Section C: Action taken to ensure high quality and effective implementation
90. This section describes action taken by the management authority (Defra) to support high quality and effective implementation of the ERDP during 2002.
General Background
91. 2002 saw the establishment of an ERDP Ministerial Board, bringing together the Minister of State for the Environment, the Minister of State for Rural Affairs, and the Defra Parliamentary Secretaries for the House of Commons and House of Lords in regular meetings beginning in December 2002 and continuing at intervals of about six weeks thereafter. The purpose of the Ministerial Board is to provide a strategic overview of the ERDP and related policy activities such as the Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food. It also considers the future development of the ERDP and its successor Programme (from 2007), and gives direction to ERDP delivery mechanisms.
92. A new group consisting of senior Defra officials and ERDP partners was also established in 2002. This group (the Policy Advice Group) supplements the National Strategy Group, whose role is described in Annex VI of the ERDP programming document, and aims to advise and make recommendations to the ERDP Ministerial Board on the policy and delivery of the Programme. It first met in October 2002.
93. The national ERDP Consultation Group and, at regional level, the ERDP Regional Consultation Groups, provide an important opportunity to seek views from key stakeholders on implementation and further development of the ERDP. The national Consultation Group met twice during 2002, in May and December. In addition, members of the Group were closely involved in the review of agri-environment schemes which began in 2002.
Horizontal requirements
94. Agri-environment scheme inspections resumed in October 2002 and will include whole farm spot checks on Good Farming Practice. Work is continuing with partners to maintain and develop processes for the effective monitoring of suspected breaches.
95. 2002 saw the introduction of automatic cross-checking of all land information provided on ERDP scheme applications against data held on the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS). The new cross-checking procedure will significantly ease the burden of this legislative requirement in the longer term, but in the short term it produced a large number of mainly minor queries which required investigation. Queries generated by the cross check inevitably led to some delay while data was validated, but the majority of claims were paid within the usual target periods.
Issues affecting land based schemes
Countryside Stewardship
96. The most beneficial Arable Stewardship Scheme options have now been incorporated into Countryside Stewardship. Nearly 30% of applicants applied for the overwintered stubbles options, and it is estimated that, combined, these options account for over 10% of the new land added to the scheme in 2002. Uptake of margins and other arable options, such as conservation headlands and wildlife seed mixture remained comparable with previous years.
97. The 2003 application window was brought forward two months earlier and closed one month earlier than usual, in April 2003. The new arrangements gave applicants an extra month overall within which to submit applications, and will increase the number of successful applicants receiving agreement offers before the end of December 2003.
Capital Items Review
98. Payments for capital items in the Countryside Stewardship and ESA schemes are currently under review. Where practicable, payment rates will be standardised across both schemes, making them easier to administer. Payment rates will also rise if it is thought that an increased incentive is required to secure the desired level of uptake. Proposals were issued for consultation to stakeholders in summer 2003.
Agri-environment scheme review
99. The Agri-environment Schemes Review progressed significantly in 2002. It explored the possibilities for streamlining and improving current agri-environment schemes through a major public consultation and the production of a draft framework for agri-environment schemes in England. The Review team has also developed a pilot 'entry-level' agri-environment scheme which will hopefully underpin the revised higher tiers. The Review will complement the process of developing an overall Government strategy for sustainable food and farming and has provided a mechanism for following up the recommendations on agri-environment schemes made by the Policy Commission.
100. Close contact has been maintained with other relevant review teams and there has been very close working with stakeholders, Government Departments and Agencies, land managers, farmers and the public to determine how agri-environment schemes should be designed in England. The framework document was completed in 2003 following a second public consultation, and the pilot 'entry-level' scheme is operating in four representative areas. These will both inform the development of new and revised schemes, which it is intended will be rolled out in 2005. Major policy changes and proposals for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) will need to be taken into account as they develop.
Access Review
101. Access in Countryside Stewardship and the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme was reviewed by public consultation in 2002 with a view to improving the current arrangements, particularly in the light of the new Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and feeding these into the parallel Agri-environment Schemes Review. A summary report on the consultation responses was published in January 2003. Ministers have agreed to introduce a number of changes to the scheme and a full report on the response to the consultation will be published in 2003.
Hill Farm Allowance
102. The UK Government is carrying out a mid-term review of HFA in 2003 and commissioned research during 2002 to examine new forms of land classification in upland areas. The results will feed into the HFA mid-term review.
Woodland Grant Scheme and Farm Woodland Premium Scheme
103. Early in 2002 Defra and the Forestry Commission launched a joint policy review of woodland creation in England under the Woodland Grant Scheme and the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme. The review was informed by, among other things: the June 2002 report of an economic, social and environmental evaluation [Footnote] commissioned from external consultants; the results of a public consultation exercise [Footnote] carried out between May and August 2002; and the work of an independent Steering Group which reported to Defra and the Forestry Commission at the end of November 2002. Defra and the Forestry Commission's response to the Steering Group's report, together with the report itself, was published on 15 April 2003 [Footnote] and is likely to result in some modification of the present schemes. The end of 2002 saw the start of a wider review of forestry policy in England generally which is expected to be completed in summer 2003.
Issues affecting the Rural Economy Schemes
104. The following paragraphs discuss the main implementation and quality control issues affecting the ERDP rural economy schemes: that is, the Rural Enterprise Scheme, the Processing and Marketing Grant, and the Vocational Training Scheme.
105. Many of the land based schemes included in the ERDP were already well-established by the time the Programme was launched. By contrast, the three rural ecocomy schemes have only been in operation since October 2000, and (although they share some attributes with earlier schemes under, for example, Objective 5b) in a number of respects represent a new departure for England. In addition, the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in 2001 meant that significant resources had to be diverted away from implementation of the ERDP, with the result that many of the activities which could have been undertaken to help the new schemes bed down had to be deferred.
106. A key priority in 2002 has therefore been to apply the lessons learnt from the first year of operating the rural economy schemes. Progress has been made in two main areas:
- improving the quality and flow of applications;
- achieving greater integration.
Improving the quality and flow of applications
107. Each of the project based schemes aims to support good quality individual projects which are able to produce sustainable outputs in line with national and regional priorities. In order to ensure that the investment of public money maximises the intended benefits, the schemes are run on a selective basis in which projects compete for the funding available.
108. Applications are assessed qualitatively and in most cases on the basis of business plans, which provide the opportunity for applicants to set out their case for grant aid. For example, they are asked to demonstrate the need for the project, explain their marketing plans, detail the financial package, show why the grant is needed, set out initial cash flows, and forecast the benefits that would accrue. The submission of better quality business plans and applications is therefore a key factor in ensuring that the schemes deliver good value for money. It also has advantages for scheme administration. For example:
- smoother operation of Regional Appraisal Panels (RAPs), which aids the decision making process;
- speedier application and claim processing times;
- minimising the time needed to chase up information from applicants and agreement holders;
- decreasing the likelihood that claims scheduled to be paid in one financial year slip into the next;
- improving the prospects for well planned indicators that will deliver the anticipated benefits.
109. Initial experience of running the rural economy schemes suggested a clear need to improve the quality of business plans in order both to reap these advantages and to meet scheme objectives. Defra's Rural Development Service therefore committed significant resources in 2002 to workshops and other forms of pre-application support. Similar levels of activity are continuing into 2003, with mounting evidence that it is achieving results. For example, as noted in paragraph 55, the number of projects being approved is on the increase even though the number of applications received is less than at the very beginning of the schemes.
110. It is essential for applicants to understand the need for a well-structured business plan if they are to launch a successful business enterprise or community project, whether or not they are applying for public funding towards the cost of the project. At the same time, clinics or workshops can offer guidance on the level of detail required to make the business plan an effective tool. For example, it would not be reasonable to expect the same amount of effort to be put into the business plan for a low value project as would be needed to support the case for a very high value project.
111. To further improve the focus of applications, Regional Targeting Statements for the rural economy schemes were introduced in 2002. These are designed to make the selection process for the schemes more transparent to potential applicants by summarising the types of activities that will be given priority for funding to meet regional goals.
112. Another step taken to improve the flow of applications was the introduction in the early part of 2002 of more flexible arrangements for the timing of Regional Appraisal Panels (RAPs). As noted in paragraph 54, these consider applications for support under the project based schemes following a detailed technical assessment carried out by Defra's Rural Development Service. It was originally expected that RAPs would meet no more than once every three months, but experience in 2001 showed that this was causing unnecessary delays and leading to impractical peaks of administrative activity. Allowing RAPs to meet more frequently in line with actual workflows has speeded up the processing of applications and helps ensure that projects are able to start to a realistic timetable. As a result, average times for determining applications fell by more than 50% in 2002.
113. As well as pre-application workshops and clinics, regions have also instigated arrangements to meet with applicants who have successfully had their projects approved by RAPs. This has proved to be an effective way of impressing on project managers the importance of meeting agreed milestones and submitting claims according to the agreed timetable. As such it is helping to avoid the slippage of claims from one financial year to another and thus minimising the risk of losing ERDP funds.
Achieving greater integration
114. One of the main challenges for the ERDP is to enhance its capability to deliver economic, environmental and social benefits as an integrated package. This integration has two main facets: improving the integration between each of the 10 ERDP schemes to ensure that they operate as a suite of complementary measures rather than separate entities; and integration of the ERDP with other rural funding streams and partner organisations in the pursuit of shared goals.
115. RDS regional officials have carried out a number of activities aimed at improving integration between the ERDP schemes. For example, in 2002:
- RDS technical staff were trained to ensure they can advise on all the ERDP schemes;
- It was decided to combine CSS and project-based schemes targeting statements into one document in some regions;
- joint site visits were held whenever possible, i.e. CSS and project-based schemes;
- meetings were held for all scheme advisers to discuss regional issues and share knowledge;
- promotional events have been attended by project-based and land-based advisers to ensure full ERDP coverage;
- land-based scheme staff attended project-based scheme visits;
- technical staff have been temporarily deployed into administrative roles to meet work priorities, broadening their knowledge of the ERDP.
116. Additionally, a number of initiatives have been developed to improve the integration of the ERDP with regional partners and other rural funding streams. Some examples of these initiatives are provided below :
- several regions have produced single documents, databases or web-based guides to all rural funding grants available in the region, working in partnership with the other main rural funders (for example, the Regional Development Agencies, the Forestry Commission, environment and rural agencies). In some regions, this has also been followed by an attempt to identify shared targets, so that regional objectives can be met through all the main funding streams.
- The pre-application workshops and clinics held by regions have been expanded in some cases to promote greater awareness among farmers and other rural stakeholders of the options available to them from other rural funding streams besides ERDP.
- Bilateral or multilateral partnerships have been developed between Defra's Rural Development Service and other rural funders or strategic players in most regions, to seek to ensure more integrated and coordinated treatment of particular grants or concerns. This has included liaison between:
- regional tourism boards and Rural Enterprise Scheme officers to promote the most effective use of tourism grants;
- the Rural Development Service and Regional Development Agencies for regional recovery or economic strategies and farm diversification;
- the Rural Development Service and Government Office Objective 2 programme managers to seek to ensure that there are no unreasonable gaps in funding between the two schemes;
- land based ERDP schemes and those of English Nature, the Countryside Agency and National Parks, so that these initiatives complement the ERDP schemes;
- training colleges, freelance training providers and training funders (including the Vocational Training Scheme) to coordinate and in some instances stimulate enhanced rural skills development through appropriate training provision for rural businesses.
Financial controls
117. Detailed checks have been applied on each claim during processing, including full IACS cross checking. Claims were only recommended for payment authorisation once the full range of administrative checks had been completed and cleared. A full separation of duties between authorisation, execution and accounting for payments was maintained. Separation was also maintained between those administering the claim and those involved in 'on the spot' compliance inspection controls. In operating the control environment due heed was paid to the requirements as prescribed under 1257/99 and 445/2002, and to EC document VI/10535/99.
Mid term evaluation of the ERDP
118. Following an earlier tendering exercise, Imperial College Consultants were selected to conduct a preliminary baseline study of the ERDP mid-term evaluation on Defra's behalf. The study commenced in June 2002.
119. The aim of the baseline study was to produce a start point for measurement of the impacts of scheme interventions. Existing surveys, data sets and evaluation sources were identified and relevant information collected. The consultants reviewed the available data and information with reference to the mid-term evaluation requirements. The consultant's report was issued in August 2002.
120. In December 2002, the consortium bid of ADAS/Segal Quince Wicksteed (SQW) were selected as the independent consultants to undertake the mid-term evaluation, following another tendering exercise. Work on the project is currently underway and is scheduled for completion by December 2003 in accordance with Commission requirements.
121. The mid-term evaluation is guided by a steering group. The purpose of the group is to:
- Monitor progress of the evaluation;
- To ensure that the consultants fulfil the requirements of the study;
- To assist the evaluation team where appropriate;
- For members to feed back information to and from the steering group.
Footnotes
16 "Evaluation of Woodland Creation in England under the Woodland Grant Scheme and the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme", June 2002, http://www.defra.gov.uk/esg/economics/econeval/woodland/index.htm [Return to text]
17 http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/woodlandcreation/index.htm [Return to text]
18 "Policy Review of Woodland Creation in England under the Woodland Grant Scheme and the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme: Response of the Forestry Commission and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Report of the Review Steering Group, April 2003": http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/pdfs/fwps/woodlandcreation.pdf [Return to text]
Page last modified:
17 August, 2005
Page published: 10 December, 2002