A1 Key documents.pdf

Final report for

Welsh European Funding Office

Submitted by

Agra CEAS Consulting Ltd.

Telephone: *44 (0)1233 812181Fax: *44 (0)1233 813309E-mail: [email protected]://www.ceasc.com/

2114/BDB/November 2003

MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE

RURAL DEVELOPMENT PLANFOR WALES

Appendix 2 – Relevance and Consistency of theRDP strategy

http://www.ceasc.com/

MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE RDP WALES

i

Contents

APPENDIX 2: RELEVANCE AND CONSISTENCY OF THE RDP STRATEGY....................................... 1

A2.1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 1A2.2. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES AND THE WALES RURAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ................................................... 1A2.3. SECTORAL PRIORITIES FOR THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN................................................................... 4A2.4. KEY RURAL DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES .................................................................................................... 5A2.5. THE HIERARCHY OF OBJECTIVES................................................................................................................ 6A2.6. SCHEME OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................. 8

A2.6.1. Investment in agricultural holdings (Para 9.5.4)............................................................................... 8A2.6.2. Training – farming adaptation (Para 9.6.3) ...................................................................................... 8A2.6.3. Less Favoured Areas (Para 9.7.1) ..................................................................................................... 9A2.6.4. Agri-environment (Para 9.8.3)........................................................................................................... 9A2.6.5. Processing and marketing of agricultural products (Para 9.9.3) ...................................................... 9A2.6.6. Forestry (Paras 9.10.5 and 9.10.6).................................................................................................... 9A2.6.7. Article 33 – Promoting the adaptation and development of rural areas (Para 9.11.1) ................... 10

A2.7. OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................................... 10A2.8. REVIEW AND RELEVANCE OF THE SWOT ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 11A2.9. SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS SINCE OCTOBER 2000. .............................................................................. 11

A2.9.1. New policy and contextual documents. ............................................................................................ 11A2.9.2. Implications of other EU Programmes and Initiatives .................................................................... 12A2.9.3. New evidence and data .................................................................................................................... 12

A2.10. CONCLUSIONS REGARDING RELEVANCE AND CONSISTENCY OF THE RDP.............................................. 13A2.10.1. Relevance of the RDP. ................................................................................................................... 13A2.10.2. Consistency of the RDP ................................................................................................................. 14

A2.11. THE CONTINUING VALIDITY OF THE EX-ANTE EVALUATION.................................................................... 14A2.11.1. Structure of the ex-ante Report ...................................................................................................... 15A2.11.2. Developments and modifications since December 1999................................................................ 17


1

Appendix 2: Relevance and consistency of the RDP strategy

A2.1. Introduction

This Appendix has four main tasks. To provide:

• a ‘mapping’ of the objectives stated in the RDP document as they relate to strategic, scheme andoperational spheres;

• a brief assessment of the SWOT analysis in the RDP;

• comments on a number of significant developments since October 2000 which might haveinfluenced the continuing validity of the RDP; and,

• a review of the continuing validity of the ex-ante evaluation.

A2.2. Strategic objectives and the Wales Rural Development Plan

The Wales Rural Development Plan is implicitly situated within a hierarchy of objectives which flowsfrom broad national objectives down to those which are specific either to particular schemes withinthe RDP or to the system of implementation. It should be said at the outset that the hierarchy issomewhat complicated to appreciate and inevitably repetitive between the various levels. Moreoverthe terminology can be confusing and lacks consistency, with reference variously to objectives,priorities, actions, challenges, etc.

The hierarchy of strategic objectives is shown in the diagram (Figure A2.1) and is outlined here withreference to the RDP. The overarching element is the National Economic Development Strategywithin which sits the ‘Vision for Rural Wales’ produced by the Rural Partnership for Wales in July1999. This Vision had four objectives (Para. 6.1.4) relating to the attainment of:

• a sustainable society;

• a sustainable economy;

• a sustainable environment; and,

• a sustainable policy framework.

At this point it should be noted that a revised National Economic Development Strategy (‘A WinningWales’) was issued in January 2002. This policy document lists ten priorities, one of which is tosupport rural Wales, and within this priority a number of actions are given. All actions appear to linkin a general way with the priorities given in the earlier (1999) Strategy; the only substantial additionseems to be the implementation of a Rural Recovery Plan following the FMD crisis of 2001. Theactions proposed are:

a) Appropriate targeting of rural areas;a) Working with the Rural Partnership;b) Working with others to deliver the Rural Recovery Plan;


2

c) Strengthening the contribution of tourism;d) Increasing opportunities for young people;e) Capacity building in rural towns and villages;f) Implementation of the Rural Development Plan for Wales;g) Implementation of ‘Farming for the Future’;h) Development of the Welsh Agri-Food Strategy;i) Delivery of the Farming Connect service;j) Encourage environmentally friendly farming;k) Produce a bio-mass strategy and investigate non-food crops;l) Development of the fish sector; and,m) Improvement of understanding of the interaction between rural and urban economies.

The Wales Rural Development Plan was published in October 2000 and accordingly the nationalobjectives which feed into the Plan are those which were outlined in the earlier 1999 NationalStrategy. No re-assessment of RDP objectives in the light of the new national strategy seems to havebeen produced and therefore the analysis here still relates to the original national objectives.

The 1999 national strategy very much focuses on the need to improve GDP. The rural visionobjectives do not separate out farming from a concern to address broad rural problems relating torural communities, the rural population, culture and heritage. The RDP is seen as contributingespecially to the sustainable policy framework objective. The limitations of the RDP (both by way ofa limited budget and the boundaries set by the Rural Development Regulation) are emphasised and itis made clear that the RDP fits in with activities carried out under Objectives 1, 2 and 3 and theLEADER and INTERREG programmes.

The Vision for Rural Wales lists seven ‘priority areas for action’ (Para 6.1.10):

1. promoting business development;2. spreading economic prosperity;3. developing skills to match business needs;4. strengthening communities;5. improving access to rural services;6. investing in the rural infrastructure; and,7. enhancing the rural environment.

Under each of these seven areas a further set of objectives/priorities is given. Agriculture andforestry are seen as particularly contributing to the first of these – ‘promoting business development’- and five such ‘key strategic priorities’ are recognised (Para 6.1.14):

• to become more sustainable economically, with the emphasis on premium, branded productswith an environmentally-positive image, and much greater value added processing of primaryproduce in rural Wales;


3

• to improve innovation through adoption of new business skills and environmentally sensitiveagricultural best practice;

• to improve market links by promoting collaboration among producers and co-operation betweenproducers and processors;

• to broaden the economic base of rural Wales by assessing the potential for alternative crops,organic horticulture, energy crops, herbs and aquaculture; and,

• to help farming families to adapt, to take informed decisions on the future of family members,and to diversify sources of income.

A further eight key priorities are recognised for tourism (Para 6.1.16):

• marketing initiatives to raise the profile of the region’s tourist potential;

• maximising the potential for ICT developments;

• support for the development of key niche markets including eco-tourism;

• action to attract larger numbers of overseas visitors;

• extension of the full range of business support services to the tourism sector;

• maximising the tourist potential of arts and cultural activities;

• improving professionalism and innovation through development of higher skills levels; and,

• provision of tourism infrastructure and tourism information facilities.

The remaining six priority areas are (except in two cases) allocated objectives/priorities which areseen as foci for rural development. However they seem to be seen as primarily linked to activityunder various measures of the Objective 1 SPD and it is not clear just how these relate explicitly tothe RDP. Nonetheless, most if not all, could be related to the various schemes under the RDP eventhough the link to specific schemes is not actually made. Accordingly it is useful to list out theseobjectives/priorities here.

Under the heading of ‘Spreading economic prosperity’ eight priorities are listed (Para 6.1.20):

• the creation of more sustainable economic opportunities, particularly for the young;

• a broader representation of economic activities;

• the development of production chains, adding value to primary products;

• an enhanced tourism sector;

• a more developed Green technology sector, including renewable energy;

• extended use of ICT links;

• support for the social economy; and,

• reduced levels of rural poverty.

‘Developing skills to match business needs’ lists four objectives (Para 6.1.22):

• measures to encourage the economically inactive into employment or training;


4

• measures to enhance the skills of the working population in both generic and vocational skills;

• measures to equip all those completing education or training for the world of work; and,

• measures aimed at the promotion of an entrepreneurial culture.

‘Strengthening communities’ lists six key priorities (Para 6.1.29):

• to develop the capacity of community organisations to determine local needs and build effectivepartnerships to address local development needs;

• to support the expansion and development of enterprise in the social economy, building on pastgood practice including LEADER;

• to provide support for targeted initiatives that allow people unable to take advantage ofmainstream services – including the long term economically inactive – to enter training oremployment;

• to ensure that all communities have access to high-quality ICT facilities;

• to promote equal opportunities and develop and use the culture of many rural areas to enhancelocal prosperity; and,

• addressing social exclusion and poverty in rural communities.

‘Improving access to rural services’ and ‘Investing in rural infrastructure’ are allocated no specificallyitemised objectives/priorities.

Under the heading ‘Enhancing the rural environment’ there are listed five ‘key environmentalchallenges’ (Para 6.1.39):

• to improve the management of countryside access to protect the environment while promotingthe enjoyment, awareness and interest of the public;

• to encourage a greater degree of integration in land use management;

• to reduce and manage the waste generated in the countryside and coast;

• to promote the sustainable use of the coast’s resources for economic, environmental and socialbenefit and to enhance the quality of the coastal environment and the wildlife it supports;

• to promote all forms of onshore and offshore renewable energy schemes together with energyconservation programmes.

A2.3. Sectoral Priorities for the Rural Development Plan

The RDP document then moves to consider what it calls ‘sectoral priorities’ relating to agricultureand forestry within which a ‘positive vision’ is outlined based upon a number of ‘interlockingobjectives’ (Para 6.1.54). There appears to be no direct and explicit link made between thenational/rural strategic priorities which were listed in the previous section and the sectoral prioritieslisted here. These largely repeat the five priorities listed above (6.1.14), although some additions andelaboration’s are given (for example, the assumed link between the family farm and the traditionalcharacter of the countryside).


5

Accordingly they are listed below:

• agriculture must become more economically viable. Welsh agriculture cannot compete byproducing basic commodities. The aim must be to link agriculture more effectively to markets,with the emphasis on premium, branded products with an environmentally positive image, andmuch greater value-added processing of primary produce in rural Wales. Collaboration amongfarmers has an important part to play in developing this approach, and this is the way for primaryproducers to get a better financial return. This approach will help support wider ruraldevelopment, and a strong image for Welsh food can also contribute to the image of Wales inthe world;

• Welsh agriculture and land use must become more sustainable environmentally and ecologically.Apart from helping to meet bio-diversity targets, this will strengthen Wales’ attractiveness fortourism, and strengthen the basis for marketing Welsh food as a premium product. Caring forthe environment is a legitimate long-term basis for farming to be supported both in terms of thetaxpayer, and in terms of world trade negotiations;

• extreme changes in the structure of family farms must be guarded against to help safeguard thetraditional character of the countryside, and to ensure that the inevitable decline in agricultureemployment does not run ahead of the generation of alternative, well-paid jobs in rural areas;and,

• farming families need to run their businesses more effectively, take sensible decisions on how todevelop or diversify, and to take informed choices generally about their future. Support servicesneed to focus more coherently on helping them to do this.

An equivalent set of sectoral priorities is given for forestry (Para 6.1.57):

• planting a broader range of species, appropriate to local ground conditions and local needs;

• the development of new markets and products;

• assisting businesses to adapt, and adding value to timber much nearer to woodlands and localcommunities; and,

• managing woodlands for the benefit of recreation, tourism and the environment.

A2.4. Key Rural Development Priorities

Following from the above, three ‘key priorities’ are recognised which are specific to the RDP (Paras6.1.58). These are explicitly linked to the five strategic priorities elaborated earlier in relation to theagriculture and forestry contribution to ‘promoting business development’ (Para 6.1.14), but anyother links are only implicitly made. Some detail of these is given below, together with reference tothe measures in the Rural Development Regulation which will be used to deliver them. In the RDPthere is a significant amount of detail given (including in some cases yet more aims under particularmeasures). These are not repeated here – reference should be made to Paras 6.1.61-6.1.90.

• Priority 1: To create stronger agriculture and forestry sectors. Focused on helping farmfamilies to adapt and diversify their businesses and to broaden the economic base of rural Wales


6

by developing the agri-food strategy and encouraging diversification towards new crops, organicproduction, energy crops, etc. Actions to be based on investment in agricultural holdings(Articles 4-7), forestry (Articles 29-32) and promoting the adaptation and development of ruralareas (Article 33, indents 7 and 10).

• Priority 2: To improve the economic competitiveness of rural communities andareas. Focused on improving economic sustainability through branded products, a positiveenvironmental image, more value-added production, improved business skills and greatercollaboration between producers and processors. Actions to be based on processing andmarketing of agricultural products (Articles 25-28) and training (Article 9).

• Priority 3: To maintain and protect the environment and rural heritage. Focused onimproving environmental sustainability in land use and improving access to services, supportingcommunity development and promoting social inclusion. Actions to be based on agri-environment measures (Articles 22-24), Less Favoured Areas and Areas with EnvironmentalRestrictions (Articles 13-21) and promoting the adaptation and development of rural areas(Article 33, indents 5.6 and 11).

A2.5. The hierarchy of objectives

Figure A2.1 attempts to map the apparent relationships between the several sets of objectives,priorities, etc. outlined above. As noted earlier, the hierarchy is somewhat complex and certainlyrepetitive, and the linkages between elements are frequently not made explicit. On the one handthere has clearly been an attempt to fit the objectives of the RDP into a wider national policyframework and to justify the actions which are proposed in the context of the broad economic andsocial problems facing Wales and rural Wales in particular. However, largely because of thelimitations (both in scope and resources) of the RDP, there are many areas which simply cannot beacted upon. The result, it has to be said, is a potentially confusing and complicated matrix ofobjectives which could hinder a clear vision of what the RDP is setting out to do.

Having said that, the final set of objectives for the RDP are clearly stated and linked to specificmeasures for their implementation. To that extent, the concern expressed in the ex-ante Evaluation(Section A2.11) that these links were not made sufficiently clear would appear to have been taken onboard in the final published Plan. While the RDP Strategy is set within a convoluted national policyframework of documentation, the links between strategic priorities and measures/actions is finallymade reasonably clear.


7

National Economic Development Strategywithin which is

“Vision for Rural Wales”Four broad objectives (6.1.4)

“Vision for Rural Wales”Seven priority areas for action (6.1.10)

Promoting businessdevelopment.

(6.1.12 - 6.1.19)

Spreading economic prosperity.

Eight priorities(6.1.20 - 6.1.21)

Developing skillsto match business

needs.Four objectives.(6.1.22 - 6.1.26)

Strengtheningcommunities.

Six key priorities.(6.1.27 - 6.1.30)

Improving accessto rural services.(6.1.31 - 6.1.34)

Investing inrural infrastructure.

(6.1.35 - 6.1.37)

Enhancing therural environment.

Five key environmentalchallenges.

(6.1.38 - 6.1.42)

Agriculture &forestry.

Five strategicpriorities(6.1.14)

Tourism.Eight keypriorities(6.1.16)

Wales Rural Development PlanThree key strategic priorities.

(6.1.58 – 6.1.90)

Scheme objectives:investment in agricultural holdings;

training; LFA’s; agri-environment; processing & marketing;forestry; Article 33.

(9.5.4; 9.6.3; 9.7.1; 9.8.3; 9.9.3; 9.10.5; 9.10.6; 9.11.1 )

Objective 1,2,3InterregLeader +

Sectoral prioritiesAgriculture: fourForestry: four

(6.1.54)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Key

= explicit link = implicit link

Figure A2.1: Wales Rural Development Plan – strategic objectives hierarchy


8

A2.6. Scheme objectives

The RDP document itemises objectives which are specific to particular schemes within the Plan.These are explicitly linked to the issues raised by the SWOT analysis. In the details given below anattempt is made where possible to link the specific scheme objectives to the broad strategicobjectives found in the 1999 (priority areas 1-7) and 2002 (actions A-N) National EconomicDevelopment Strategies. Reference to each priority list is given after each specific scheme priority.

A2.6.1. Investment in agricultural holdings (Para 9.5.4)

Relating to the Farm Improvement Grant, the Farm Enterprise Grant and the Small Food ProcessorsGrant:

• assist in providing multiple sources of income for farming households (1, 2; D, H);

• reduce dependency on narrow and vulnerable economic base (2; D, H)

• reduce costs of production and improve business efficiency (1, 2);

• provide opportunities for business development(1; I, H);

• improve product quality (1; H);

• encourage energy conservation and reduce pollution (7; K, L);

• improve animal welfare and encourage sustainable use of resources (7; K);

• encourage the adoption of environmentally friendly systems of production (7; K).

A2.6.2. Training – farming adaptation (Para 9.6.3)

Includes training in agri-environment activities as well as business:

• provide opportunities for business growth (1; H);

• provide increased income and employment opportunities (2; D);

• reduce dependence on arrow and vulnerable economic base (2; D);

• provide opportunities for diversifying sources of farm households income both on and off farm(1, 2; D);

• broaden the skills base of the rural population (3; J, H);

• encourage sustainable management of resources including energy conservation and avoidingpollution (7; H, L);

• improve animal welfare and product quality (1; H, I);

• improve biodiversity (7; K);

• encourage the adoption of environmentally friendly systems of production (7; K);

• provide opportunities for maintaining small family farms (1, 2, 3, 4; C, E, F);

• provide greater opportunities for entrepreneurs especially in other sectors including the serviceindustries such as tourism and manufacturing (1; M);

• provide new opportunities linked to the natural environment (1, 2, 7).


9

A2.6.3. Less Favoured Areas (Para 9.7.1)

• ensuring continued agricultural land use and therefore contributing to the maintenance of a viablerural community (4; F, H);

• maintaining the countryside (7; H);

• maintaining and promoting sustainable farming systems which protect the environment (7; H);

• ensuring environmental requirements and safeguard farming in areas with environmentalrestrictions (7; H);

• encouraging farmers to apply good farming practices compatible with the need to safeguard theenvironment and maintain the countryside by sustainable farming (7; H).

A2.6.4. Agri-environment (Para 9.8.3)

• encourage less specialisation and the adoption of mixed farming systems (7; H, K);

• encourage more sustainable use of resources (7; H, K);

• encourage farmers to manage wildlife habitats (7; K);

• lead to the adoption of environmentally friendly systems of production (7; H, K);

• provide greater opportunities associated with creating links between the environment,agriculture and diversification (1, 7; H, K).

A2.6.5. Processing and marketing of agricultural products (Para 9.9.3)

• improving product quality (1; H, I);

• reduce dependency on narrow and specialist economic base (1, 2);

• create income and employment opportunity (1);

• provide new opportunities for business growth (1);

• diversify income sources (1, 2);

• provide business opportunities for entrepreneurs (1);

• encourage additional forms of employment and income sources in the rural community (2, 4);

• provide new value opportunities linked to the natural environment (2, 7; I);

• capitalise on opportunities linked to culture and heritage (2, 7);

• generate new income streams from novel animals and crops (2, I).

A2.6.6. Forestry (Paras 9.10.5 and 9.10.6)

Two sets of objectives are given here:

Woodland Grant Scheme

• to encourage people to create new woodlands and forests to increase the production of wood,improve the landscape, improve woodland diversity and offer opportunities for recreation andsport (1, 2, 7);

• to encourage the sustainable management of forests and woodlands, including their well timedregeneration, particularly looking after the needs of ancient and semi-natural woodlands (7);


10

• to provide jobs and improve the economy of rural areas and other areas with few sources ofeconomic activity (2; D);

• to provide a use for land instead of agriculture (2).

Farm Woodland Premium Scheme

• to enhance the environment through the planting of farm woodlands by improving the landscape(7);

• providing new habitats and increasing biodiversity (7);

• to provide farmers with ongoing income through annual payments to compensate for agriculturalincome foregone (2).

A2.6.7. Article 33 – Promoting the adaptation and development of ruralareas (Para 9.11.1)

Of the 12 possible measures under this Article, the RDP proposed the application of just fivemeasures. Objectives related to these measures are designed to raise GDP and the quality of life by:

• providing a broader range of well-paid employment opportunities (2, 6);

• helping to raise economic activity rates (2);

• enhancing or providing additional mainstream services for the rural economy (1, 2, 6);

• providing openings for future economic development, including tourism and craft activities (2; D);

• improving the physical environment of villages and conserving the rural heritage (4, 7);

• addressing social exclusion (4, 5; F).

A2.7. Operational objectives

Operational objectives are not stated as such (despite an apparent reference in Para 6.1.111 whichsimply restates the three priority areas in the RDP noted above). However, six principles areenunciated which are intended to aid the implementation of the Plan:

• a strategic approach to programme delivery;

• close integration of plan implementation with the National Assembly’s own policies andprogrammes;

• a management process which will be designed to allow input from key players, including theprivate sector, and will promote the Assembly’s horizontal aims such as sustainability, equalopportunities and social inclusion;

• implementation delivered by a central Programme Executive which will pro-actively engage withthe partners and offer support for project development. Its responsibilities will include financialcontrol and payments;

• effective monitoring and evaluation so that progress can be measured and implementationadapted to meet changing needs; and,

• effective arrangements to meet the legal, regulatory and accountability requirements of both theAssembly and of the European Commission.


11

A2.8. Review and relevance of the SWOT analysis

It would appear that the ‘final draft’ of the RDP seen by the consultants in late 1999 did not contain aSWOT analysis and accordingly they provided one in their report. The published version of the RDPcontains a SWOT analysis and, while there is a significant amount of correspondence between thetwo, it would appear that the Welsh Assembly officers developed their own analysis.

The SWOT analysis developed in 2000 appears still to be relevant. Many of the elements derivefrom the natural environment (both strengths and weaknesses) and these have clearly not changed.Economic circumstances have to some extent changed and these changes are outlined below, but atthe broad level of detail they too seem still relevant.

A2.9. Significant developments since October 2000.

This section outlines some significant developments which have occurred since the RDP waspublished and which therefore might have a bearing on the continued validity and relevance of thePlan and its priorities. There are four issues to consider.

While it would appear that farm incomes have to a small extent recovered from the low pointrecorded in the Plan, the position of Welsh farmers in this regard is still weak. However, Sterling hasdepreciated vis-à-vis the Euro and this has provided a welcome boost to farm incomes.

There have been two ‘shocks’ to the Welsh rural economy since October 2000. Firstly, the eventsof 9/11 with the consequent decline in international travel must have impacted upon Welsh ruraltourism, especially from an international perspective, although it is understood that the majority oftourist visits to Wales are made by residents in the rest of the UK.

Perhaps more seriously in this context, the foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak in 2001 wasperceived to have had a serious impact upon Welsh agriculture and tourism. The high dependenceof the Welsh agricultural economy on livestock systems meant that the direct impact upon farmingpractice and thus incomes was as great as anywhere in the UK. There was also inevitable disruptionin rural tourism and an impact upon rural community life, as communities remained isolated for manymonths. However, there were off-setting factors which mitigated the overall impact to a certaindegree. A further impact of the FMD outbreak was upon the delivery of the RDP itself. Forexample, farm visits related to Farming Connect and the agri-environment scheme had to becurtailed. Thus the launch of some aspects of the Plan was delayed and recruitment to existingschemes drastically reduced.

Finally, the admission to the EU of a number of new members and the proposals for a reform of theCAP in 2006 remain as potential new threats to the Welsh rural economy.

A2.9.1. New policy and contextual documents.


12

Since October 2000 a number of policy documents have appeared which might have a bearing on thecontinuing validity of the RDP.

As noted earlier, at a national level the document A Winning Wales- the National EconomicDevelopment Strategy of the Welsh Assembly Government (Welsh Assembly Government, 2002)provides the current National Economic Development Strategy of The Assembly and sets broadtargets for the next ten years. Set within an ‘all-Wales’ context, the policy recognises the ruralsector of the economy and promises policy actions which reflect the elements of the RDP. Theearlier analysis attempted to cross-reference these actions with the objectives within the RDPschemes. Though the match is not a particularly good one, there appears to be nothing in thecurrent Strategy which contradicts the previous set of objectives.

Again at the national level, the Plan for Wales 2001 (Government of the National Assembly forWales, 2001) contains a rural component wherein a range of targets for 2003/04 and for 2010 wasset. While the proposals are consonant with the RDP, the onset of the FMD epidemic has clearlyimpacted upon the targets.

In June 2001 the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee issued a report entitled Diversifyingthe Rural Economy (Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, 2001). The recommendationsappear to link with the RDP. The Committee argued that it did not want to add to the significantquantity of rural policy statements which already existed, but it is difficult to see how this reportgenuinely ‘adds value’ to what already exists. The issue of policy statement overload is considered,along with other stringent criticisms of the policy approach by Midmore (2001) in his paper entitledFuture Scenarios for Rural Wales.

A2.9.2. Implications of other EU Programmes and Initiatives

The advent of the LEADER+ programme may have some impact upon the thrust of the RDP. Unlikeits two predecessors, LEADER+ is a ‘themed’ programme and therefore concern has been expressedin some quarters that rural communities and LEADER partnerships will not have such a broad andflexible approach available to them as with the previous programmes. On the other hand it could beargued that the four main themes in LEADER+ (new technology and know-how, adding value to localproduce, improving the quality of life and strengthening natural and cultural resources) directlyrelates to several of the stated foci in the RDP.

A2.9.3. New evidence and data

Results from the 2001 Census of Population are currently being released and it should be possible toprovide a more up to date assessment of the demographic situation shortly, particularly withreference to changing age structures.


13

A2.10. Conclusions regarding relevance and consistency of the RDP

These concluding comments pull together the analysis in this section to assess the extent to whichthe RDP remains relevant to the problems facing rural Wales and to the aims of the RuralDevelopment Regulation, and is consistent within its stated objectives.

At the outset it is necessary to remember that the RDP has to be seen in the context of a specificeconomic, historical and socio-political framework. Statistically agriculture and forestry remain aminor element within the Welsh economy, contributing just over 1% of the Welsh GDP andemploying approximately 5% of the labour force in 2002. Even within rural Wales (defined as thenine unitary authority areas) agricultural employment only rises to 10% with other employmentsectors being much more important. Yet from a socio-political viewpoint, rural Wales andspecifically farming (and especially family farming) in rural Wales has taken on an iconic status. Thusthe Welsh Government statement of November 2001 (Farming for the Future – a new direction forfarming in Wales) unequivocally states ‘the family farm defines the character of Welsh society, and itssense of identity’. It follows that the relevance of the RDP and of the schemes which make it upmust be judged against the political centrality and presumed cultural centrality of farming.

History is also important in that the RDP was constructed in practice by using building blocks(existing schemes) which had already been in place for several years. In particular, support for hillfarming through LFA payments had long been important and even predates accession to the EU.Even if the hill farm (and specifically the family hill farm) were not considered so crucial to bolsteringWelsh culture and society as noted above, it would have been nigh on impossible to disregard thelong-standing commitment in this direction when developing the RDP.

A2.10.1. Relevance of the RDP.

Relevance of the RDP can be judged against two main markers:

• Relevance to the intention of the Rural Development Regulation: while the RuralDevelopment Regulation purports to be a broad rural development vehicle, it is clear that thedominance of farming and to a lesser extent forestry is accepted in the balance of measureswhich are proposed in Regulation 1257/1999. Broad objectives regarding the support for ruralcommunities and the encouragement of non-farming economic activity are included, but thethrust is clear. The balance of actual expenditure, with so much committed to LFA paymentsand to agri-environment measures and so relatively little committed elsewhere, might becriticised, but on the whole the RDP seems relevant to the Regulation.

• Relevance to the analysis of rural problems: this is perhaps most clearly assessed bylooking at the weaknesses and threats which are outlined in the SWOT analysis in the RDP.Here the picture is a little more mixed with problems outlined which are hardly picked up in theRDP. While farming problems are given due prominence, weaknesses such as the poortransport infrastructure or a perceived decline in access to rural services are either effectivelyabsent from the RDP proposals or else are only to be tackled indirectly. Thus, the outward


14

migration of young people has no direct measure attached to it, but the support for the farmingeconomy generally is expected to impact on this issue in an indirect way.

A second way in which the continued relevance of the RDP may be judged is by reference to policydocuments which have appeared since October 2000. The conclusion here is that the RDP still hasrelevance since the problem analyses which have emerged subsequently (e.g. in A Winning Wales)have reiterated the same picture given in the RDP. Given that this picture is accepted, then the RDPremains relevant and is indeed built in to the National Economic Development Strategy.

Finally, there is the issue of economic and other developments since October 2000 which might havealtered the relevance of the Plan. The conclusion here is that either little has changed (e.g. in thestrength of Sterling) to alter the situation, or that developments such as the foot and mouth epidemichave been so serious as if anything to strengthen the concentration in the RDP upon support forfarming.

A2.10.2. Consistency of the RDP

The issue here is essentially one of internal consistency within the RDP and especially within thestated objectives. As noted earlier, the analysis here is to some extent complicated by a profusion ofobjectives at various levels and especially by a confusion of terminology.

Despite this, the analysis suggests that there is significant consistency between objectives with alogical progression from broad national objectives down to the specific objectives found in schemes.Three criticisms might be made in this context. Firstly, some of the links are only implicitly made.Secondly, the ‘sectoral priorities’ which are introduced in paras 6.1.54 appear as from nowhere andare not closely linked into the hierarchy. Finally, farming and forestry objectives dominate thestructure while other issues are referred to, but not really picked up in the scheme objectives simplybecause these nearly all relate to agriculture and forestry.

A2.11. The continuing validity of the ex-ante evaluation

An ex-ante evaluation of the Wales Rural Development Plan was commissioned by the NationalAssembly of Wales as required by the evaluation guidelines stipulated by the Director General forAgriculture (DGVI) of the EU Commission. Roger Tym and Partners were appointed on 11 October1999 and they were subsequently joined by Land Use Consultants and Kernon CountrysideConsultants. In practice the methodology applied to the study was severely compromised by the factthat the RDP was not in complete draft and so the consultants had to receive and comment on partsof the Plan as they were received from National Assembly staff. In practice work did not start until 5November, while first drafts of a strategy and outlines of some measures were only available from 22November. A so-called ‘final version’ of the RDP only became available on 8 December and the ex-ante evaluation was forwarded by the consultants on 17 December.

The ex-ante evaluation was thus produced under very constrained circumstances with correspondingimplications for the methodology adopted. This was essentially by the integration of the analysis of


15

secondary information (data and reports), ‘brainstorming’ within the consultancy team and discussionwith National Assembly staff, leading to comments regarding necessary amendments and additions tothe Plan. It would appear that this particular ex-ante evaluation did not therefore fit the modeloutlined by the Commission for example in Working Paper No. 8 (see Bibliography in Appendix 1).As an example it seems that there was no SWOT analysis in the drafts seen by the consultants andso they suggested their own rather than critiquing one provided to them.

Para. 2.7 of the report details comments made by the consultants together with action (if any) takenby Assembly staff. It appears that, while some amendments were made (see below), severalrecommendations were not taken up in the final draft seen by the consultants. In fairness it should benoted that some comments in the ex-ante report could be considered of relatively minor importanceand therefore the absence of an obvious response in the final draft is understandable.

Following submission of the draft to the Commission on 22 December 1999, a significant number ofcomments (90+) were received back on 23 March 2000, many of which were technical or draftingpoints which could be relatively easily adopted in re-drafting. Welsh Assembly staff responded tothese on 12 April and followed this up with a bilateral meeting with the Commission in Brussels on 5May 2000. Where necessary the Report was amended to produce the version which was eventuallypublished in October 2000. The one area of significant concern by the Commission related to theproposals for Tir Mynydd where it was felt that there had been too little movement away from aheadage payment scheme to one which was land based. Assembly staff realised that furthermodification was necessary before the Plan could be published and Tir Mynydd confirmed.

Comments and criticisms made of the RDP draft by the consultants naturally vary in their importanceand thereby in the extent that they were accommodated by National Assembly staff in thepreparation of subsequent drafts. It should not therefore be expected that all comments resulted inaction.

A2.11.1. Structure of the ex-ante Report

The content of the ex-ante evaluation report is:

1. Introduction: terms of reference, timetable of work, the context of the study.2. Methodology: methodology (see above), phasing of the evaluation, impact of the consultants’

comments on the draft of the plan (see above).3. Analysis of disparities, gaps and potential of the current situation: a substantial section

giving background data on the Welsh situation including physical data, economic structures,education, training, transport, deprivation, cultural heritage, etc., followed by a SWOT analysis ofrural Wales.

4. Analysis of previous results: conclusions from evaluations of previous EU programmes inWales which are of relevance to the RDP Wales.

5. Assessment of the consistency of the proposed strategy: a critique of the relationshipbetween the problems recognised leading through to the SWOT analysis, then to the strategy


16

and finally to the proposed measures, and pointing out gaps in the linkages especially as regardsproposed measures. This section also critiques the extent to which there is justification for theproposed balance of the Plan, particularly in the light of the bulk of expenditure (90%) going toLess Favoured Areas and agri-environment schemes.

6. Consistency with the Common Agricultural Policy and other policies: an assessment ofapparent compliance in the RDP draft with general CAP policy and with national and Europeanenvironmental requirements and EU requirements on competition policy and equalopportunities.

7. Assessment of expected impacts: a brief discussion of some global, qualitative impacts (e.g.social sustainability arising from the LFA measure, increased farm viability stemming from agri-environment measures) followed by an examination of the proposed strategy in relation to theDGVI Common Evaluation questions.

8. Quantification of targets: in the absence of any quantified output or impact indicators, somepossible indicators are suggested and rough estimates given of the quantitative size (e.g. numberof beneficiaries, areas (hectares) to benefit) of the impact of the proposed measures.

9. Verification of the proposed implementing arrangement: this points to information gapsin the implementation proposals for some scheme measures (e.g. LFAs, forestry, training andagri-environment), in the proposals for monitoring and evaluation and in the procedures forapplications for funding and selection criteria.

10. Conclusions and recommendation: this final section attempts to gauge the extent to whichthe RDP contributes to the objectives of the vision for Rural Wales outlined by the Rural WalesPartnership and also the EU Rural Development Regulation, integrates environmental, equalopportunities and sustainable development principles and comments on the likely effectiveness ofthe programming, implementation, monitoring and evaluation arrangements. Seven keyrecommendations are given which overarch specific comments. These are:

• a need to make the links between the analysis of the current situation, the RDP strategy andthe measures much more explicit;

• a need for greater justification of the balance of resources, acknowledging the financialconstraints set by a limited budget;

• greater clarification within the measures of what will be funded;

• a need to address the integration of the potential for environmental benefits into the LFAmeasure and its payment structure;

• a need to clarify implementation arrangements to demonstrate how delivery of the RDP willintegrate with other programmes and achievement of the ‘Rural Wales’ vision of the RuralWales Partnership;

• improved integration of equal opportunities into the RDP; and,

• identification of quantitative and qualitative output and impact indicators for all measures,linked to baselines which can be regularly reviewed and updated to provide information onchanges over time.


17

Specific and detailed comments from the ex-ante evaluation are now considered in the light ofchanges, etc. since December 1999.

A2.11.2. Developments and modifications since December 1999

As a means of assessing the continuing validity of the ex-ante study, the Table below matchescomments/criticisms made by the consultants to apparent amendments made to the Plan both beforeformal publication in October 2000 and since that time. The sources for this exercise are thepublished version of the Wales Rural Development Plan (October 2000), the responses to questionsraised by the Commission in April 2000, the Annual Reports for 2000 and 2001, the minutes of theRural Development Plan Programme Monitoring Committee and other documents (e.g. schemedetails).


19

Comment by Ex-Ante Report Published WRDP (October2000)

Annual Reports 2000,2001, 2002 (draft)

Minutes of ProgrammeMonitoring Committee

Other documents(e.g. scheme details)

Chapter 3: Context

• Implied absence of a SWOTanalysis in the ‘final draft’ seenby consultants so SWOTanalysis given

Report contains a (different) SWOTanalysis.

Chapter 5: Assessment of the consistency of the proposed strategy

Physical context

• Potential environmentalbenefits from LFA take-upneed to be made explicit

Section 9.1 makes reference to therequirement that farmers enteringinto LFA agreements must agree toadhere to Good Farming Practice(verifiable standards and a code ofpractice).Section 9.7 – reference to Element 2of Tir Mynydd scheme and extrapayments for sustainable farmingindicators.

2000 Report explainsadditional Element 2enhancements for‘confirmed environmentalpractice’.2001 Report mentions high(90% of producers) takingup Element 2.

Response to Commissionquestion (April 2000): ‘Themeasure for the Less FavouredAreas…has been linked toenvironmental goals’. (Thoughnote that in the response theyrefer to 3 Elements within theLFA scheme with Element 3being the environmental option,presumably subsequentlymodified in Tir Mynydd.)

• Link between harsh physicalenvironment and LFA measureneeds to be made explicit

Response to Commissionquestion re: requirements ofArticle 15 of Reg. 1257/1999explained levels ofcompensation as they recognise‘the greater severity of naturalconditions’ as betweenDisadvantaged and SeverelyDisadvantaged land.

• Need for climate change linkwith RDP strategy

Climate change and global warmingmentioned (pp 26-27, stressing


20





problems (e.g. flood risk), but alsosome possible advantages (e.g. novelcrops)), but not directly linked withRDP strategy.

Rural infrastructure

• Poor links betweenaccessibility problems andmarketing and processingmeasure

Transportation problems outlined(pp48-51) and linked generally toRDP strategy (pp 151).. Improvingaccess to rural services and investingin rural infrastructure stated as partof overall strategy but essentially viaObjective 1 actions rather than RDP.

• No consideration aboutconstraints from electricityand water supplies

Population

• No link between LFA measureand potential impact re:farmer age structure

Link made in Plan para 9.7.6.

• No mention of tacklingoutmigration especially ofyoung farmers

Extra points awarded to youngfarmers signing up to Tir Gofal.

Actions 30-35 of Farming for theFuture (Nov 2001) are for youngfarmer support, training, capital,share-farming, etc..

• Poor linking of adultvocational and business skillsto training measures

Economy

• No explicit link between valueadded opportunities andcontribution to GDP


21





• Need for updated statisticalinformation re: problems ofremoter rural areas tostrengthen link with LFAmeasure

Provided by proposed StatisticalImpact Digest for rural Wales.

2001 Census publication shouldprovide data.

Economic sectors (non-agricultural)

• No discussion of public servicesector

• Poor statistical proof re: valueadded in manufacturing

Agriculture

• No clear link betweenprovision of services andageing farm workforce

• Measures avoid the issue ofsubsidy dependency byconcentrating on LFAs and TirGofal

• No reference to problems oflowland sheep and cattle farmsin non-LFA areas

• No link made between LFAfarming and lowland economy(especially marketing andproduct development)

• No clear link betweenmeasures and retaining youngpeople on farms

Extra points given to young farmersfor Tir Gofal.

Actions 30 – 35 of Farming forthe Future suggest links betweenmeasures and young farmersupport.

• No mention of training for Section 9 (pp 219-223) details 2000 Report: no mention of Tir Gofal Farmer’s Handbook


22





agri-environment scheme proposed training for agri-environment and organic schemes.

environmental componentin training. Reports for 2001and 2002 give brief details ofthe training package.Training did not start untilsummer 2002 due to FMD.

refers to available training (‘willbe available’).Response to Commissionquestion on this (April 2000):‘For Tir Gofal specifically,training will be co-ordinated andquality controlled by theCountryside Council for Wales’.

• No link between StrategicAction Plan for organic sectorand the RDP

• No mention as to whetherorganic measure will be moresuccessful in less marginalareas of Wales

Justification for the balance re: financial allocations

• No clear justification re:concentration (90%) on LFAand agri-environmentmeasures

Some justification given in Section 14:‘…in terms of the contribution whichthese measures make to thesustainability in economic, social andenvironmental terms of the Welshcountryside’. Also argues thatprevious evidence re: LFA supportand Tir Cymen support acontinuation of this emphasis.

• Financial limitations in RDPshould be more explicitlystated

Budget limitations stressedthroughout document e.g. Section 8,14.1

• Poor justification for levels ofexpenditure on agri-


23





environment measure (25%and 15%)

• Emphasis on LFAs needsjustifying as a long-term (non-subsidy dependent) measure

• No justification for low level(1.4%) of expenditure onprocessing and marketingmeasure

• No mention of any linksbetween processing andmarketing measure andactivities of WDA

PMG scheme details imply closelink with WDA (applications goto WDA, advice, etc. available).

• No link between balance ofexpenditure and objective toencourage economic activityby young people

• Poor recognition of effect ofLFA measure in maintainingolder farmers and whether itwould also help retain youngfarmers

Recognition in para 9.7.6.

• Has proposed study re: settingup young people in farmingbeen done?

Study commissioned by NationalAssembly (6.1.92).

• No justification for forestryexpenditure (5.6%)

• Limited budget for Article 33measures (1.4%) requirestargeting rather than implicit

2000 Report: Article 33measures will focus onindents 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11.


24





cover on all 13 potentialactivities

Chapter 6: Consistency with the CAP and other policies

• Consistency with EUcompetition policy not madeclear

2000 Report: no mention.

• Little reference to equalopportunities directly in theproposed measures (i.e. toogeneral)

2000 Report: no mention.

Chapter 7: Assessment of expected impacts (qualitative)

• General lack of identifiedimpacts in RDP (see also nextsection)

Section 7 gives ‘headline impacttargets’.Section 9 outlines more specificobjectives and expected impactsfrom particular measures: investmentin agricultural holdings – FIG, FEG,processing (9.5), training (9.6), LFAs(9.6), agri-environment and organicschemes (9.7), processing andmarketing (9.9), forestry (9.10),Article 33 measures (9.11).

Chapter 8: Quantification of targets

• Absence of quantified outputand impact indicators

Section 7 gives some broad quantifiedimpact targets.Section 9 gives input indicators formeasures (9.5 et seq.).

2000 Report: role ofMonitoring Committee to‘confirm’ physical andfinancial indicators.

Initial paper on physical andfinancial indicators presented toPMC (28/11/01).Second paper (RDPMC(02)02) onBaseline, Indicators and Targetspresented to PMC (30/1/02).Paper (RDPMC(02)04) giving

Response to Commissionquestions (April 2000): ‘We willprovide quantified targets,baselines and indicators as partof a general revision of thissection of the RDP’.


25





suggested amendments toindicators presented to PMC(8/5/02); these to be based on therevised indicators, etc. beingdeveloped for Objective 1programme.No further information ondeveloping the RDP indicatorsseems available.

• No estimation of quantifiedtargets for each measure

Appendix 22 gives annual targets forparticular measures/schemes (somegaps).

2000 Report: estimation ofsome annual targets formeasures to 2006.2001 Report: no apparentappendix with target tables.

See above re: Paper RDPMC(02/02)

See comment above.

• No baseline data given (seealso next section)

10.4: reference of ‘the need tocollate a more comprehensive set ofbaseline indicators for rural Wales(where available), based on 1999-00data’10.5 reference to plan in 2000-01 toproduce a ‘statistical digest on ruralWales’ as part of the ‘StatisticalFocus’ series.

2001 Report: Assembly(presumably ARAD)collating ‘a comprehensiveset of baseline indicators forrural Wales with base dateof 1999-00. Contract toprovide baseline botanicalinformation to allowassessment ofenvironmental impact of TirGofal expected to beawarded in early 2002.

See above re: Paper RDPMC(02/02).

See comment above.

Chapter 9: Verification of the proposed implementing arrangements

• No reference in Section 12 todelivery organisation for

2000 Report: steering groupfor Farming Connect


26





training measure involving FRCA, WDA,LANTRA, TECs and FarmDevelopment StrategyGroup. Day-to-daymanagement to be by WDAsupported by NAWAD(now ARAD).

• Need for consistency inexpectations of all accountablebodies re: reportingrequirements, monitoring, etc.(diagram in S. 12 suggested)

Section 12 (12.17) says that ‘separateguidance on specific responsibilities’of accountable bodies will be given.

• Need for Section 12 to makeexplicit how accountablebodies will adopt the ‘package’approach

Paras 12.3-12.13 give details of‘packages’ which will be delivered byAction Plans for which guidelines toaccountable bodies are given in para12.14-12.23.

Answer to Commission queryof April 2000 attempts to makea distinction between ActionPlans and packages. Statedintention to discuss the‘practicalities’ with partners andthe Commission.

• Need to show how Article 33delivery links to existingpartnerships

Some details given in RuralCommunity Action –strengthening living andworking in rural Walesdocument and in AnnualReport (draft) for 2002.

Papers from National Assemblyin November 2002 (particularlyRural Community Action:strengthening living and working inrural Wales – Strategic BiddingDocument) suggests that existingpartnerships, includingCommunity Strategy Groupsand LEADER partnerships, willgenerally be preferentiallyinvolved in management and


27





delivery of Action Plans,facilitated by the WelshDevelopment Agency.

• Need to make clear how the‘package’ approach will applyto LFA, agri-environment ,forestry and training measures

• Detail needed re: theoverarching ‘executiveorganisation’ which willmanage all EU programmes2000-2006

2000 Report: by implicationthis is Welsh EuropeanFunding Office (WEFO).

• Role of ProgrammeMonitoring Committee needsdefinition

12.37-1243 – gives basic details re:membership and functions.

2000 Report: gives details ofrole/tasks of MonitoringCommittee

• How does RDP ProgrammeMonitoring Committee link toother monitoring committees?

2000 Report mentionscross-membership betweenmonitoring committees andservicing by WEFO,presumably providinglinkages.2001 Report: reiteratescross-membership ofmonitoring committees andpartnership groups.

There are common functionsbetween PMCs (28/11/01).Detail given to PMC re: approvalof modifications and virement ofmonies (30/1/02).

• What are the links with otherpartnerships especially RuralWales Partnership?

2001 Report: a ‘Task andFinish’ Group set up toproduce a recovery planpost-FMD; membershipdrawn from Rural Wales


28





Partnership.

• Will there be an agriculturaladvisory group?

• Lack of information onmonitoring arrangements(only given for marketing andprocessing measures)

2001 Report; reference toCommon Indicator Tablesdocument.

• How will equal opportunitiesrequirement be monitored?

2000 Report: equalopportunities requirementsmentioned, but no mentionof monitoring system.

• Need to agree monitoringprocedures for environmentalmeasure with EnvironmentAgency Wales

• More detail needed re:procedures for schemeapplications

Post-October 2000 publicationof scheme details makesprocedures clear.

Chapter 10: Conclusions and recommendations

• Need to link LFA measuremore closely with the RuralWales vision

• Need to be more specific re:what will be funded especiallywith measures with smallbudgets

Scheme details to applicantsseem quite clear on what iseligible/ineligible.

• RDP should be clearer as towhat it would do if moreresources were available (e.g.introduce Setting Up Young

Para 14.4 states that a ‘significantproportion’ of any further resourceswould be directed to the non-accompanying measures, though


29





Farmers measure) young farmers not mentioned.

• LFA measure needs morejustification e.g. rediversification, added value,training

A1 Key documents.pdf

Documents

Transcript of A1 Key documents.pdf