« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
HOW WE PROPOSE TO DELIVER STRUCTURAL FUNDS IN FUTURE
32. The Operational Programmes also outline the key roles and responsibilities for delivering of the new programmes. Structural Funds are currently delivered through a challenge-fund system managed by five Programme Management Executives ( PMEs). A revised, more strategic approach to Structural Funds delivery would reflect both the reduction in the scale and scope of future funding and the changed policy environment in Scotland post-devolution. It is necessary to modernise the delivery mechanism to make it more cost-effective, more closely integrated with the wider strategic objectives of Scottish domestic policy and in line with Scottish Executive Efficient Government reforms. Funds need to be delivered in the most efficient way possible to maximise reduced resources. To do this it is important that we use existing delivery mechanisms for domestic Scottish policy, where appropriate and effective, while retaining the benefits of the current challenge-fund system.
Intermediate Administration Bodies
33. A significant proportion of the funds in both the ERDF and ESF programmes will continue to be delivered through a challenge-fund system overseen by two new Intermediate Administration Bodies ( IABs): one for Lowlands & Uplands Scotland and one for the Highlands & Islands. These bodies will carry out broadly similar functions in the 2007-2013 programmes as have been carried out by the current PMEs in the 2000-2006 programmes. For the first half of the programming period at least, we expect challenge funding to still account for the bulk of programme resources; the approach will be reviewed as part of the mid-term evaluations of the programmes.
34. To improve the effectiveness of project selection and delivery, this challenge-fund approach could involve a more strategic focus and potentially support for fewer, larger, innovative projects that demonstrate clear added value to domestic policy actions. With the sharp cuts of funding, there is not the same scope to support the same volume of projects as in 2000-2006. Consequently, under several of the priorities, there could be merit in supporting projects that are explicitly partnership-based in design, showing synergies by combining complementary activities together and mainstreaming the principle of Structural Funds partnership from a programme to a project level. There may also be advantages in setting a minimum size for projects, particularly in the European Social Fund programme, where the costs to project and programme administrators of very small project awards are not necessarily compensated by the outcomes of these projects. Partner views on this approach are encouraged.
35. A tender process for the new IABs has been initiated. Further information can be found on the Scottish Executive European Structural Funds website at www.scotland.gov.uk/structuralfunds.
Question 12: How can the challenge-fund approach be improved to make it more effective in delivering outcomes and more efficient in operation?
Intermediate Delivery Bodies
36. In addition to the challenge-fund approach, the Executive is proposing to commission elements of the new programmes more directly through a selection of existing domestic delivery organisations, or Intermediate Delivery Bodies ( IDBs). Funding would be provided in blocks to these IDBs to support a handful of specific major projects which complement existing policy but demonstrate clear additionality. The Operational Programmes set out the IDBs for the start of the programming period, but the option of changing or extending the number of organisations designated as IDBs would be retained so that other bodies could be selected at a later point if appropriate. Through this approach, EU funding would add direct value in areas such as social inclusion, community regeneration and enterprise development.
37. Under ERDF Priority 1 (Sustainable Enterprises) we will provide some funding directly to the Enterprise Networks who, given the increased focus on the Lisbon Strategy in future programmes, will be required to deliver significant elements of future programmes. Highlands & Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise have received significant levels of Structural Funds through the 2000-2006 Programmes through multiple project grants from all the programmes. A commissioning arrangement would provide funding to these organisations more directly for a limited selection of projects that are region-wide in scope. The funding would only account for part of the annual allocations under these Priorities. This direct funding approach would not only enable the Enterprise Networks to support these activities more effectively on a region-wide basis, but provide greater financial control and management on their spending through the use of annually-reviewed operating agreements. Funding would need to be clearly used for additional, added-value activities and not substitute for domestic funding. The remainder of the Funds under ERDF Priority 1 would be delivered on the challenge-fund basis set out above.
38. For ERDF Priority 2 (Sustainable Communities) and ESF Priority 1 (Increasing the Workforce) there is scope for delivering the Funds via local partnerships and integrated action plans. Given the small scale of additional EU funding, there is a strong argument to focus resources spatially to ensure that they have the maximum impact. Funding would be spent on projects in line with the priorities set out in key local strategies, such as the Regeneration Outcome Agreements.
39. In particular, the Community Planning Partnerships ( CPPs) could take an increasing role in delivering the Funds under these priorities. The CPPs already have the major role in setting the priorities for domestic funding in support of existing Scottish social inclusion and regeneration goals. Funding would be spent on projects in line with the priorities set out in key local strategies, such as the Regeneration Outcome Agreements. Use of the CPPs would be introduced on a pilot basis to ensure that the organisations are capable of delivering funds effectively. These pilots would be evaluated and the approach assessed at the mid-term point in the programmes. Alongside the pilot CPPs, funding would be provided on a challenge-fund basis to other local partnerships.
40. Alongside the pilot CPPs, it is proposed that the rest of the funding be provided on a challenge-fund basis to other local partnerships within the designated eligible areas, making use of the principles of partnership-based projects set out in paragraph 34 above. This partnership bid approach would draw on the experience of the Development Partnership approach of the EQUAL Community Initiative. Full details on such an approach would be publicised after the close of the consultation, but in advance of the formal start of the Operational Programmes. Separate arrangements may be required for the 'gap' funding round, as set out later in this document.
41. Additionality would be a key requirement of any funding provided to IDBs. They would need to prove that the projects are additional, high value added and clearly visible in their European funding. The IDBs receiving direct funding would set out their activities, the value added of EU funding and their expected outcomes in annually-reviewed agreements. The initial plans would need approval of, and continue to be regularly monitored by, the Programme Monitoring Committees. The funding would be provided for three years initially, but as the agreements would stipulate financial and outcome targets and reporting obligations, performance would be reviewed on an annual basis before future funding is released. In addition, the new IABs would have responsibility for financial controls on all bodies receiving EU funding in a similar way to the current PMEs.
42. Under ERDF Priority 3 (Sustainable Infrastructure) and ESF Priority 3 (Access to Lifelong Learning), the University of the Highlands & Islands Millennium Institute would be commissioned to deliver a package of funding to invest in a small number of strategic infrastructure and lifelong learning projects to enhance the teaching and research capacity of UHI and the college network. This would only be for a share of funding in the two priorities - the remainder would be delivered on a challenge-fund basis.
43. ESF Priority 2 (Investing in the Workforce) would be wholly delivered through the challenge-fund system outlined above.
Question 13: What would be the most effective approach to using Community Planning Partnerships and other local partnerships for the delivery of elements of the programmes?
Interim/Transitional Arrangements
44. It is now clear that Operational Programmes in Scotland, like those in other parts of the EU and the UK, will not be approved and running by January 2007. Although every effort has been made by the Executive to try and achieve this, it has proved to be a challenging task. The delay has been partly caused by the late agreement of the EU Budget in December 2005 allied with the subsequent delay in obtaining agreement and adoption of the Structural Funds regulations. It was also necessary to await the completion of the UK-wide consultation on the NSRF. The delay presents a number of difficulties for some Structural Funds partners in Scotland particularly those responsible for projects dealing with vulnerable client groups which could be particularly affected by a delay to the 2007-2013 Programmes.
45. To minimise the disruption of a late start to the 2007-2013 programmes, the Executive will set out arrangements for providing gap funding to projects supporting these vulnerable groups to mitigate delays in future programme decisions. The intention is to operate a limited 'shadow round' soon after the conclusion of the consultation process in Priority 1 of the two ESF programmes in Scotland, when the priority and eligibility criteria can be set out in full. Further details on the gap funding arrangements - including the anticipated launch and award dates - are to be publicised on the Scottish Executive Structural Funds website by the end of October.
46. It is important to note that shadow round will provide gap funding using resources available for the 2007-2013 programmes. However, it cannot be a substitute for the need for existing projects to plan for and implement exit strategies with the conclusion of the 2000-2006 programmes.
Additional Views
47. We are keen to hear all views on the draft Structural Funds Operational Programmes for the Highlands & Islands. So, if in answering the questions posed thus far you feel that you have not expressed your view fully, please feel free to do so.
Question 14: Do you have any additional comments on the draft Structural Funds Operational Programmes for the Highlands & Islands?
« Previous | Contents | Next »