Scottish Rural Communities Policy Review: stage 1 - theories of change

Community Led Local Development

This chapter provides context for the Community Led Local Development (CLLD) theory of change (see Figure 1.1) and key feedback from stakeholders involved in design or delivery.

Background

In 2021-22 the Scottish Government commenced its Community Led Local Development (CLLD) programme to replace LEADER in Scotland, which had operated for almost 30 years. The funding available through this CLLD programme is managed by 20 Local Action Groups (LAGs) across Scotland. More detail is available in the ‘Stage 2. Review of Policy and Delivery Context’ published alongside this report.

Vision and aims

The wording for the vision and aims for Community Led Local Development is based on existing documentation (including information available online). It was reviewed by Scottish Government and refined based on stakeholder feedback.

There was a broad consensus among stakeholders on the importance of the programme empowering local people to identify and address their own needs and aspirations. It was noted that these priorities are often to deliver on needs that some stakeholders felt are not met by local or national government.

It was also strongly felt that cultural heritage should be recognised and supported as having intrinsic value to communities, rather than something to be ‘performed’ for tourists.

Activities

Stakeholder feedback on the activities of the Community Led Local Development (CLLD) programme revealed a strong desire to move beyond a narrow view of Local Action Groups (LAGs) as simply managing project funding. While acknowledging this as a vital function, participants stressed the much broader role the groups play in fostering community cohesion and empowering communities to drive their own development. This included supporting innovation and projects that might be considered more of a risk. This more strategic role in relation to funding was seen as particularly important against a background of reducing public funding with Local Action Groups (LAGs) able to reduce duplication and inefficiencies.

There was clear concern about the sustainability of relying heavily on volunteers in programme delivery, with calls for multi-year funding, greater flexibility, and exploration of opportunities to transition some volunteer roles into paid positions to avoid burnout and retain valuable expertise.

Short-medium term outcomes

Discussion of short-medium term outcomes focused on the concept of community wealth building, a people-centred approach to local economic development, which redirects wealth back into the local economy.^[2] Stakeholders emphasised that rural and island communities have championed community wealth building principles for many years. While recognising the importance of local ownership, stakeholders highlighted the need for realistic expectations, pointing out that communities often lack the capacity and resources to manage assets, especially those requiring significant upkeep or facing regulatory hurdles.

Additionally, stakeholders emphasised a need to improve collaborative links between rural and island communities, recognising that communities have different strengths which can be transferred through sharing knowledge and sharing/expanding resources.

Long-term impacts

There was a strong desire to move away from deficit-based narratives that frame rural communities as lacking. While acknowledging the very real challenges these communities face, stakeholders emphasised the need to recognise and leverage existing strengths and assets.

In relation to business sustainability, it was noted that this should not focus solely on growth.

In relation to empowerment, it was noted that there should be a focus on supporting communities to benefit from funding that is perceived to have prioritised urban areas. Community control of green space and vacant buildings were given as examples of ownership and control of local assets to benefit the community.

The power of peer learning and knowledge exchange, both within Scotland and internationally, was seen as a crucial element for amplifying successful community-led initiatives, with stakeholders highlighting the inspiring and empowering effect of seeing other communities succeed.

Assumptions and risks

Annual funding and budget cuts were highlighted as significant risks, and this was also discussed in the Scottish Rural Network workshop. In particular, the uncertainty created by the funding model was linked to the potential of losing experienced staff. A key assumption underpinning the work of Community Led Local Development is that Local Action Groups (LAGs) have sufficient funding, capacity and energy to keep going. Stakeholders highlighted the importance of a commitment from local authorities and supporting bodies to support these groups in the absence of long-term funding.

However, concerns were raised about some local authorities not recognising the capability of communities to manage budgets and deliver projects effectively. This was also linked to a sense of distrust amongst some Scottish Government policy officials who are perceived to not be engaging closely with community stakeholders. Stakeholders therefore highlighted the risk of Community Led Local Development (CLLD) funding not being properly ringfenced due to a lack of recognition and understanding of the capabilities and impact of the Local Action Groups.

Figure 1.1 Community Led Local Development (CLLD) theory of change