A11 Views of interested organisations.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting
A11 Views of interested organisations.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting
A11 Views of interested organisations.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE RDP WALES<br />
before the scheme was introduced. Other elements <strong>of</strong> the RDP were put together in a shorter<br />
period <strong>of</strong> time and as such did not benefit from this exercise to the same extent.<br />
The degree <strong>of</strong> overlap between elements <strong>of</strong> RDP schemes means that substantial cross-checks are<br />
required in order to make appropriate deductions to avoid dual funding. Aside from increasing the<br />
need for administrative resources, this is thought to deter farmers from taking up a second scheme,<br />
especially where the area involved (and hence the financial benefit) is small.<br />
The recent investigation into the pan-European application <strong>of</strong> the Rural Development Regulation<br />
(Europe’s Rural Futures: Rural Development in an Enlarging European Union) concluded that a key<br />
element in the delivery <strong>of</strong> a quality rural development programme was sufficient investment in<br />
capacity building and training. The CCW believes that this investment is not evident in Wales to the<br />
extent that it could be and that delivery suffers as a result.<br />
Many <strong>organisations</strong> believe that the operation <strong>of</strong> the RDP is more bureaucratic than it need be 7 .<br />
PLANED comment that this is the result <strong>of</strong> the top down delivery through mainstream <strong>organisations</strong>,<br />
whilst PTP Quality Training and the National Trust Wales believe that Farming Connect, as a gateway<br />
to some RDP schemes, is too unwieldy as an entity. The National Trust Wales state that in their<br />
opinion farmers have lost faith in Farming Connect because the Farm Business Development Plans<br />
drawn up by consultants are not specific enough to the farms they are concerned with. These do<br />
not <strong>of</strong>ten lead to a grant, which is the sole reason that many farmers apply to Farming Connect in<br />
the first place. PTP Quality Training believe that the PLANED Whole Farm Support Scheme (the<br />
pilot scheme from which Farming Connect was developed) was superior as a working tool for<br />
farmers.<br />
In the opinion <strong>of</strong> the CLA, this bureaucracy <strong>of</strong>ten leads to farmers wishing to carry out grant assisted<br />
work carrying it out themselves, unaided, in order to avoid the restrictions imposed upon accepting a<br />
grant. The CLA feel that this drives projects that farmers really believe will be worthwhile in the<br />
long-term to be carried out unassisted and projects where the farmer is less sure to be grant-aided.<br />
It should be mentioned that Farming Connect has been heavily criticised by many contacts<br />
throughout this research. Farmers feel that the Farm Business Development Plans are not providing<br />
enough value to their businesses because they are all too <strong>of</strong>ten generic. There have also been cases<br />
<strong>of</strong> misleading advice brought to our attention. There is a perception that Farming Connect provides<br />
more support for on-farm consultants than it does for the farmer, the intended beneficiary. This<br />
follows early criticism <strong>of</strong> Farming Connect for the delays between farmer requests and consultant<br />
visits, although we note that this problem was addressed when it came to light. The Farming Union<br />
<strong>of</strong> Wales feels that Farming Connect is now more appreciated in the farming community as a result.<br />
7<br />
The CLA explain that this bureaucracy leads consultants to carry out Farming Connect business only when they have nothing else more<br />
lucrative to do.<br />
10