JPMC comments on SRDP 2014-2020 scoring and selection criteria
The following points were made by the Joint Programme Monitoring Committee (JPMC) when considering the scoring and selection
criteria for the SRDP 2014-2020. The comments are listed below, organised by scheme with responses.
GENERAL
SRDP would better serve the region if there were more transparent local To ensure pan-Scotland priorities are addressed sufficiently a targeted
budgets delivering regionally specific outcomes that are measured and approach has been taken to resource allocation. This has involved,
monitored and reported on regularly.
where appropriate, allocations to priorities and areas. However, these
resources being taken up will entail participation from farmers and
others, so cannot be guaranteed. That is why we have indicative
budgets where necessary, to ensure sound use of public money.
However, the LEADER budget has been allocated on a local basis using
a formula agreed with relevant stakeholders.
Most of the issues raised by the appear to have been addressed. We note The SRDP will be under constant review and the JPMC will be updated
however there are issues which are to be reviewed as the schemes are of progress of the SRDP, including changes to the scoring or
rolled out and would hope to see these reviews followed through.
Programme document.
standard costs for works related to Crofting and Forestry schemes are
disappointing (as they were under the last programme) and fall well short of
actual costs for the likes of fencing and tree planting operations in the Outer
Hebrides.
For CAGS, all operations must be applied for on the basis of the actual
costs to be incurred and the appropriate rate of grant, as set out in the
scheme guidance, will then be applied. The forestry grants are based
on 80 to 100% of the standard cost for an operation. Standard cost is
an average cost based on a wide range of sites types and locations in
Scotland and as an average cost can be above or below the actual cost
for specific sites and locations. Our standard costs will be kept under
review and we would welcome to receive more details on the actual
costs for fencing and tree planting costs in Outer Hebrides for future
reference.
1
AECS
Diffuse pollution points - the H&I supports the proposal for local points
thresholds as this would remove the disadvantage the region faces for
example in not being in a nitrate vulnerable zone. This would allow regional
applicants to support their application.
We have allocated budgets based on need not on demand, using all
available evidence to do so. This has been supported by the
stakeholders’ involved. We must ensure that the key priorities are
addressed across Scotland, taking a regional only approach would
dilute the impact the SRDP can make.
Regional priority species lists would also be helpful for the reason above.
Differing regions have differing populations. This would allow for local
management schemes that would take account of local circumstances. This
chimes with the sense that the SRDP isn’t fit for purpose as it doesn’t
really address biodiversity loss at the national level and none of the
historic agri-env schemes have. Regional differentiation could also pave the
way for regional allocations so that spend and impact could be delivered
according to need (or bio-diversity opportunity ) rather than on the basis of
who applies.
As above
Advisory Service
Concerns were raised over the fact the advisory service will not be active
until 2016. The seeming lack of any forward planning for the changeover
from one land management scheme to another has been consistent feature
in Scotland since 2000. This illustrates that lessons have not been learned
for the past and raises questions over the evaluation of delivery of SRDP
supported schemes.
One of the biggest issues raised through the SRDP consultation on
advisory service plans was the need to ensure any advice provided
takes account of the wider advisory landscape in Scotland. We
therefore decided to take more time to develop the procurement
exercise appropriately to achieve the best service we can. The new
service is on schedule to be in place from 1 April 2016.
In the meantime, a wide range of advice is available that ensures we
also meet EC requirements to have in place a Farm Advisory Service,
including:
•
continued funding of SRUC to deliver their Veterinary and
Advisory Service including £3.4m of generic public good advice to
Scotland’s farmers and crofters;
2
•
subsidised (80% grant) one-to-one advice to farmers/crofters
to develop environmentally and financially sustainable businesses
through our Whole Farm Review Scheme; and
•
varied funding (depending on the size covered by the
assessment) for Farm Environment Assessments under the AgriEnvironment Climate Scheme
We have worked with stakeholders since 2012 on the priorities and
support to be available under the SRDP 2014-2020. This has included
taking lessons learned from the previous support, through consultation
with stakeholders and from previous evaluations, to build on what has
worked well, and revise the aspects that were less successful. The
timetable for the transition from the SRDP 2007-13 is reliant on the
European timetable for the regulations. The Rural Development
Regulation was published in December 2013, so transitional support
was provided to priority areas in 2014 to ensure continuation of
funding – this was a significant improvement on the previous period
where no funding was available for key areas. It is recognised that this
hiatus between programmes impacts on a smooth transition between
the schemes and we are encouraging the European Commission to
improve this area for the next funding period.
LEADER
In terms of the LEADER section , there is one sentence which appears to
have been lifted from the Cairngorms under ‘innovation’ on Page 113 (New
to the Company Products: importing initiatives that have proved successful
elsewhere but have not before been tried in the Cairngorms
area.). Reference to the Cairngorms should be removed.
The project selection system set out in the LAGs Local Development
Strategy are already approved by the Managing Authority through the
selection of a given strategy and it will be this that applies. What SG is
doing is providing LAGs with guidance to aid them and ensure there is
clarity. We will be refining this guidance based on the helpful
comments made by the JPMC.
The following text on page 110 appears to relate to an older version of the
draft scoring matrix and does not seem to make sense with the present
version (which is no longer split into eligible and technical sections):
3
“Project Assessment Scoring
The LEADER scoring matrix will allow individual LAG/FLAG members to
assess the project against eligibility and technical criteria defined in the LAG
Application and Assessment Guidance.
Individual scoring will inform the technical assessment of the application by
the LEADER team prior to consideration by a quorate decision making group.
The scoring criteria is divided into 2 categories:
 Eligibility
 Technical
Each element will be weighted by the LAG with a total of 100% for each of
the 2 categories”
I would therefore suggest that this paragraph is removed (it does also
suggest that LAG members carry out technical and eligibility checks, which is
the role of the Co-ordinator, as highlighted in the RDOC comments). The
RDOC also asks if community involvement should be included and a separate
assessment for business applications be provided. I would argue against this
– the present template should be sufficient to assess both community and
business projects without creating a multitude of forms. Adding ‘community
involvement’ to this form would disadvantage business applications.
Although not a deliverer of the LEADER Programme, we agree with the We will re-consider the guidance based on the helpful comments made
RDOC comment that the two sentences on page 110 relating to technical by the JPMC.
assessments and LAG member scoring is confusing. We appreciate that the
LEADER technicalities are still being discussed but the Selection and Scoring
Criteria paper should be as accurate as possible at any given time. Could the
wording be amended to note more accurately the actual requirements i.e.
that applications will be subject to both a Technical Assessment and scoring
by LAG members?
Forestry Grant Scheme
Most of the scoring criteria for the schemes in this document are well
defined except for the Woodland Creation Scheme where it is not clear what
We will review and clarify the text for Woodland Creation scoring.
4
a score of 1, 2, 3 4, or 5 – up to 10 - means. All of the other schemes within
the FGS category are very specific about the scores
Broadband
Under Section 3 (Broadband Scheme) the scoring criteria (6) requiring a
minimum speed of 20Mbps will make it almost impossible for any Outer
Hebrides Broadband schemes without access to the fibre backbone to get a
project off the ground.
The Scottish Government (SG), via Highlands and Islands Enterprise, is rolling
out two broadband programmes across the region. The first is the main
Digital Scotland Superfast Broadband (DSSB) project which will deliver fibre
broadband to at least 84% of premises by the end 2016. The second
programme is Community Broadband Scotland (CBS). CBS is funded by the
SG and SRDP to support rural communities to acquire assets that will enable
them to gain access to faster broadband where the market, and the
significant intervention under the DSSB programme, will not deliver next
generation broadband. These programmes are complementary in that the
DSSB programme will deploy a fibre backbone in the Highlands and Islands
as a first measure, which should mean that community schemes, such as
those which will be funded under the SRDP broadband scheme, are able to
have greater access to backhaul through the fibre network.
There’s an interesting case in England where a community have paid to get
their own cabinets connected to a main fibre cable by-passing their village. It
was a long struggle but OFCOM ruled in their favour and overruled BT (and
the Gov- backed fibre roll-out project). Same scenario could be played out
across the Islands in the coming months/years. I think we should try and
make sure the money available for Broadband infill schemes is as flexible as
possible to ensure uptake.
5