the implementation of the next round. We are managed and run entirely by our member groups although we receive valuable guidance form Rural Community Network (NI) and DARD. Since our formation in 1995 we have raised all our own running costs with the assistance of RCN. We anticipate that DARD will reward our efforts by contracting us to handle the ‘Capacity Building programme’, in the next round and part-fund us through their main transitional funding. We feel that for the first time locally owned Networks are being formally recognised as a key local Rural Development Agency. We believe that the years of grass-roots contact and trust building, place us in an ideal position to encourage and motivate the rural community (and increasingly farming groups) and guide them quickly towards successful projects. We understand that, for the first time, the DARD Rural Development Programme clearly defines the roles of all the key rural development agencies (including DARD, Agri-food division, RDC, Leader and the local Rural Support Networks). Already we have found that local people can grasp the concepts easier and know that they will not be left to flounder in the maze that was the last round of EU funding. DARD are currently examining our strategic plan and they have been anxious to agree monitoring arrangements in advance of implementation. We enclose for your information just one objective from that strategic plan to give you a flavour of the sort of work we do and how we will monitor progress. In conclusion, we anticipate that the next round of RDP offers greater opportunity and clarity and all models of Rural Development have been included with designated bodies assigned to each model. Yours faithfully NICHOLAS MCCRICKARD
ANNEX G COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY: 3 May 2001 INTRODUCTION
As a result of my experiences as a farmer and membership of the above mentioned organisations, I would like to make the following suggestions in respect of the next phase of the Rural Development Programme. 1. Full Participation - The key word is ‘full’. If under-represented groups, particularly the farming community, are to participate ‘fully’ in the next phase they must:
I believe that the majority of farmers are of the view that most initiatives and programmes are devised by bureaucrats with little to no practical experience of farming or understanding of the effect which their often well-intentioned, but ill-conceived policies will have. Hence the need to involve the people with grass-roots knowledge from think-tank stage onwards. The administrators and ‘experts’ need to bounce ideas off such people and vice versa and this needs to be done before policy implementation has gone so far down the line that it becomes too expensive and/or counterproductive to change it. Inclusion of the farming community in the process has to be ‘genuine’, not cosmetic – they must be included not as a token gesture or to simply rubber-stamp pre-ordained policies, but to participate in genuine debates in the interests of effective policy making and implementation. I believe that all too often the farming community is represented by officers or members of farming organisations who are out of touch with the day-to-day running of a farm. In addition to representation from them, I believe that the farming community should be given the opportunity to participate directly through the inclusion of people who are involved first hand – e.g. farmers themselves, their spouses/ partners etc, vets and accountants who deal mainly with farming clients. In order to ensure that the individuals selected to represent the farming community are up to the job, I would suggest that there needs to be a selection process based on minimum criteria. For example, successful representatives – whatever their background – would need to be able to show that they have an adequate understanding of the main issues of the day – e.g. CAP reform, GATT, world prices, marketing, environmental issues. If opportunities are made for the farming community to participate fully in the next phase of the Rural Development Programme, it needs to be made fully aware of those opportunities by effective publicity. All too often farmers in my own area have complained to me that they didn’t find out about initiatives or schemes until it was too late, the publicity on them simply taking the form of advertisements in papers. Surely major initiatives and calls for representation from the farming community need high profile publicity through a variety of media, such as farming programmes on the television and radio and backed up with advertisements on the television and radio, feature length articles in the farming press and mailshots either from DARD direct to farmers or via organisations such as UFU or NIAPA. 2. Appraisal of Projects I would suggest that a firm of consultants with appropriate experience and resources be appointed to devise assessment procedures and criteria in consultation with DARD and representatives from interested sectors. Bands of grant aid could be used to determine whether assessment takes place at local level or requires scrutiny by a special ‘team’ set up for the purpose. Appraisal needs to be carried out by people qualified to do so and their suitability needs to be the subject of appraisal too. 3. Duplication Consideration should be given to the establishment of a cross-agency think-tank to discuss the ways in which duplication might be avoided. For example agencies could be asked to provide each other with details of funding awarded to projects. A joint assessment team could be set up to deal with the assessment of projects where the combined funding from two or more agencies will exceed a certain level or where funding by one agency depends on securing funding from another. 4. Assignment of Resources The amount to be spent on delivery of the programme should be calculated as a proportion of the overall funding available for the strategy. A reasonable, but realistic proportion, needs to be arrived at in consultation with the Department’s financial advisors and external advisors if appropriate. Having incorporated an appropriate safety margin, the most effective means of delivering the programme within the available budget can be determined. Thank you for the opportunity to make these submissions. I hope they are of some assistance. I have no objection to giving oral evidence if required. JOHN A PAYNE |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||