A11 Views of interested organisations.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

More documents

Recommendations

Info

MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE RDP WALES before the scheme was introduced. Other elements of the RDP were put together in a shorter period of time and as such did not benefit from this exercise to the same extent. The degree of overlap between elements of RDP schemes means that substantial cross-checks are required in order to make appropriate deductions to avoid dual funding. Aside from increasing the need for administrative resources, this is thought to deter farmers from taking up a second scheme, especially where the area involved (and hence the financial benefit) is small. The recent investigation into the pan-European application of the Rural Development Regulation (Europe’s Rural Futures: Rural Development in an Enlarging European Union) concluded that a key element in the delivery of a quality rural development programme was sufficient investment in capacity building and training. The CCW believes that this investment is not evident in Wales to the extent that it could be and that delivery suffers as a result. Many organisations believe that the operation of the RDP is more bureaucratic than it need be 7 . PLANED comment that this is the result of the top down delivery through mainstream organisations, whilst PTP Quality Training and the National Trust Wales believe that Farming Connect, as a gateway to some RDP schemes, is too unwieldy as an entity. The National Trust Wales state that in their opinion farmers have lost faith in Farming Connect because the Farm Business Development Plans drawn up by consultants are not specific enough to the farms they are concerned with. These do not often lead to a grant, which is the sole reason that many farmers apply to Farming Connect in the first place. PTP Quality Training believe that the PLANED Whole Farm Support Scheme (the pilot scheme from which Farming Connect was developed) was superior as a working tool for farmers. In the opinion of the CLA, this bureaucracy often leads to farmers wishing to carry out grant assisted work carrying it out themselves, unaided, in order to avoid the restrictions imposed upon accepting a grant. The CLA feel that this drives projects that farmers really believe will be worthwhile in the long-term to be carried out unassisted and projects where the farmer is less sure to be grant-aided. It should be mentioned that Farming Connect has been heavily criticised by many contacts throughout this research. Farmers feel that the Farm Business Development Plans are not providing enough value to their businesses because they are all too often generic. There have also been cases of misleading advice brought to our attention. There is a perception that Farming Connect provides more support for on-farm consultants than it does for the farmer, the intended beneficiary. This follows early criticism of Farming Connect for the delays between farmer requests and consultant visits, although we note that this problem was addressed when it came to light. The Farming Union of Wales feels that Farming Connect is now more appreciated in the farming community as a result. 7 The CLA explain that this bureaucracy leads consultants to carry out Farming Connect business only when they have nothing else more lucrative to do. 10
MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE RDP WALES The Farming Union of Wales expressed the opinion that whilst Tir Gofal was popular amongst farmers, the scheme tends to be restricted through the application approvals process to certain farm types. Specifically, and this is a view shared by RSPB Cymru, it is felt that low numbers of dairy farms qualify and where they do qualify they receive a relatively low share of the budget 8 . The determination of support on the income forgone procedure was also criticised and the FUW believes that an element of profit ought to be included in payments in order to make the schemes more attractive to farmers. Despite the above, the FUW does believe that the RDP provides a range of opportunities to farmers and their families and that this is due in part to the operation through a range of schemes. The NFU Cymru agrees that a range of schemes makes it more likely that farmers are able to find relevant opportunities. However, the organisation sees a danger in spreading limited resources too thinly. The CLA explains that in their view many contractors will submit expensive quotes for work if they realise that it is going to attract a grant. This has the effect of providing an incentive to farmers to carry out work themselves, which prevents the benefits of some schemes from reaching the wider rural economy. A11.3.3. Administration of the RDP Whilst the Farming Union of Wales believes there have been limited problems associated with most of the schemes run under the RDP, it believes that this was inevitable. The close partnership between farmer representatives, the Welsh Assembly Government, CCW, the Welsh Development Agency, Forestry Commission, etc. has meant that these problems have been addressed and changes made where necessary. The NFU Cymru also recognises the role played by the close partnership, although adds that the lack of clear boundaries of responsibility at the ‘grass roots level’ between the Welsh Assembly Government and the Welsh Development Agency has caused problems for Farming Connect and hence in the delivery of FIG and FEG. The National Trust Wales comments that late payments have led to some loss of faith in RDP schemes. It also adds that there is a perception that bureaucrats are safeguarding their own positions through the RDP. The general lack of comment on the administration of the RDP is likely to reflect general satisfaction amongst responding organisations. 8 Analysis of data provided to the Welsh Assembly Government Agriculture and Rural Development Committee on the 7th November 2001, highlighted that during the third application round, ‘there was little discernible change in the type of eligible application with the vast majority made up of sheep and beef units (89%) whilst the percentage of dairy farms continued to remain low (2.4%)’. In the opinion of RSPB Cymru it is imperative that a balance is kept in the farm types accepted into the scheme in order to build long-term support amongst the agricultural community. 11
Page 1: MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE RURAL DE
Page 5 and 6: MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE RDP WALE
Page 13: MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE RDP WALE
Page 17: MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE RDP WALE

A11 Views of interested organisations.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?