Second Report:
(1998-99 Session) Cap Reform: Rural Development
GENERAL UPDATE
1. During 1999 the government continued
to work towards implementation of the Rural Development Regulation
(RDR) from 1 January 2000.
2. Key activities included:
(i) announcing in August MAFF's proposals
for implementing the RDR and for preparing the England Rural Development
Plan (ERDP);
(ii) preparing the ERDP: with a national
framework document and regional chapters covering each Government
Office (GO) Region; in partnership with DETR, GOs, the Environmental
Agencies, Forestry Commission, other Government Departments and
RDAs; key documents were submitted to the European Commission
at the end of 1999 and the full ERDP on 1 February 2000;
(iii) negotiating:
(iv) securing collective agreement to proposals
for UK funding for the RDR through MISC8.
3. Preparation of rural development plans
is a devolved responsibility and separate Plans have been prepared
for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Other than
where reference is made to UK policy or issues, this response
deals with MAFF's preparation of the England Rural Development
Plan only.
4. The proposals in the ERDP, which were
submitted in full to the European Commission on 1 February 2000,
are subject to approval from the Commission. The Commission must
approve the Plan within six months of submission. The expenditure
proposals in the ERDP (announced in outline by the Minister of
Agriculture on 7 December 1999) are, accordingly, subject to approval
from the Commission and also to the Spending Review 2000.
5. The preparation of the ERDP marks a step
change in government's approach to support for rural areas. First,
it underpins government's "New Direction for Agriculture"
by introducing a gradual reduction in direct production-related
subsidies and a gradual increase in support for sustainable farming,
forestry, rural enterprise and communities. It also addresses
the need for a much more integrated mechanism for planning support
for rural development (in its widest sense) both through the involvement
of all key rural partners in the preparation of the Plan and in
the preparation of Regional Chapters. Because the Plan is based
on an analysis of the current situation and of the strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats to rural economies, and
on jointly agreed priorities and objectives, it sets out a clear
rationale for the seven year programme of support which will not
only feed into the forthcoming Rural White Paper but will also
provide a framework against which other rural policy interventions
can be balanced and integrated.
6. The government was deeply disappointed
with the size of the UK allocation for expenditure under the RDR,
notwithstanding the fact that it represented a 30 per cent increase
over historic levels of expenditure. In order to fund a full seven-year
rural development programme, following consultation the government
has decided to supplement the EU allocation with receipts from
a modest, but increasing, rate of "modulation" of direct
farmer subsidies, matched pound for pound with new government
funds. The rate of modulation will rise from 2.5 per cent in 2001
to 4.5 per cent by 2005 and this will be match funded over the
period by £303 million in England. These proposals form the
basis of the expenditure plans explained in detail in the ERDP.
Their impact is described in Section 7 of that Plan.
SPECIFIC ACTION
Introduction
Recommendation a: We urge the Ministry, and
representatives of the farming community, to build on their recent
efforts to bring the agricultural sector into the main stream
of rural economies (paragraph 11).
7. The preparation of the England Rural
Development Plan, MAFF's "New Direction for Agriculture"
and MAFF's joint preparation with DETR of the forthcoming Rural
White Paper will all help to bring agriculture into the main stream
of rural economies. The introduction of three new measures (see
paragraph 6), which are targeted at the adaption of agriculture
and forestry and rural economies, and which will be operated on
a regional basis, will give real effect to that integration.
The proposal's aims, direction and purpose
Recommendation b: As we have commented elsewhere,
we believe there is a need for the European Commission to advance
certain clear underpinning principles for rural development in
the Regulation, while leaving the maximum possible responsibility
for determining the character of such policies at the national
level. Such principles include notions of decentralisation of
responsibility to the localities, and the need for a genuinely
participatory and inclusive approach to rural development, involving
all sections of the rural community. While these principles are
touched upon in the existing text of the Regulation, their full
implications are not drawn out with the force and clarity we would
like. Furthermore, it is not at all clear precisely what role
the Commission foresees agriculture and the farming community
at large playing within an integrated rural development policy.
The aims of the Regulation are insufficiently clear and no ways
of measuring achievement are proposed. These issues must be directly
addressed in the final text of the Regulation (paragraph 21).
8. The Commission has prepared very detailed
draft guidance on the monitoring and evaluation of Rural Development
Programmes and measures which member states will be expected to
use when mid-term and ex-post evaluations of their programmes
are carried out.
Levels of finance assigned to the Regulation
Recommendation c: We appreciate that much
still remains to be decided by the Agriculture Council on the
CAP reform package over the next four months, and urge the Government
and its allies in Council to take the strongest possible line
on securing additional funding for this Regulation by diverting
monies presently assigned to the CAP commodity regimes and the
direct payments scheme. The importance of setting the appropriate
level of EU financing for this proposal cannot be overestimated:
EU funds are absolutely critical to its success. In our opinion,
the amount currently assigned by the Commission is inadequate
(paragraph 26).
9. The government has acted to increase
the level of EU financing for the ERDP by announcing its decision
to modulate all direct CAP payments to farmers at a gradually
increasing rate from 2001.
Co-financing by member states
Recommendation d: If the Government is not
to stand accused of failure to deliver on its public pronouncements,
sufficient domestic finances must be found to ensure that rural
development plans established under the Regulation can make a
meaningful contribution to local rural development efforts (paragraph
27).
10. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Food announced on 7 December 1999 the funding proposals for
the Rural Development Regulation. Subject to the Spending Review
2000, these proposals include new funding of £303 million
in England to match fund receipts from modulation pound for pound.
Eligibility of recipients for funding under the
Regulation
Recommendation e: Recognising that the key
to successful rural development initiatives may lie with those
outside the agricultural community, or in activities wholly unrelated
to farming, we ask the Government to press the Commission for
confirmation of the wider latitude suggested in Article 31 of
the Regulation. Ultimate responsibility for determining how the
Regulation is to be interpreted in particular regions of the UK
must reside with local partnerships of community interests and
key policy makers drawn from the territory concerned, with the
decision on whom or what might be eligible for funding under the
Regulation made by such partnerships after taking all relevant
social and economic circumstances into account (paragraph 29).
11. The regional chapters of the ERDP describe
the current situation in that region, its strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats and the objectives for the region.
12. Building on that analysis Regional Programming
Groups, comprising the key partners who were involved in preparing
the regional chapters, will oversee the operation of the following
measures:
— Processing and Marketing Grants Scheme.
— Rural Enterprise Scheme.
The implications for the proposed Regulation of
ongoing reform of the EU structural funds
Recommendation f: We are concerned that the
new Objective 2 designation will neither provide the geographic
coverage currently afforded the UK by the existing Objective 2
and 5b designations, nor enable localised pockets of rural deprivation
to be treated effectively (paragraph 31).
Recommendation g: There are grave implications
in the Agenda 2000 package for the funding of rural development
initiatives in the UK, and we were heartened by Mr Meacher's statement
to us that he will continue to press the national case with the
Commission as strongly as possible to ensure that the UK's rural
areas are not penalised by the new structural funds' criteria
set out in Agenda 2000. The Government must reach an accommodation
on this point with the European Commission and our European partners
(paragraph 32).
13. The government succeeded in negotiating
a safety net for Objective 2, whereby the population coverage
would be no less that two-thirds that previously covered by Objectives
2 and 5b. This is a significantly better result than if the Commission's
proposed criteria of unemployment levels compared with the EU
average had been used. Furthermore, we have gained Objective 1
status for Cornwall, which is primarily rural. The government
is seeking a fair balance between industrial, rural, urban and
fisheries areas to be supported under Objective 2. The Objective
2 programmes will be encouraged to target particular areas of
deprivation through Community economic support measures.
14. The project based approach to implementing
the Rural Enterprise Scheme will in principle enable targeting
of support to address problems of localised deprivation anywhere.
The problem of social exclusion in the countryside will also be
addressed in the forthcoming Rural White Paper.
Establishment of young farmers and early retirement
measures
Recommendation i: Were the Government minded
to bring forward proposals in this area, we would urge the Ministry
to consider the introduction of a co-ordinated national package
of interlinked retirement and establishment incentives, designed
to dovetail the aims of both the early retirement and young farmers'
schemes. In our opinion, a consolidated scheme of this sort would
be well placed to contribute to wider rural development objectives,
as the winding-down of farm businesses and the setting-up of new
holdings inevitably involves the redeployment of factors of land,
labour and capital which, with careful forethought, may well bring
social and economic benefits both to farmers and to the wider
rural community. However, we should not allow these measures to
be used as a means of protecting or indeed starting non-viable
units (paragraph 36).
15. Following extensive consultation the
government has decided to introduce neither an early retirement
scheme for farmers nor the specific establishment aid for young
farmers available under the RDR.
16. Views were mixed on the option of an
early retirement scheme. An economic appraisal[1]
showed that although it contributed towards re-structuring the
cost outweighed the benefit because of the large number of farmers
who could benefit but would have retired anyway. Under the terms
of the RDR it is very difficult to target only those most in need
of the scheme. The government believes that the best way to provide
support for young farmers is to provide the right economic framework
to encourage enterprise. Where appropriate, regionally operated
measures can be targeted towards young farmers.
Training
Recommendation j: We believe that the training
provision under the Regulation should be broadened to enable the
full range of training and capacity building options to be offered
to all sections of the local rural community. For the UK to use
this aspect of the Regulation it will need to prepare a rural
training strategy. A review of agricultural education and training
provision will be necessary (paragraph 37).
17. In the light of responses to the consultation,
the government proposes to use the RDR provisions to support training
activity to improve the skills of people involved in farming and
forestry where that will contribute to the delivery of the priorities
within the ERDP. Over the seven-year programme £22 million
will be available.
Recommendation k: We welcome the Commission's
intention to introduce a Community Initiative for rural areas
as an opportunity to reinstate the LEADER approach, urge the Commission
to make this Initiative available in all the EU's rural areas,
and advise MAFF to consider seriously the implementation of such
an Initiative in the UK (paragraph 38).
18. The Commission's Guidelines for LEADER
+, the successor to LEADER II, will be finalised in March. LEADER
+ will be available in all rural areas but with a strong emphasis
on innovation and co-operation both between areas and between
member states. MAFF has begun the first steps towards preparing
a Plan for implementation, which must be submitted to the Commission
by September.
Less Favoured Area proposals
Recommendation l: We share witnesses' concerns
about the detail of the LFA proposals. In particular, more than
doubling the current UK expenditure on LFAs is difficult to justify
when member states still await the precise details of the area-based
mechanism from the Commission. Not only would the Commission's
current LFA proposals place a burdensome load on MAFF's future
expenditure plans: they may also result in serious distributional
problems, resulting in the largest LFA farms benefiting at the
expense of their smaller neighbours. We strongly advise MAFF to
ensure it retains its existing right to determine domestic LFA
expenditure through setting its own national payment rates, rather
than accepting the notion of minimum payments. We also appreciate
the difficulties in establishing workable area payments system
for the UK LFAs, and, while being firmly in favour of the new
environmental basis of payments, reserve judgement as to the suitability
and practicality of the Commission's proposals until a more clearly
defined text has been brought forward. It remains imperative as
we said earlier this Session for the UK to develop its own strategy
for LFAs (paragraph 41).
19. The ERDP sets out MAFF's proposal to
introduce a new area-based Hill Farm Allowance Scheme from 2001.
This was drawn up following extensive consultation and comprises
a scheme targeted at Less Favoured Area beef and sheep producers
with three elements: area payments which vary to reflect individual
carrying capacity (based on livestock numbers); flat-rate area
payments (one for each type of LFA land—Severely Disadvantaged
and Disadvantaged); and enhancements for beneficial practices
(eg low stocking). Until a review in 2003 there will be a progressive
shift in the balance between the flat-rate and variable payments,
to increase the former and reduce the latter. This outcome is
felt to represent a fair balance between the social and environmental
aims of this support, with change being introduced gradually so
that producers have adequate time to adjust.
20. The Committee's recommendation refers
to the then Commission proposal for a binding minimum payment
rate for LFA support of 40 e/ha and an exemption agreed permitting
lower payments where the circumstances warrant this. As a result,
this issue has not had the effect originally feared on the design
of the HFA scheme.
Agri-environmental measures
Recommendation m: The Regulation's mandatory
requirement for agri-environmental measures will be less important
than ensuring rural development plans strike a good balance between
their various objectives. Our view is that local and regional
administrations should retain the right to determine which elements
should be included in rural development plans, although such plans
should be scrutinised by the European Commission to prevent distortion
of competition (paragraph 44).
21. The ERDP sets out MAFF's proposals for
using the RDR measures, including the agri-environment schemes,
to help attain the identified priorities. These involve continuation
of all three current agri-environment measures: ESAs, Countryside
Stewardship and support for conversion aid for organic farming.
The overall balance of measures in the ERDP reflects the overall
constraint imposed by the size of the UK allocation, the mandatory
requirement to run agri-environment schemes, the existing financial
commitment to agreements under those schemes, the SWOT analysis
carried out in the preparation of the Plan and the evaluation
results from existing schemes and supports the high level of expenditure
on these measures. The reasons for the distribution of funds between
measures are explained in detail in Section 14 of the Plan.
22. The significant expansion of agri-environment
scheme funding will be directed largely towards the Countryside
Stewardship Scheme which is currently heavily oversubscribed.
That scheme is already subject to annual local targeting—which
will continue—and, over time, it is MAFF's intention to
extend regional discretion over the operation of the scheme.
Recommendation o: We believe MAFF should liaise
with farming and environmental groups to establish whether a change
to payment for services is practicable and of genuine benefit
both in terms of the long-term management of the fabric of the
British countryside, and in ensuring farmers are appropriately
remunerated for their work (paragraph 46).
23. The framework for setting payment rates
for agri-environment schemes is laid down explicitly in the RDR.
It does not permit the "payment of services" in the
form envisaged by some farming unions.
Recommendation p: The Government's recent
pledge of an additional £1 million for the Countryside Stewardship
scheme is welcome, but if a positive and genuine shift in attitudes
among all sections of the farming community towards environmentally
sustainable farming is to be achieved, more investment must be
found (paragraph 47).
24. The ERDP proposals establish a threefold
increase in annual funding for the Countryside Stewardship Scheme
by the end of the Programme. This will make a significant contribution
to improving the rural environment and the countryside landscape,
as well as setting the agenda for further reform of the CAP in
future.
Forestry proposals
Recommedation s: While we do not support any
further extension of EU responsibility into forestry, we do nevertheless
recognise its importance in rural development, farm diversification
and environmental policy. The Government should ensure this priority
is reflected in national rural strategy (paragraph 50).
25. The ERDP priorities—set out in
section 6.1.2—reflect fully the contribution that tree planting
and woodland management make to the rural environment, economy
and rural communities. The Plan envisages a substantial increase
in support both for the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme and the Woodland
Grant Scheme.
Processing and marketing
Recommendation t: We recommend the Government
consider reinstating the UK Processing and Marketing Grant scheme
at the very earliest opportunity, extending it if necessary to
provide encouragement to farmers to establish marketing co-operatives
along the lines of those in other EU states (paragraph 51).
26. The ERDP proposes the re-introduction
of the Processing and Marketing Grant Scheme with funding starting
at £4 million in 2001-02 and rising to £8 million per
year thereafter. The Rural Enterprise Scheme will also permit
some support for projects which improve collaboration among farmers.
Conclusions on the EC's proposal
Recommendation u: We believe that the European
Commission deserves some praise for bringing forward the proposal
in the face of opposition from members of the Council. But the
underpinning concept of integrated rural development remains frustratingly
vague in the current draft—as does any indication of how
the sum of the different measures under the Regulation might be
deployed to bring this goal about. Overall, therefore, we see
no reason to change our initial view of the Commission's proposals
for rural development as a missed opportunity (paragraph 52).
27. The government believes that the RDR
has provided a vital tool in helping to bring about a more integrated
approach to rural development in England. While the measures themselves
will make a significant contribution to rural economies, the process
of plan preparation has also brought about a significant improvement
in building capacity[2]
nationally and regionally which would not otherwise have happened
and which will be developed further when the Programme is implemented.
Recommendation v: Integration between EU and
national initiatives, and between the different tiers of administration
at EU, national and local levels will, we believe, emerge as absolutely
critical to this Regulation's success in the UK and other member
states alike (paragraph 53).
28. The ERDP makes a significant contribution
to bringing about integration between EU, national and regional
and local tiers of administration.
Recommendation x: We wish to see the current
system of direct compensation payments made to farmers converted
to finance an expanded range of rural development and agri-environment
options, to which all elements of the rural community would have
access (paragraph 56).
29. By introducing modulation to fund some
parts of the ERDP, the government intends to re-direct some direct
compensation payment towards measures of wider benefit to the
rural environment and economy. Receipts from modulation may only
fund so-called "accompanying measures" ie agri-environment
schemes, LFA compensatory allowances, woodland on farmland and
any early retirement scheme.
Recommendation y: The important issue of preparing
the way for the UK's implementation of the Regulation must not
be put off by the Ministry, nor be allowed to become, by default,
an issue of secondary importance. Ministers have anyway conceded
that the preparation of rural development plans is valuable in
itself irrespective of the process of the Regulation (paragraph
59).
Rural development policy in the UK
Recommendation z: We are concerned that the
lack of priority attached to UK rural development policy—and
the compartmentalisation of Departmental activities and separation
of budget lines which results from it—is still endemic in
the British approach to fostering the integrated development of
rural areas (paragraph 63).
30. MAFF has given high priority to preparing
a full ERDP reflecting regional as well as national priorities
and fully involving rural partners in the process. Similar priority
will be given to ensuring the Programme can be implemented in
full, following Commission approval.
Recommendtion aa: We believe objectives for
rural development policy should be set at the most appropriate
administrative level for the territory concerned, which in practice
will mean the local, rather than national scale (paragraph 66).
31. The ERDP contains both national priorities,
and measures specific objectives, as well as regional objectives.
Targeting
Recommendation bb: In view of the very limited
amount of European funds available, we are convinced that some
form of targeting will be necessary when the UK implementation
of this Regulation comes about. We urge MAFF to work with DETR
and the Rural Development Commission in its development of suitable
rural indicators of need which, we judge, will play a crucial
role in targeting measures under the Regulation to the most deserving
areas (paragraph 70).
32. The regional chapters of the ERDP include
an analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats
which will provide the basis for targeting the regionally-operated
measures. The SWOT was carried out with all the rural partners
including staff from the Government Offices in the region, the
environmental statutory bodies including the Countryside Agency
and English Nature, and the RDA's. On-going work on rural indicators
will be taken into consideration when it is complete.
Administration of rural development plans
Recommendation cc: We strongly favour the
focus on local level decision-making implicit in the model put
forward by the UK Objective 5b Partnership, and urge the Government
to consider it as a basis for implementing the Regulation in the
UK. RDPs will, of course, need to be made fully consistent with
the wider regional objectives of RDAs, as well as local authority
development plans (paragraph 72).
33. The project-based regionally operated
measures will be managed in much the same way as the Objective
5b schemes. Further details of the implementation proposals are
set out in Section 12 and Annex IX of the Plan.
Recommendation dd: It is imperative that effective
interim arrangements are made by MAFF, in co-operation with other
agencies, for administering the first tranche of RDPs, but it
should be made clear at the outset that such arrangements are
transitional and that at the earliest opportunity a decentralised
system of local and regional decision-making, along the lines
we have proposed, will take over full responsibility for the formulation
and implementation of RDPs (paragraph 74).
34. It is not the government's intention
to decentralise the policy and administration of all of the measures
under the ERDP over time. In government's view national priorities,
the need to avoid discrimination between producers or recipients,
and the rigorous monitoring and control arrangements required
by the European Commission, necessitate the retention of a national
framework, a National Strategy Group and the operation of some
measures at a national level.
Recommendation ee: To our mind, MAFF's holding
response in June as to its plans for the national implementation
of the Regulation was perfectly adequate in the circumstances;
but to be told nothing more by Mr Morley six months later, on
the grounds that the Agriculture Council had made no further progress
on the proposal, strikes us as inadequate. The future of this
element of the UK's rural development policy cannot be shelved
pending the outcome of CAP reform: the Ministry must and should
be able to exercise more independence of action (paragraph 75).
35. The detailed and onerous requirements
governing the content and preparation of rural development plans,
and the implementation of programmes, were only agreed in July
1999 in the form of implementing regulations (Commission Regulation
1750/1999). Because compliance with these regulations will be
the key to Commission approval of the ERDP, MAFF's approach in
not attempting to anticipate those requirements avoided nugatory
work, and enabled preparation of a plan closely aligned to the
Commission's requirements.
Co-ordination of EU and domestic initiatives for
rural development
Recommendation ff: Wherever possible, we recommend
the use of a single programming document for all relevant domestic
and EU rural development initiatives, in a similar way to that
currently used in Objective 5b areas. Use of single programming
documents would enable RDPs to be fully orchestrated with these
other domestic and EU policy activities, and would allow the fundamental
goals of rural development in specific regions to be addressed
in a more holistic way than is currently the case (paragraph 76).
36. The RDR requires the separate preparation
of rural development plan(s) covering the use of the accompanying
measures, and the non-accompanying measures outside Objective
1 and possibly Objective 2 areas. A fully integrated single programming
document is not permissible. The government believes, however,
that the ERDP fulfils many of the functions of an SPD and in particular
that the regional chapters provide a good foundation for integrating
objectives for rural support throughout regions. The ERDP and
SPDs make appropriate cross-references and linkages.
Degree of local community involvement and participation
Recommendation gg: We urge the Government
to ensure that truly representative partnerships of local and
regional policy makers, as appropriate, are established as soon
as possible, with such partnerships having custody for the operation
of RDPs (paragraph 78).
37. The full arrangements for the establishment
of national and regional partnership groups to prepare the ERDP,
and to oversee its subsequent implementation, are described in
the introduction, Section 12 and Annexes IX.
Co-ordination of agency responses
Recommendation hh: We believe there will be
a requirement for RDAs to have some direct involvement alongside
MAFF in the development of agricultural strategies for rural areas,
although we recognise that this sharing of responsibilities will
require careful forethought and planning. We anticipate that other
changes in the current mosaic of institutional and organisational
responsibilities will also be needed to encourage greater co-ordination
between agencies (paragraph 80).
38. The RDA's were involved both on the
National Planning Group for the ERDP and on the Regional Planning
Groups. They will also be involved in the implementation arrangements.
Institutional change
Recommendation ii: MAFF should assess how
the operation of Regional Service Centres can be tied more closely
with the activities of Government Regional Offices in future,
with the aim of co-ordinating the delivery of the whole spectrum
of policies which might impinge on rural development—for
example, transport, land use planning, forestry and environmental
issues—as well as agriculture. This is not a call for co-location
of their very different offices, but it is a call for increased
co-operation between the two organisational structures (paragraph
82).
39. The ERDP regional chapters were based
on Government Office (GO) regional boundaries and GO representatives
were involved fully in Regional Planning Groups.
40. MAFF is fully committed to the further
development and strengthening of its working partnership with
the GOs and the other key regional players to ensure that the
opportunities afforded in the ERDP regional chapters are fully
taken up. To this end, MAFF is currently working up detailed proposals
for integrating its regional policy activity into the GO framework
in line with the recommendations of the recent reports from the
Cabinet Office's Performance and Innovation Unit.
Recommendation jj: A revision of Planning
Policy Guidance note 7 would be welcome if it had the effect of
raising the profile of the issue of local planning permission
for rural development schemes and clarifying policy. A more co-ordinated
approach to Government policy in the regions along the lines we
have suggested would, we believe, enhance farm diversification
and hence rural development activities (paragraph 83).
41. The issue of the relationship between
planning, agriculture, and diversification of the rural economy
was raised in the PIU report or "Rural Economies" and
will be addressed in the forthcoming Rural White Paper.
Preparation for the implementation of the rural
development Regulation
Recommendation kk: In our opinion, at a minimum
work must begin now in four interrelated areas:
(i) in association with other organisations,
including the RDC and DETR, the Ministry must set out clear and
succinct guidance as to what integrated rural development might
mean in practical terms to local rural communities, specifying
its definition in terms of broad economic, environmental and social
goals;
(ii) plans should be drawn up by the Ministry
and circulated for consultation as soon as possible on interim
arrangements for the formulation and implementation of the first
tranche of rural development plans and the involvement of rural
policy makers and communities in this process; work should also
begin on developing the final arrangements proposed by the Ministry
for implementation of RDPs, including the role foreseen for partnerships
and decentralised local-regional decision making in this process;
(iii) indicators of rural need must be
developed and finalised and, on the basis of applying these indicators,
a preliminary list compiled of UK regions which will be targeted
under the regulation; and
(iv) based on current and past experience
of rural development policy instruments, including the RDC's Rural
Development Programmes, Objective 5b and LEADER initiatives, and
the Ministry's experimental schemes in the Forest of Bowland and
on Bodmin, "best practice" guidance should be distilled
to assist with the design, administration and delivery of locally-appropriate
rural development objectives through RDPs (paragraph 84).
42. The ERDP contains government's vision
for integrated rural development and how that can be achieved
through implementation of the RDR. Targeting of regionally operated
measures will be based on the SWOT analysis and on other relevant
and available indicators.
43. MAFF, in collaboration with rural partners,
will be preparing further guidance on the implementation of the
new measures over the next few months, while Commission approval
of the ERDP is awaited.
The rural White Paper and the Government's review
of the rural economy
Recommendation ll: We are concerned that the
rural economy review may not be being given due importance and
priority by the Government. We urge MAFF and DETR to jointly develop
a fully financed, integrated framework for implementing the Rural
Development Regulation by Autumn 1999 (paragraph 85).
44. The ERDP explains the framework for
implementing the RDR; together with the funding arrangements.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
March 2000
1 "Economic Appraisal of proposed Expenditure
under the Rural Development Regulation" MAFF Working Paper,
February 2000. Back
2
"The process that was initiated by MAFF for putting together
the England Rural Development Plan (ERDP) involved a bottom-up,
regional approach that worked alongside the development of the
national framework in an interactive way. This was, in our assessment,
an admirable recognition of a new era in regional and rural development
in England designed to generate additional capacity building in
rural development at the English and regional levels that was
unlikely to have happened so quickly or at all." Ex-ante
evaluation of the ERDP; Final Report; SQW Ltd. Back
|
