WARNING - By their nature, text files cannot include scanned images and tables. The process of converting documents to text only, can cause formatting changes and misinterpretation of the contents can sometimes result. Wherever possible you should refer to the pdf version of this document. CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY Paper 3 15/05/09 CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY FOR DISCUSSION Title: Delivery of the Scotland Rural Development Programme in the National Park – Update and Review Prepared by: Fiona Chalmers (Senior Land Management Officer) Hamish Trench (Head of Heritage and Land Management) Purpose To update the Board on the delivery of the Scotland Rural Development Programme in the National Park to date, consider its effectiveness in contributing to delivery of the National Park Plan and options to improve delivery. Recommendations That the Board a) note the current implementation of Rural Development Contracts within the National Park and the support work carried out by CNPA; and b) consider and advise on proposals to enhance the contribution SRDP implementation could make to delivering the National Park Plan. Executive Summary The Scotland Rural Development Programme (SRDP) is the most significant source of public funding available to support land-based businesses deliver public benefits – a relationship that underpins many of the special qualities of the National Park. An effective and integrated system of land management support is in itself an outcome prioritised in the National Park Plan, but it is also the basis on which land- based businesses can deliver many other outcomes of the plan. CNPA and partners have worked closely together to try to maximise the potential value of SRDP to the National Park – to businesses and to the public benefits identified in the Park Plan. To date, there gave been 57 successful Rural Development Contracts awarded in the Park, in which CNPA has provided direct advice in 24, and the total investment committed for a period of up to ten years is £4.86M. The significant majority of these funds are to biodiversity and forestry outcomes. PAGE 2 While the level of investment is significant, there remains a lack of targeting and a lack of proactive advice to land managers to help deliver the priorities of the National Park Plan. The paper therefore identifies options to enhance the existing delivery of Rural Development Contracts in the National Park through an enhanced case officer role that is able to provide advice and guidance up-front, to help land managers identify the opportunities and maximise the potential benefits of their proposals. Other options to accompany this role are also identified – discretionary funding to support management planning and feasibility studies and a regional allocation of RDC funding to the National Park to ensure best value from the investment in the case officer advice and guidance. Looking ahead to 2013, for both a new National Park Plan and the next rural development programme, options including a single RPAC for the National Park or a tailored funding stream directed at the Park Plan’s priorities should be considered as the most effective way to match resources to the priorities approved by Ministers in the Park Plan. PAGE 3 DELIVERY OF THE SCOTLAND RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME IN THE NATIONAL PARK – UPDATE AND REVIEW - FOR DISCUSSION Background 1. The Scotland Rural Development Programme (SRDP) is a £1.6 billion programme of economic, environmental and social measures designed to develop rural Scotland and covers the period from 2007 to 2013 although the programme was not fully operational until early 2008. The programme amalgamates/replaces most of the other schemes for agri-environment, forestry and capital grants. 2. SRDP is the most significant funding source available to assist the land- based sector to deliver public benefits, a relationship which underpins the ongoing management of many of the National Park’s special qualities and supports the viability of the land-based business sector. From the early stages of development of the Scotland Rural Development Programme (SRDP), CNPA and partners have recognised the potential of the programme to help deliver the outcomes agreed by Ministers in the National Park Plan. 3. CNPA has therefore engaged with the Scottish Government and partners closely over the development and implementation of SRDP. In the early stages we made the case for the National Park to be a Regional Proposal Assessment Committee area (RPAC), given the clear process of the National Park Plan development (2004-07) that resulted in a collective statement by government bodies and others on the management priorities for the area, to which resources should be focused. It was CNPA’s view that the most effective way to match the resources with the priorities was for the National Park to be an RPAC area. 4. That opportunity was not taken and the National Park was split across parts of three RPACs (Highland, Grampian and Tayside). Although more complex to achieve as a result of the split, the potential for SRDP to deliver for the National Park remained and the Board agreed in January 2008 to help make the structure we have work as effectively as it can by: a) Promoting the opportunity to apply for Rural Development Contracts (Rural Priorities) and LEADER. b) Helping land managers, businesses and communities to understand options and processes. c) Assisting land managers, businesses and communities target applications to best effect. d) Actively encouraging high quality applications that will contribute to delivery of the National Park Plan. PAGE 4 5. To do this we put in place a programme of communications and support. Given the split across parts of three RPACS, and the fact that the regional priorities are on the whole far broader than the focused priorities agreed through the National Park Plan, CNPA employed two Land Management Support Officers in May 2008 for a two-year fixed period to provide a point of co-ordination and practical support to land managers. The role of these two officers, supported by other staff across the Authority is to: a) Raise awareness of the opportunities of SRDP through promotion, events and training. b) Support land managers in identifying options and understanding the process for Rural Development Contracts (Rural Priorities) and LEADER applications. c) Actively target and encourage applications that will make a significant contribution to delivering actions within the National Park Plan. 6. It is now a third of way through the Scotland Rural Development Programme which ends in 2103. Just over a year on from the Board’s decision on CNPA’s role, this paper reviews the experience to date of SRDP implementation in the Park, considers the extent to which this approach is working and identifies changes that could help improve the effectiveness of SRDP in delivering the priorities in the National Park Plan. 7. An overview of SRDP and the elements within it is set out in Annex 1. CNPA has engaged most closely with LEADER and with Rural Development Contracts – Rural Priorities (RDCs-RPs) as these offer most potential to target delivery of public benefits in the Park. This paper focuses on RDCs-RPs as a means for the land-based sector to deliver public benefits and does not review the experience of LEADER to date which will be brought to the Board separately. This paper does not address general (national) issues experienced in implementation of SRDP so far, such as questions of accessibility or capping, as these are the subject of a national interim review being carried out for Scottish Government to which many stakeholders in the Park, including CNPA, have contributed. Rural Development Contracts – Rural Priorities 8. RDC – RPs is a competitive scheme and has 32 National Priorities with regional amendments decided on by the 11 regions through the Regional Proposal Assessment Committees. The National Park is split over three regions; Grampian, Highland and Tayside. The application process is web based and applicants are expected to use a series of ‘Packages and Options’ to submit an ‘Outcome Proposal’. There is a two stage process with a ‘Statement of Intent’ being submitted first PAGE 5 and then given an Amber or Red light, followed by the full application process for an Outcome Proposal. Any rural business or community group who can deliver an outcome is eligible for the schemes. 9. The proposals are assessed by a Case Officer from the three core public bodies; SGRPID, SNH and FCS, and if the application is given an amber light and a full Outcome Plan submitted, the application is awarded points on a scoring system based on 14 criteria and then the proposal is submitted to the ‘Core’ RPAC for consideration. There is a National Proposal Assessment Committee (NPAC) that considers all the applications submitted across the country before each RPAC meets and depending on the resources available gives an indication to the RPACs on the score threshold level. Rural Development Contracts – Rural Priorities in the National Park 10. Since the scheme opened last May there have been four assessments rounds and the national figures for approvals of applications for the first three are included in Annex 2 for information. 11. The figures for applications approved within the National Park, recently supplied by RPACs, are shown below. Of these, the LMSOs have assisted 24 of the successful applications and 1 of the unsuccessful applications. RPAC Successful / Unsuccessful Highland 27 10 Grampian 28 3 Tayside 5 0 Total 60 13 12. The total investment from SRDP into the National Park currently stands at £4.86M committed over a period of up to ten years, which breaks down into the themes shown in the pie chart below. (NB the rural communities theme here refers only to RDCs – there is a separate strand of investment through LEADER). The significant majority of funding relates to biodiversity and forestry outcomes (the forestry figures include one significant contract awarded in the last round for approximately £1.8M over ten years). PAGE 6 Image: Pie Chart £ 4.86m coming into Park area by Budget Allocation Business Development (colour Blue) 10% £ 488438 Biodiversity (colour Dark red) 45% £ 2181087 Forestry (colour Green) 39% £ 1878500 Rural Enterprises (colour Purple) 6% £ 312900 Rural Communities (colour White) 0% CNPA’s role in Rural Development Contracts – Rural Priorities 13. CNPA is a member of the ‘wider RPAC’ for each of the three regions but does not sit on the decision-making ‘Core’ RPAC, as shown below. 14. CNPA provides a source of specialist advice for case officers on how well proposals contribute to the National Park Plan and other policies or on the potential implications of a proposal. There is a range of specialist staff across heritage, outdoor access, social and economic development on which case officers can draw for advice. 15. To date, case officers have drawn on CNPA relatively little for specialist advice, and CNPA’s Land Management Support Officers have not PAGE 7 been routine notified by case officers when Statements of Intent or proposals are submitted – meaning CNPA’s ability to target proactive advice to influence proposals has been limited. 16. Issues of data sharing have hampered this approach so far. CNPA has not been able to access RPID data on RDC statements of intent, proposals or awards making it impossible to obtain a full picture of the contribution SRDP is making to the Park Plan. Following discussions with RPID it now appears that both National Park Authorities will shortly enter into a data sharing arrangement with RPID that should address some of these difficulties. CNPA support through Land Management Support Officers 17. With funding assistance from Cairngorms LEADER, CNPA employed two Land Management Support Officers (LMSOs) from May 2008 to; a) Promote the opportunities of SRDP; b) Support land managers in identifying options and understanding the process for RDC and LEADER applications; c) Actively target and encourage applications that will make a significant contribution to delivering the National Park Plan. 18. The LMSOs provide information and advice on which options to chose and how to get the best out of the scheme and also draw on this range of specialist advice in order to give the ‘front-line’ advice to land managers on the options and potential public benefits they can deliver. CNPA’s role through these two officers does not extend to preparing applications on behalf of land managers, but is designed instead to be able to work closely with case officers through providing proactive advice to applicants in the Park on how to maximise the potential benefits of an application. 19. The decision was made by the Board at the inception of these posts that the LMSOs would not help applicants to submit the application as that this may compete with private sector agents and advisors who provide this as a professional service. 20. To date, the LMSOs have attended 34 events including shows and awareness raising meetings and had individual contact with 84 customers, as detailed in the pie chart below: PAGE 8 Image: Pie Chart LMSO Contacts Farms (colour Dark blue) 46% Groups (colour Dark red) 11% Crofts (colour Green) 6% Estates (colour Purple) 10% Community (colour Mid blue) 6% Agents (colour Orange) 6% Others (colour Pale blue) 15% 21. In addition to facilitating SRDP, the LMSO role is also intended to help develop a good relationship between CNPA and the land-based sector, particularly the farming sector. As well as assisting SRDP applications, the LMSOs have represented CNPA in the Monitor Farm and Planning to Succeed Projects, and in 2009 will establish a farmers’ discussion group. Feedback from farmers and others that have made use of the guidance the LMSOs provide has been positive and suggests that the role is a welcome addition to the advice available through the mainstream SRDP bodies. 22. The current Land Management Support Officer arrangements are in place for a further year until April 2010, during which time they will be seeking to target particular priorities for which RDCs offer potential funding, for example wetlands and forest habitat networks, as well as continuing to offer the more general advice to farmers and land managers. A review of the Land Management Support function will be undertaken towards the end of 2009, drawing on further experience over the course of this year, and the board will be asked to consider the options for CNPA’s land management support role beyond April 2010. Delivery of the National Park Plan through Rural Development Contracts 23. SRDP is the largest source of public funding available to help land based-businesses contribute to delivery of the National Park Plan. The Plan sets out the collective aspirations of government and its agencies for the management of the National Park, approved by Ministers in 2007, and therefore businesses look to SRDP as a means to help deliver these objectives and priorities. The regional priorities at which Rural Development Contracts are targeted are very broad, and within them PAGE 9 there is significant potential to help deliver the priorities of the National Park Plan subject to sufficient advice and targeting. 24. SRDP has been seen by CNPA and partners as the primary means to deliver the outcomes of the priority for action ‘Integrating Public Support for Land Management’. These outcomes include: a) Maintaining a diverse and productive land management sector providing high quality primary produce whilst delivering public benefits. b) Better integration of public support directed at tangible public benefits. c) A more transparent process through which the public benefits targeted with public money are determined. 25. While the current implementation of SRDP goes some way to achieving these outcomes, it does not deliver the focused approach envisaged during development of the National Park Plan, largely as a result of the breadth of regional priorities split across three different RPACs. 26. In turn, land management support is also an important means of delivery for other priorities for action in the National Park Plan, particularly: a) Conserving and Enhancing Biodiversity and Landscapes b) Supporting Sustainable Deer Management c) Providing High Quality Opportunities for Outdoor Access d) Making Tourism and Business More Sustainable 27. CNPA has not been able to carry out a detailed assessment of the contribution SRDP has so far made to these priorities, although data recently provided by RPACs will help inform this. While the headline figures indicate a significant investment in the Park, discussions with land managers and advisers suggests that at the very least, there is potential to improve the targeting of RDC-RPs to ensure value for money in delivering the National Park Plan. 28. We expect to have a data sharing agreement with SGRPID in place shortly, alongside Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park, which will enable a more detailed analysis of the contribution to different priorities. Recommendation 29. That the Board note the current implementation of Rural Development Contracts within the National Park and the support work carried out by CNPA. PAGE 10 Opportunities and Options to Enhance Delivery of the National Park Plan 30. The present arrangements including contact points for specialist advice and the proactive role offered by the Land Management Support Officers was put in place in order to be able to add value to the roles of case officers and to help land managers target applications to maximise the potential benefits to the National Park. However, this has not worked as well as intended. In practice the restricted advice the case officer is able to provide, combined with a lack of connection between CNPA staff and case officers at crucial points of the application process has limited the ability of all to inform and enhance proposals. 31. Given that the arrangements put in place are not yet delivering the outcomes of the National Park Plan to the extent intended, we still want to identify ways to improve the arrangements so that the public funding delivered through RDC – RPs in particular are targeted most effectively at the priorities agreed and approved by Ministers for the National Park. 32. The Board has previously expressed a view that a more targeted grant scheme is required to meet the particular management needs of the National Park. In many ways the simplest option remains a single RPAC covering the Park. The options for establishing a single RPAC or an alternative National Park grant scheme are unlikely to be achievable within the remaining three years of the current SRDP. 33. The Board may wish to consider this as the longer-term approach, in which case discussions with partners can proceed on this basis, but there are also some potential improvements in the interim that could be considered. Key opportunity to enhance delivery of the National Park Plan through SRDP – an enhanced case officer role 34. The case officer role is the key interface with land managers in RDC- RPs. At present, the role is not able to give proactive advice and guidance to applicants and is restricted to giving feedback on applications received. An enhanced role would see case officers able to enter into a more proactive relationship with the land manager, helping to develop a proposal that would realise the best potential of that unit to deliver public benefits, consistent with the manager’s own objectives. This would allow more effective targeting of the priorities agreed for public benefit delivery in the Park and could enhance the quality of applications by extending the scope and identifying collaboration opportunities. It would be a more streamlined process than the current arrangements by which CNPA Land Management PAGE 11 Support Officers try to provide this advice without having access to information on proposals, giving a single point of contact that is identifiably connected to the National Park, helping to deliver the ethos of SEARS. 35. From the land manager’s perspective, it also offers a more positive and joined-up approach from government. Rather then leaving land managers to work through the range of potentially conflicting public policy objectives, the case officer would be able to help identify which of those objectives are most appropriate to the land holding and work with the land manager to identify how to maximise the potential benefit. The National Park Plan and associated strategies provides a clear framework within which this advice would be given. 36. While the enhanced case officer role proposed above would in itself offer significant improvements to the delivery of public benefits, there are a number of other options for change that would complement that role and enable greater enhancement in support for public benefit delivery in the Park. Discretionary funding to support management planning and feasibility studies 37. SRDP, and RDC-RPs in particular, is the most significant source of funding available to land-based businesses to help deliver public benefits and to provide a single ‘entry point’ to funding. To date CNPA and partners have tried to work within this single-entry point to deliver the National Park Plan priorities. 38. However, to date there appears to be a gap in support to assist the management planning or feasibility studies required in some cases – either to get to a position from which it is possible to apply for an RDC, or to take the genuinely integrated approach to management that is promoted through the National Park Plan. There are some specific measures within RDC-RPs for certain planning, and changes are currently being made to include options for ‘herbivore management plans’ which should be a significant improvement, but there remains a gap to support integrated management plans. Other examples include feasibility studies for renewable energy use – one of the main barriers to businesses appears to be the risk involved, and the cost of feasibility studies to identify options and provide confidence in viability. 39. We are aware of a number of situations in which land managers have abandoned ideas that could ultimately have received RDC-RP funds and delivered benefits to the Park on a significant scale, because of the up-front costs and associated uncertainty. In a National Park, it seems important to be able to support land managers to take an integrated approach to identifying the public benefit potential of their holdings and to identify how those could be supported. PAGE 12 40. In some cases, CNPA and partners have stepped in to provide assistance, for example by funding the feasibility study for riparian woodland potential in the upper Dee with Forestry Commission Scotland and the Dee Fisheries Board, providing information to inform Invercauld, Mar and Mar Lodge Estates. The Low Carbon Estates project is also funding feasibility studies for low-carbon infrastructure development on five pilot estates. Feedback from land managers confirms that without financial support at that stage, these projects are unlikely to happen due to the uncertainty and risk. By assisting with funding, this work can show what is possible and how it can be implemented, reducing the risk significantly and allowing land managers to proceed with funding applications for implementation. 41. Currently our ability to provide this kind of support is very limited. We therefore propose discussions with partners to identify how best to overcome this barrier of feasibility and management planning within the National Park. This would form a second part of the ‘front-end’ advice and support available to land managers in the Park, helping the enhanced case officer role above to work with land managers proactively. Ring-fenced or regionalised funding for RDC-RPs with the National Park 42. There is A risk that resources allocated at the ‘front end’ of the application process as outlined above, are not effective if at the end of the process there remains insufficient funds to award a reasonable number of contracts. In order to ensure value for money the enhanced case officer role should be accompanied by ring-fenced or ‘regional’ funds allocated to the National Park area. This risk is compounded by the ongoing risk of central SRDP budgets being fully committed at early stages each year – for example the agrienvironment budget for 2009 is already fully committed meaning no further agri-environment proposals can be approved this year. 43. The intention is not to remove the competitive element, simply that if government does invest in providing better up-front advice in the National Park, then there should be certainty that an appropriate proportion of those proposals that score highly are likely to be awarded. Advantages 44. Overall, the advantages of these proposals include: a) Single point of administration and advice for land managers that is clearly identified with their geographical context of the National Park, helping to deliver the SEARS ethos in practice. b) Streamlined administration for SRDP partners. PAGE 13 c) Better targeting of proposals to agreed priorities within the Park leading to higher quality proposals, better outcomes and greater value for money. d) Building a more constructive relationship between government and land managers in the National Park that should yield benefits beyond the immediate prospect of RDC funding. Risks 45. The risks associated with the proposals include: a) The perception of unfair advantage to land managers within the National Park – although proposals would still be judged by RPACS against the same criteria. b) Managing expectations – the limited funding and possible reduction in assessment rounds currently seen may result in good proposals being developed with no realistic prospect of sufficient funding being available. 46. Both these risks could be addressed to some extent through explicit recognition that National Parks are special places where there is a particular need to target land management support to help deliver the National Park Plans, and delivered through a regionalised funding allocation. Recommendation 47. That the Board consider and advise on proposals to enhance the contribution SRDP implementation could make to delivering the National Park Plan. Consultation 48. This paper draws on discussions on the collective experience of SRDP implementation in the National Park with land managers, agents and advisors, RPAC members and Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority. Over the last year CNPA has held many informal discussions at over 30 events and over 80 individual contacts with the Land Management Support Officers as well as formal meetings with agents and advisors and RPAC members. To date these options have been discussed informally with RPAC members and further consultation with them on implementation would be the next step. 49. CNPA and Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority held a joint meeting with Peter Cook to contribute the National Park perspective on SRDP to the review he was commissioned to prepare for the Scottish Government. PAGE 14 Policy Context 50. Paragraphs 22-27 set out the central role that SRDP has to play in delivering the National Park Plan. Not only is an effective and integrated land management support system, targeted at agreed public benefits a priority in itself in the Plan, it is the basis on which many of the other outcomes agreed for the Park can be delivered through land-based businesses. Implications Financial Implications 51. There are potential financial implications to CNPA and partners of proposed changes to the case officer role and discretionary funding. In both cases CNPA would seek to share the costs involved with other National Park Plan partners as part of the wider SRDP and Park Plan delivery. At present, CNPA’s operational plan includes the provision of two Land Management Support Officer posts until April 2010. Expenditure beyond this point will be reviewed in line with discussions on the proposals in this paper and through future operational planning. This paper does not commit CNPA expenditure beyond the existing operational plan commitments. Presentational Implications 52. The key presentational implication in these proposals is promoting the case that National Parks, designated as special places by Parliament with National Park Plans approved by Ministers, require a special focus in land management support in order to meet their particular management needs. Implications for Stakeholders 53. There are implications for a number of partners responsible for SRDP, notably SGRPID, SNH and FCS, with whom these proposals require further discussion. Consideration of the support and assistance available to land managers, and their relationship with CNPA should also be considered explicitly in taking forward any proposals for change. Next Steps 54. Following the Board’s advice on the proposals within this paper, CNPA will take forward more detailed discussion with SGRPID, SNH and FCS to consider how changes could be delivered. In the meantime, the LMSOs and other staff will continue to help land managers make the most of existing opportunities through SRDP and continue to build up a more detailed analysis of delivery of the National Park Plan priorities PAGE 15 through SRDP in order to inform the next National Park Plan and discussions on SRDP post 2013. Fiona Chalmers Hamish Trench May 2009 fionachalmers@cairngorms.co.uk hamishtrench@cairngorms.co.uk PAGE 16 Annex 1: SRDP - An Overview 1. Funding for the SRDP comes from three sources: a) The Scottish Government - 71% b) The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development – 8% c) Modulation – 21% 2. Around two-thirds of funding for the Programme comes from Scottish Government resources and Modulation enables funding to be redirected from Common Agricultural Policy resources under Pillar 1 to Rural Development measures under Pillar 2. 3. The three key themes (or 'Axes') of the European Commission Regulation ( EC 1698/2005) on support for rural development are: a) Axis 1 - Improving the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector b) Axis 2 - Improving the environment and the countryside c) Axis 3 - Improving the quality of life in rural areas and diversification of the rural economy 4. There is also a fourth Axis that uses the LEADER approach to deliver a locally-driven approach to innovation and development administered by local partnerships. 5. SRDP includes the following funding programmes and the £1.6bn is allocated as shown. a) Less Favoured Area Support Scheme - £427m b) The LEADER initiative - c£80m c) Rural Development Contracts – Rural Priorities – c£500m d) Rural Development Contracts– Land Managers Options – c£90m e) Food Processing, Marketing and Co-operation Grant Scheme - £70m f) Crofting Counties Agricultural Grant Scheme – £35m g) Forestry Challenge Funds (WIAT & Woods for People) - £14m h) Skills Development Scheme– £12m i) Legacy scheme payments (RSS, CPS, SFGS etc.)- £338m 6. SRDP does not include the Single Farm Payment which is funded through Pillar I of the EU Rural Programme PAGE 17 Figure X shows the breakdown of the £1.6bn of funding available during the programme: Image: Pie Chart SRDP 2007 - 2013 LFASS (colour Blue) £427m 26% Legacy Schemes (colour Red) £338m 20% Other (colour Green) £301m 18% Rural Development Contracts -(RPs and LMOs) (colour Purple) £596m 36% 7. Givewn that a substantial amount of the funds are either already committed or held within non competitive schemes such as LFASS and Rural Development Contracts – Land Managers Options, the best open funding options for delivering actions within the National Park Plan come within the Rural Development Contracts – Rural Priorities (RDC – RPs) and to a smaller extent (in terms of funding) the LEADER programme. The CNPA support for land managers and communities has thus been concentrated on these two funding themes. PAGE 18 Annex 2 – Key National Statistics on Rural Priorities at 15 April 2009 a) Agencies have received over 5,700 Statements of Intent for Rural Priorities in the 12 months since this first stage of the application process was launched. b) 3,030 of these have already progressed to the Proposals stage c) 2,269 of these cases have already been considered in the first 4 assessment rounds d) 1,802 of these cases have been approved in full or in part ( 79% of all cases considered to date) e) The assessment round in February approved 73% of the 1,377 cases considered (in full or in part) f) A total of £124.5 million of funding has already been approved under Rural Priorities, in the seven months since the full application process was opened for business (£5.9 M in August, £22.5 M in October, £28.8 M in December and 67.3 M ) g) For agri-environment priorities, we have approved 79% of total money applied for in the first seven months of the full application process. This equates to 1174 priorities, with a total value of £66.13 M Region / Current RPAC round / Previous RPAC rounds / Total Approved to Date Argyll £4,991,678.11 £5,471,971.49 £10,463,649.60 Ayrshire £3,201,796.81 £2,992,926.96 £6,194,623.77 Borders £6,284,186.53 £5,573,270.63 £11,857,457.16 Clyde Valley £1,183,228.62 £1,304,958.60 £2,488,187.21 Dumfries and Galloway £7,381,400.71 £4,033,592.52 £11,414,993.22 Forth £5,340,351.01 £3,519,485.77 £8,859,836.78 Grampian £15,675,072.94 £18,132,950.47 £33,808,023.40 Highland £11,110,799.34 £6,413,609.70 £17,24,409.04 Northern Isles £5,213,234.20 £3,655,217.17 £8,868,421.37 Outer Hebrides £2,199,553.06 £306,442.87 £2,505,995.93 Tayside £4,686,835.31 £5,795,644.73 £10,482,480.05 Total £67,268,136.63 £57,199.970.90 £124,468,077.53 PAGE 19 Annex 2 – Key National Statistics on Rural Priorities at 15 April 2009 (cont) Total Applications at each Stage 15 April 2009 Region / SoI Pre-Assessment / SoI Assessment in Progress / SoI Assessment Complete (Red) / Sol Assessment Complete (Amber / Proposal Incomplete / Proposal Submitted / Proposal Committed / Grant Total Argyll 7 16 134 110 20 16 226 529 Ayrshire 9 17 95 64 19 23 114 341 Borders 23 6 106 112 40 36 217 540 Clyde Valley 9 6 45 55 10 9 68 202 Dumfries and Galloway 10 26 145 112 45 34 216 588 Forth 16 31 92 88 48 22 145 442 Grampian 32 27 287 188 82 39 624 1279 Highland 18 54 164 173 92 59 257 817 Northern Isles 5 18 70 45 19 15 198 370 Outer Hebrides 3 7 25 31 13 3 74 156 Tayside 9 37 112 76 24 23 200 481 Grand Total 141 245 1275 1054 412 279 2339 5745 PAGE 20 Annex 2 – Key National Statistics on Rural Priorities at 15 April 2009 (cont) Data Broken down by Regional Priority This page shows the money awarded against each of the regional priorities for the first three RPAC rounds. The results from the February 2009 RPAC have now been announced. These pages will be updated with the data from the February round shortly. Priority / No of Priorities Approved / Total Funded 1. Capital investment in agricultural businesses 163 £12,488,329.6 5 2. Encourage new entrants to restructure/modernise businesses 8 £688,773.96 6. Local wealth and reduce food/timber miles 3 £84,788.23 7a. Enhanced viability and improved quality of primary products 1 £8,040.00 7b. Organic conversion and maintenance 57 £4,257,747.51 8. Halt in the loss of biodiversity and reverse previous losses 403 £21,665,267.29 9. Nationally important designated sites into active management 43 £2,524,284.25 10. Viable populations of rare and/or endangered species 32 £1,241,826.17 11. Reduced Threat from Non-Native Species 2 £84,965.97 12. Increase in the Area of Connected Natural Habitats 19 £603,137.18 13a. Safeguarding and Enhancement of Rural Landscapes 15 £215,054.98 13b. Enhance Enjoyment of Landscapes 3 £3,495.00 13c. High Quality Design to Strengthen the Landscape 3 £38,311.80 13d. Actions at a Landscape Scale which Strengthen the Landscape 20 £298,549.73 13e. A strengthening of the special qualities within National Scenic Areas 1 £46,318.23 13f. Action for Landscapes whose Qualities have been degraded by past use 3 £78,411.50 14. Increased contribution to landscapes from woodland and forests 65 £1,115,204.55 15a. Enhance/conserve most significant buildings and sites 2 £297,500.00 15b. Management of local vernacular rural buildings 4 £28,295.00 15e. Increased viability of existing rural building stock 8 £358,931.25 16. Reduced diffuse pollution from rural land uses. 20 £662,339.62 17. Improved water quality of surface + ground water bodies 10 £715,610.06 18. Good ecological status of at risk water bodies 5 £97,396.14 19. Sustainable flood management and reduced flood risk 1 £1,449.00 PAGE 21 21. Improved carbon sequestration 15 £1,178,987.73 22. Reduced emissions of greenhouse gases from land based operations 2 £31,648.00 23. Improved carbon sinks 35 £686,969.00 Annex 2 – Key National Statistics on Rural Priorities at 15 April 2009 (cont) 24. An efficient and reliable wood fuel supply chain. 2 £74,229.05 25. Increased public access 7 £22,714.96 26a. Encouraging innovation and new product development 7 £416,063.50 26b. Strengthening links between primary producers and other industry sectors 1 £180,750.00 27. Higher value rural goods and services 3 £255,191.00 28. Increased local use of renewable energy 1 £317,192.62 29. Improved number of career development opportunities 3 £150,872.36 30. Improvement in the value + duration of rural tourism visits 21 £2,751,830.60 31. Improved viability and well being of Scotland's rural communities. 5 £1,645,193.70 PAGE 22 Annex 2 – Key National Statistics on Rural Priorities at 15 April 2009 (cont) Data broken down by Options This page shows the amount of Options approved across the country for the first three RPAC rounds. Option / Total No. of Options Approved Ancient Wood Pasture - In-bye Land 2 Arable reversion to grassland 5 Area access management - amenities 1 Area access management - creation + upgrading paths 5 Area access management - leaflets 2 Area access management - near communities 1 Area access management - signage 8 Area access management - vegetation reduction 1 Away-Wintering of Sheep 8 Biodiversity Cropping on In-Bye - basic management 33 Biodiversity Cropping on In-Bye - with binders/stooks 2 Bracken Management Programme for Habitat Enhancement 24 Buffer Areas for Fens and Lowland Raised Bogs 1 Coastal or Serpentine Heath 20 Community services and facilities 9 Conservation Management for Small Units - Individual 27 Control of grey squirrel for red squirrel conservation 2 Control of invasive non-native species - Giant Hogweed 1 Control of invasive non-native species - Rhododendron 1 Conversion to organic farming - arable 27 Conversion to organic farming - fruit and veg 3 Conversion to organic farming - improved grassland 31 Conversion to organic farming - rough grazing 18 Create, Restore and Manage Wetland 17 Creation and Management of Cover for Corncrakes 11 Creation and Management of Species Rich Grassland 62 Cropped Machair - with FYM/seaweed 4 Cropped Machair - with FYM/seaweed and binder/stooks 1 Cropped Machair - without FYM/seaweed 3 Development/Creation Of Micro-Enterprises 10 Diversification Outwith Agriculture 40 Enjoyment of rural landscapes - restore built boundaries 16 Enjoyment of rural landscapes - screening 2 PAGE 23 Enjoyment of rural landscapes - veteran trees 8 PAGE 24 Annex 2 – Key Statistics on Rural Priorities at 15 April 2009 (cont) Option / Total No. of Options Approved Enjoyment of rural landscapes - viewpoints 2 Extended hedges 74 Grass Margins and Beetlebanks - mixed arable 116 Grass Margins and Beetlebanks - organic 3 Grazed Grassland for Corncrakes 22 Grazing Management of Cattle - Introduction 18 Grazing Management of Cattle - Retention 6 Habitat Grazing Management 3 Hedgerows - 2 years for landscape benefits 38 Hedgerows - 3 years for biodiversity benefits 258 Information + awareness - interpretation 4 Livestock tracks, gates and river crossings 3 Lowland Heath 7 Lowland Raised Bogs - Basic management 7 Lowland Raised Bogs - with grazing management supplement 6 Maintenance of organic farming - arable 26 Maintenance of organic farming - fruit and veg 2 Maintenance of organic farming - improved grassland 29 Maintenance of organic farming - rough grazing 20 Mammal and Bird Control - crow control 8 Mammal and Bird Control - for Black Grouse/Capercaillie 7 Mammal and Bird Control - Predator control 4 Management and repair of vernacular buildings 13 Management of archaeological or historic sites 7 Management of Cover for Corncrakes 34 Management of Flood Plains 17 Management of Habitat Mosaics 72 Management of Moorland Grazing 36 Management of Species Rich Grassland 221 Management of Wetland 236 Manure/slurry storage and treatment - manurestorage 44 Manure/slurry storage and treatment - manure treatment 2 Moorland - Stock Disposal 36 Moorland Grazings on Uplands and Peatlands 5 PAGE 25 Option / Total No. of Options Approved Mown Grassland for Corn Buntings 10 Mown Grassland for Corncrakes - 1 Aug 17 Mown Grassland for Corncrakes - 1 Sept 29 Mown Grassland for Corncrakes - 15 Aug 15 Mown Grassland for Wildlife 167 Muirburn and Heather Swiping 16 Nutrient management plan 2 Off-Wintering of Sheep 12 Annex 2 – Key Statistics on Rural Priorities at 15 April 2009 (cont) Option / Total No. of Options Approved Open Grazed or Wet Grassland for Wildlife 269 Processing and marketing of primary products 19 Provision and upgrading of infrastructure 17 Renewable energy - agriculture 18 Restructuring agricultural businesses 132 Scrub and Tall Herb Communities 50 Setting up young farmers - interest rate relief 8 Skills development - individual training 37 Soil and water management programme - deliver plan 3 Soil and water management programme - plan 10 Supplementary Food Provision for Raptors - Hen Harriers 1 Support for renewable energy - non land-based 7 Sustainable Management Of Forests - LISS 1 Sustainable Management Of Forests - Native woodlands 1 Sustainable Management Of Forests - Restructuring felling 53 Wardening for Golden Eagles - Farm unit 1 Water Margins - Enhance biodiversity 296 Water Margins - reduce diffuse pollution 38 Wild Bird Seed Mix/Unharvested Crop 187 Wildlife Management on Upland and Peatland Sites 3 Woodland creation - Mixed conifer/broadleaved woodland 24 Woodland creation - Native woodland - natural regeneration 6 Woodland creation - Native woodland planting 83 PAGE 26 Woodland creation - Productive broadleaf woodland 1 Woodland creation - Productive conifer - low cost 3 Woodland Improvement Grant - long term forest planning 43 Woodland Improvement Grant - non woodland habitats 1 Woodland Improvement Grant - reducing deer impact 8 Woodland Improvement Grant - restructuring regeneration 41 Woodland Improvement Grant - woodland habitats and species 5