Greenmount RDP seminar notes - Rural Community Network

RDP Consultation
This paper presents the views/comments from participants attending the NI RDP Consultation Event
held in Greenmount College (Antrim) on Wednesday 28 August 2013. Discussions focused on the
following questions:-
What do you think of the proposed programme?
What’s good about the proposals, what do you agree with?
What needs changed and are there any gaps?
What are the lessons that need to be learned from the last Rural Development Programme?
If there are insufficient funds to support the proposed programme should the available
funds be distributed across all proposed schemes?
If there are insufficient funds to support the proposed programme which schemed do you
consider to be the highest priority and why?
Greenmount College attracted 29 participants with a total of 7 discussion groups. Below summarises
the discussion for each group. A combined report featuring all six meetings will be collated at the
end of the process and made available online at the various websites.
Group 1
Q.1 - What do you think of the proposed programme?
Lack of innovation in priority layout
Training proposed is good, but what does this mean is it bespoke?
Capacity building training. Welcomes training but queries it
Lack of information on priority 6 in comparison to all other priorities
Is the fund going to be enough?
Q.2 – What’s good about the proposals, what do you agree with?
Training but clarify this?
Co-operation and lack of LEADER approach
Q.3 – What needs changed and are there any gaps?
10 employee rule has excluded a lot of businesses
Funding on food projects?

Clarity on how small food production can be supported like all other rural businesses –
Annex 1?
Childcare – no reference to it
Youth – what encouragement is there?
Funding for resource schemes which would help programmes for excluded groups
Q.4 – What are the lessons that need to be learned from the last Rural Development Programme?
Need for more information in the delivery mechanicals to feedback on how it works
Need for synergy with EU funding programmes
Q.5 If there are insufficient funds to support the proposed programmed should be available funds
be distributed across all the proposed schemes?
See below
Q.6 – If there are insufficient funds to support the proposed programme which schemes do you
consider being the highest and why?
Questions 5 and 6 have been answered together
There should be an analysis of need with the same benchmark for all priorities
Additional Information
Group 2
Legal issues need to be approached so that an appraised so that an informed opinion can be
given on the priorities
Request for business plans would be reviewed as could be seen as a barrier to apply
What are the arrangements for the lapse between this programme and the next
programme?
How does this impact staff?
Definition of rural and population sizes and location of ‘rural businesses’
Q.1 - What do you think of the proposed programme?
Generally good however, concern over timescale
Last programme - not enough money
Concern over new funding pot considering ROI funding V’s N.I. Programme
paperwork/process very difficult to access

Opinions on ‘correct terminology’ – huge fees from consultant
Concern over money from single farm payment to fund community elements of RDP
Concern over admin costs for delivery of programme
Q.2 – What’s good about the proposals, what do you agree with?
Percentage of grant is too low
Capital grants 40% are good
Barrier to renewable energy particularly wind turbine if successful on renewable participant
should have choice to send back or keep
Q.3 – What needs changed and are there any gaps?
Countryside management – current scheme not enough money and too specific around
ESA/scientific, revert back to the old scheme, farmers have habitat etc in place
Forestry expansion scheme, land too expensive and not enough revenue
More money to form competitive – lift money from pillar 1 to pillar 2
Q.4 – What are the lessons that need to be learned from the last Rural Development Programme?
If money is spread too thin then this is not good. Reduce priorities if money is cut
Farming to be a priority, use evidence of current programme ton uptake and take from that
Q.5- If there are insufficient funds to support the proposed programmed should be available funds
be distributed across all the proposed schemes?
See below
Q.6 – If there are insufficient funds to support the proposed programme which schemes do you
consider being the highest and why?
Broadband is too slow/too many black spots/satellite broadband
More cross-departmental approach to schemes
Village renewable – coal – ripples out to farms and land owners
Advice/help from DARD – and/or other agencies such as Rural Support Network
Guidance note must be written in ‘Plain English’
Common sense approach to funding
Too provide incentives to encourage younger farmers to take on responsibility
Sustaining and possible expansion of small businesses

Group 3
If candidates were right then farmers would start new businesses in association with their
businesses.
Q.1 - What do you think of the proposed programme?
COMPLICATED – too much technical jargon
Farmers may lose out to rural groups
Criteria needs to clearly set out
Q.2 – What’s good about the proposals, what do you agree with?
Positive rural funding is required
Knowledge and information transfer required
Business scheme welcomed
Q.3 – What needs changed and are there any gaps?
No gaps
Q.4 – What are the lessons that need to be learned from the last Rural Development Programme?
Don’t overfund the areas where the money cannot be delivered set the criteria and stick to
the criteria
NICMS are inaccessible – simplify please
Q.5 If there are insufficient funds to support the proposed programmed should be available funds
be distributed across all the proposed schemes?
See below
Q.6 – If there are insufficient funds to support the proposed programme which schemes do you
consider being the highest and why?
Group 4
Training and knowledge transfer
Farming and competitiveness
Modulation money RIMS fenced for agriculture
Promoting resource efficiency
Sustainable job creation in private sector
Simplify the process

Q.1 - What do you think of the proposed programme?
Not enough to enhance the rural community
A lot pointed to farmers, larger percentage of dwellers not involved in agriculture
Transport – lack of public transport, needs to be factored into current proposals
Car necessity – higher costs associated with rural living, deprivation/fuel
Potential opportunity to maximise rural assets and create more sustainable living
Opportunity for social farming
Market towns and contribution to rural hinterland for services.
Q.2 – What’s good about the proposals, what do you agree with?
Quite a lot to support agriculture industry
Knowledge transfer good – potential for social farming need to be cross cutting and
networking
Support co-operation, this is seen as a particular challenge for farmers
Q.3 – What needs changed and are there any gaps?
Mobile masts/broadband
Next generation of young people – they can miss out on opportunities
Expanding existing services/shared services – increased funding
Promoting rural life/living – create a vision
Equity of provision
Recognition of volunteers – financial cost
Q.4 – What are the lessons that need to be learned from the last Rural Development Programme?
Match funding – consider financial engineering./paperwork/ timescales – too tight
Invest NI don’t advertise fact support for new businesses – LEADER offers much more to
SME
Q.5 If there are insufficient funds to support the proposed programmed should be available funds
be distributed across all the proposed schemes?
Should prioritise and give right amount of money
Look at ways to collaborate

Bring in additional funding
Q.6 – If there are insufficient funds to support the proposed programme which schemes do you
consider being the highest and why?
Group 5
Priority 6 - Farmers to recognise the value the rural development can bring for all
Q.1 - What do you think of the proposed programme?
Middling – more potential in it
Divides farming from rural development/same people.
Q.2 – What’s good about the proposals, what do you agree with?
Potential for good – CAFRE training good idea but it becomes a process overload. Should be
needs based not full requirement
Business Invest Scheme training essential – another barrier for access
Business planning training must be necessary
Is 100% training budget a sure way to spend money if it is made compulsory to be trained to
get funded (cynical view but a reality)
Tourism – very few private sector applications other than accommodation
Knowledge transfer – should be part of priority 6, not just training and not just agriculture
training
The knowledge transfer is needed across farm diversification, community groups, tourism –
all areas not just agriculture based
Measures around a learning journey for tourism product
DARD need go much further for cross departmental integration DETI/DSD etc
Need to link across priorities (food and tourism) (culture/communities/tourism)
Village renewable allowed communication/council/stat to co-operate, this was good
Operating rules caused difficulties 50:50 rule only applies in rural area
Can’t paint private buildings in rural areas but can in urban areas – these are confusing rules
Co-operation/border is inter-regulated priority not for this programme
This is not a farming programme but a programme for the whole community, needs
fertilization between the pillars

Village renewal should have been more about business/economic renewal etc, not just
flower pots etc
Need councils/NIHE to be involved. Some learning from urban regeneration project
experience
Lack of flexibility – crosscutting themes should allow more work to be done bit the rules are
tightening.
People in audit/monitoring/delivery/policy/partners should sit down and agree not to be
driven by audit – it is over audited.
LAGS had no autonomy – DARD has to step back and believe in the power/responsibility of
decision making of the LAG – they have to reduce control.
Q.3 – What needs changed and are there any gaps?
Institutional memory gets lost – knowledge and skills are being lost
Q.4 – What are the lessons that need to be learned from the last Rural Development Programme?
Need to know if LAG formation can happen in parallel to the programme negotiation be
ready to go when the programme is approved
Can’t afford a delay between it being negotiated and implemented
Programme is too stand alone and it has to link across all the government departments and
work with them
Q.5 If there are insufficient funds to support the proposed programmed should be available funds
be distributed across all the proposed schemes?
See below
Q.6 – If there are insufficient funds to support the proposed programme which schemes do you
consider being the highest and why?
A lot of money that was transferred was taken out of 3.2 (small business) at a time of
economic difference so it was given to the public sector – hard to defend
Spend driven should not be allowed to happen
Strategic project procedure was wrong - took money from the private sector and gave it to
the public sector, this was wrong
Private sector – 50% inequality with public getting 75%
If we deliver through a leader approach, we can give higher rates of grants – get more to
spend (should be push delorian rule) should support leader

Group 6
Key learning is how important villages are for rural hinterland. Villages are missing banks/key
services
If programme allows young farmers to get 60% (more than stated 40% could something be
done for small businesses if they are young farmers/women priority groups.
Level of grant should be proportionate to the scale of the project
Level of red tape should also be proportionate – fast track – higher level of upper limit
proportionate with ROI
Leaving of auditing should be proportionate to the grant aid
Applying for grants was a nightmare and it put people off
Animation and support is essential and needs to start now
Animation and support can’t be left to the RSIO’s to provide
If invest NI are expected to support the RDP 2013 – they need to gear up to deal with this
client group as they don’t currently and they need to be consulted
We can fund projects in businesses over 10 people but that needs to be raised to 50 –
inconsistent with farms which could have 1700 employees
ANC – the SDA and DA distinctions are missing, where is the DA?
LEADER qualifies for a higher level of grant – DARD should encourage LEADER
Succession funds to keep expertise in LAGS – transition funding
Q.1 - What do you think of the proposed programme?
Focus farming – selection process flawed
Q.2 – What’s good about the proposals, what do you agree with?
Why limit the number if people allowed being involved in discussion groups – targeting
smaller development farmers.
Q.3 – What needs changed and are there any gaps?
Social clauses – priority 6 – employee young people/apprenticeship
Q.4 – What are the lessons that need to be learned from the last Rural Development Programme?
Lessons – current programme has no focus on youth or youth development
Succession for farms?

Setting up for the first time, how is this defined?
Have to own land, have farm business ID?
Village Plans – inclusive of community, not solely done by consultants - perhaps done by
support organisation
Q.5 If there are insufficient funds to support the proposed programmed should be available funds
be distributed across all the proposed schemes?
MET scheme – agreed to continue – positive. Flexibility to move monies from priority to
priority and within schemes within priorities
Training – first and foremost, prior to getting money to agriculture environment funding
Renewable – connection – NIE.
How can we ensure possible to deliver renewable schemes where the connection is not
good?
The infrastructure is not adequate, this needs to be upgraded
Joined up with the government – planning, DETI DEL – training, investment *V.I.P*
Positive feedback:-
Prompt in terms of consultation, but need to push on. Not too much of a gap between
existing and new programme
LAGS – is 10 too many? Or should we make use of new structures
Positive knowledge transfer and innovation, general basis is good
Recommendations, learning:-
Bureaucracy/accessibility of the programme
Potential for upfront funding, ensure good projects
Can avail of funds:-
Paper work/procurement needs to be simplified
Need for technical support, designated organisation to support
Funding levels – minimum 50%
Increasing from max 10 employees to max 50 employees (2 tiers – small/larger scale)
Group 7
Q.1 - What do you think of the proposed programme?

The proposed programme is very comprehensive – there is a lot to take in
The detail is missing especially information regarding budgets and the monetary allocation
as this will make a substantial difference.
Training aspect good and the fact that is 100% funded
Tourism good focus on co-operation especially with other strategies in tourism.
Co-operation with NITB is a priority, there needs to be a stronger link
Q.2 - What are the lessons to be learned from the last Rural Development Programme?
Certain areas were excluded in RDP programme which are rural areas which need assistance
e.g. Ballyclare, ruled out due to population size. Ballyclare is a town in the country with no
urban sprawl
There needs to be greater clarity on what is a rural community e.g. 75% of business is rural
related
Small towns need to analysed on their own merits – find a different way to define rural
Q.3 In relation to the lessons, what needs changed, are there any gaps?
The process (assessment and procurement) needs to be simplified; there was too much
bureaucracy and red tape, rules and regulations
They need to be there but in addition to flexibility when required without diminishing the
programmes integrity
Assessment has to be made on a project by project basis
There is also a need to revert to proper leader policy
More detailed, definitive initial applications and financials submitted at time of application
This will maybe lead to less loo’s are not being taken forward. Applicants need help, and
they need help in some cases with match funding, and the provision of guidance with likely
sources of match funding
Upfront funding to start the projects without overly strict clauses. Someone with a good
idea may need handholding through application and procurement
Handheld facility identified with Priority 1 – mentors, innovation type person also required.
Also simplified application and assessment process for smaller funding amounts e.g. under
£5K
Food processing/small food producers are not included in the current funding and should be
100% grants for networking currently 75%

Q.4 What’s good about the proposals, what do you agree with?
Poverty and social isolation, glad to these this issue being prioritised and focused on
Q.5 If there insufficient funds should all the funds be distributed across all proposed schemes? Or
are there priority schemes, what are they and why?
Priorities – Rural broadband and opportunities to share experiences, mobile communication
in rural areas
Small business communities – online but need the support and education to ensure this
happens. Helping people/businesses have access to hardware and software to do this
Farming community – knowledge transfer- SME’s
North /South cooperation has to be available to everyone not just the border areas
Final Comments
How is the programme going to be made workable? Need to know spend and the details
Processes identified, how to keep LAG’s from current programme