Scottish Rural Communities Policy Review: Harris and Scalpay case study

What could be improved?

Annual budgets

Participants highlighted that the confirmation and release of Community Led Local Development funding on an annual basis is a significant challenge for both the Local Action Group coordination and communities. As a result of this, application and project timelines end up being very tight, placing significant pressure on smaller communities and limiting the diversity of those who are able to apply. This also led participants to feel that the Local Action Group tended to focus on projects that had higher chances of direct impact and were more risk-averse, rather than prioritising earlier stage projects or projects which build towards longer-term community engagement:

“Where you're each year wondering if you're going to get funding, and if you are going to get funding, how much and what exactly are the kind of constraints on it going to be. It just makes it so, so hard to plan.”

Local Action Group membership and governance

The organisation and governance of the Local Action Group itself was challenged by participants. Some reported a lack of knowledge and transparency regarding who sits on the Local Action Group, how they were chosen and whether they are representative of the different communities, industries and interests across the Outer Hebrides:

“I never heard of the Local Action Group. I don't know what they do. Who are they, and what are they? I couldn't even find on the Council website who they were. There was no information on them.”

There was also a lack of information regarding the Local Action Group’s budgets, priorities and decisions. Whilst some participants said this approach could be a way to reduce conflict of interest, for others it developed mistrust around processes and how the funding is allocated. For example, some participants felt that the Local Action Group had little interest in supporting business development within Harris and Scalpay, while others felt there were imbalances in the investments towards natural and cultural heritage:

“...Each individual LAG creates their own vision. We don't get to see what that vision is, nor are we asked. That's the more important bit… I think that's the hinge that creates the problems here, because they're invisible. They don't come out and ask. They create the vision. Don't know where the vision is.”

Funding requirements for island communities

Participants said the requirements of Community Led Local Development funding were not always appropriate or proportional for community development in island settings. The detail requested in the application was considered too onerous for the money being applied for, placing unnecessary administrative burden on applicants. In addition, participants said the need for communities to pay in advance and claim back was difficult for smaller organisations. Participants also said that it was not always possible to meet the requirement to have multiple quotes for small items for community events, as there may only be one provider available:

“...Anything between £0-1000 you need three quotes. Now…we're holding an event, and we need tea and coffee and some biscuits. I'm not going to go into the shops getting three quotes…There is only one person, there's only one organisation, there's only one company in the area that does that work. So are you wanting us to go to the mainland to get quotes from somebody in the mainland? Bearing in mind, this is what is being given to volunteers who already have day jobs and everything else.”

Rising costs of upkeep and the specific additional costs of islands – for example, bringing in contractors to different parts of Harris and Scalpay – were also identified as instances where Community Led Local Development funding was not able to keep up with the increasing costs specific to island settings. Relatedly, participants felt there was a gap in the provision of funding for revenue to employ people within communities, as well as the maintenance and upkeep of buildings and other assets. This was considered vital by participants but some felt it had not been prioritised as it had not been considered ‘transformational’:

“There’s not revenue funding to be able to maintain...And because we're on an island, you have to go to the mainland to get things maintained… you have higher fuel costs, yeah, because it's island-based again.”