Minutes: Orkney Fisheries Local Action Group
Thursday 24 March2016 (14:00) at the Conference Room, Orkney College
Present:Francesca Couperwhite (Chair),Edgar Balfour, Stewart Crichton, Keith Dobney,Barbara Foulkes, Fiona MacInnes, Fiona Matheson, Amy Esslemont, Julie Murphy (minutes)
- Welcome
Francesca Couperwhite, the Chair,welcomed everybody to the first meeting of the Orkney Fisheries Local Action Group (FLAG). Shethen asked each of the FLAG members, and LEADER staff,to introduce themselves.
- Apologies
Apologies were received from Phyllis Harvey, Nic Thake (Francesca mentioned receipt of his comments indicating his support for the various documents submitted for consideration)
and Steve Ray (who had hoped to join the meeting by VC but had been prevented from doing so due to problems with the VC kit on Sanday).
- Business Plan and Local Development Strategy
Francesca advised that these documents had been forwarded by e-mail with the agenda, and that Amy Esslemont, LEADER Development Officer, had highlighted the relevant pages for the FLAG.
Francesca then asked Amyif there were any points she wished to highlight from these documents.
Amy explained that the Community Led-Local Development (CLLD)funding available under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) was from the European Union and Scottish Government,and it would be provided to Fisheries Local Action Groups to implement the fisheries actions within their Local Development Strategies (LDS). She advised that Orkney is one of the eight FLAGs in Scotland.
Amy pointed out that the FLAG was a sub-group of the LEADER Local Action Group (LAG), and would therefore operate under the same constitution. She added that in order for a meeting to take place, and conduct business, it would require 5 FLAG members to be present, to be quorate, and the public sector representation must not exceed 49%.
Amy advised that the FLAG’s role is to implement and promote the local EMFF CLLD programme, and monitor the objectives and targets set out in the fisheries section of the LDS. She explained that projects had to demonstrate a strong fit to at least one of the following priorities in the LDS:
- The diversification and sustainable management of the local fisheries sector
- Developing new market opportunities and added value for fish products
- Initiatives for diversification in fisheries-based communities
The fisheries targets in the LDSconsisted of:
- No. of new market opportunities identified- 8
No. of fisheries communities enhanced- 6
- No. of fisheries assets developed- 8
- No. of diversification measures developed- 6
Amy informed the FLAG that the financial allocation for the programme was £482,000 – which was a good result considering the bid was for £500,000. She explained that this was money entirely for projects, as staff costs and overheads would be covered by the LEADER programme. She highlighted that there was a discrepancy between the end dates for LEADER and EMMF which could mean that some funding would have to be held back to fund staff time in the later stages of the programme. This anomaly had been raised with the Scottish Government but was, as yet, unresolved.
A couple of FLAG members asked when the programme would be likely to start. Amy explained that the EMFFCLLD Framework Agreement from Marine Scotland had been received, but that clarity was being sought on a number of issues within the document, and this was currently being looked at by the Orkney Islands Council’s Legal Section. She confirmed that this may still take a few weeks to finalise, however, the programme is unable to commence as the Scottish Government had still to provide the final guidance.
- Application and Claims Process
The Chair explained that the diagram for this item demonstrated how the application and claims process would work.
Amy said that the processes for FLAG applications and claims were completely different from those of the LEADER programme. She advised that Marine Scotland (part of the Scottish Government) would make the final decisions on any project recommendations which they received from the FLAG. Marine Scotland would also be able to change the percentage of the grant awarded, and have the final say on eligibility of a project. Amy also explained that all claims would be submitted to, and processed by, Marine Scotland.
FLAG members asked what the grant award limits would be, and Amy explained that 50% was the local limit set; however, amounts were dependent on the type of applicant and project, and anylimits which may be detailed in the final guidance. Amy confirmed that this final guidance was still to be received.
A FLAG member asked about the timeframe for the programme and Amy replied that all funds are to be committed by the end of 2020and fully claimedby the end of2023; however LEADER staffing was only funded up to the end of 2020.
Francesca said that this situation should be monitored closely to ensure that all of funding could be utilised effectively.
- Proposed Expression of Interest
Francesca advised that this was proposed as the first step in the application process.
Amy explained the expression of interest form(EoI) would be an offline process, with forms being available from the LEADER office, and the application form would be completed online. She recommended that the form be used as a starting point, and explained that the benefit would be that projects could be advised whether their project proposal was a strong enough fit with the aims of the LDS prior to completing the full application.
The FLAG agreed to adopt the EoIform and comment was made on the amount of work involved in producing these documents.
- Scoring Criteria
Amy advised that these criteria had been based on the overly complicated criteria found within the draft guidance.
A member of the FLAG asked if the scoring would be done individually or collectively. Amy replied that the members would be able to review project applications individually, and then make a collective decision. It was also asked whether there would be a fast track process for applications. Amy confirmed that there would be and explained the proposed process.
Francesca asked if there were any more comments on, or suggestions for amendments, to the criteria. A member suggested that it would be a good idea to impose a limit on the amount of text which could be entered in the fields on the EoI form, thus creating a level playing field. It was agreed that this would be actioned.
A FLAG member enquired if the applications would definitely be completed online. Amy confirmed that this would be the case and although the system was not open for applications yet, she had some knowledge of it and it appeared to be user-friendly, and would be a different online system from that used for LEADER applications.
The FLAG agreed to adopt the scoring criteria.
- Proposed Complaints Procedure
Francesca explained that this procedure was based loosely on Orkney Islands Council’s complaints procedure, and asked the group for their comments or suggestions.
A FLAG member asked if a complaints procedure had been required by thelast LEADER programme. Amy confirmed that it had not been required. Amy also confirmed that for the fisheries programme the first point of contact for complaints would be the FLAG. Francesca underlined that this was the case, despite the FLAG not being the final decision-making body.
The FLAG agreed to adoptthe procedure.
- Dates for Next FLAG Meetings
Amy stressed that the dates presented to the group were proposed dates only, and were dependent on the receipt of the final guidance and access to the online application system. Francescaadded that dates were being put forward to allow members to plan ahead, and enable them to start quickly once everything required was in place. Amy added that the timescales were quite tight, but it was hoped that there could be 3 meetings in 2016.
The Chair underlined the importance of advising the LEADER staff well in advance ofnon-attendance at future meetings, as it would be important to ensure that the private/public balance was correct, and the number of members attending was adequate.
A member of the FLAG asked if comments sent before a meeting would count as attendance. Amy replied that it would not count as attendance but comments could be fed into discussion, but hoped that VC, or othersimilar facilities, would assist with attendance levels.
Francesca said that hopefully the proposed dates would work, and would not require any future amendment.
The FLAG agreed to theproposed dates for future FLAG meetings, as follows:
- 13 July 2016
- 28 September 2016
- 1 December 2016
- AOCB
The Chair asked members if they had any comments or questions, or any matters they wished to discuss, before closing the meeting.
Timing for applications was raised by a FLAG member as a concern in connection with the demands of scientific data collection during the summer months, and it was noted that the application process could not commence until the relevant guidance had been received from the Scottish Government. A FLAG member asked if there had been any reasons given for the delay. Another member suggested that perhaps the EMFF CLLD fund was one of the smaller funds and that perhaps the larger funds were being given priority. Francesca suggested that perhaps a communication from the FLAG Chair might help expedite the matter. It was agreed that the LEADER Development Officer and the FLAG Chair would action this.
A member asked if there was to be a ceiling on any individual applications amounts. Amy confirmed that this was not mentioned in the draft guidance, although the FLAG could decide on a limit if they wished. Francesca reminded the FLAG that they would need to be mindful of meeting the targets as laid out in the Local Development Strategy and that applications for large amounts would be expected to deliver across a number of targets.
A member enquired if a project application could cover multiple years, and Amy confirmed that this would be possible, but the staff administering the programme were only currently funded until 31 December 2020 by LEADER therefore post 2020 there may not be staff resource to assist with claims.
It was suggested that the Orkney Sustainable Fisheries Inshore Fisheries Management Plan (January 2016) could be circulated to the FLAG members. The plan outlines the aims for the future of inshore fisheries to ensure they
are well managed, sustainable and profitable. The Chair agreed that this should circulated by the LEADER Development Officer.
One of the FLAG members suggested that skyping be used for future FLAG meetings, as it was more straightforward than VC. It was agreed that Amy would look into this, and check with the Council’s IT section.
The meeting closed at 14:34.