« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The consultation on the Lowlands and Uplands 2007-2013 Operational Programmes was launched on 24 October 2006 and was completed on 8 January 2007. The consultation covered the two programmes for the region under the new Competitiveness Objective of the 2007-2013 Structural Funds period: one European Regional Development Fund ( ERDF) Programme and one European Social Fund ( ESF) Programme. The consultation was held in parallel with the consultation of the Operational Programmes for the Highlands and Islands area under the Convergence Objective.
In addition to the written submissions for the consultation, there were two other parallel forms of engagement with partners as part of the consultation, principally through a series of workshops held with partners with the Programme Review Group. A separate consultation has taken place on the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the ERDF Programme and is published separately.
Overall, there was a strong response to the consultation, reflecting the historical active engagement of Scottish partners in the development of Structural Funds programmes. Written responses were submitted by 103 respondents altogether from across the region, reflecting nearly all geographical parts of the region and all stakeholder sectors.
Socio-economic analysis
Partners were largely positive about the socio-economic analyses underpinning the Operational Programmes. A number of suggestions were made for their improvement, including more sub-regional analysis, sensitivity to local economic characteristics and a range of thematic issues such as the role migrant labour and the impact of demographic changes. These will be added to the revised Operational Programmes, strengthening the analyses. In addition, following the completion of the SEA, environmental analyses of the region will be included as well.
Priority content
On the appropriateness, consistency and coherence of the ERDF priorities, respondents were largely positive but there were numerous comments on ways in which the priorities could be refined. Under Priority 1, several respondents asked for targeting in favour of the areas of need within the region while others argued that the support for research and innovation should be defined more widely. Under Priorities 2 and 3, concerns were raised about whether specific areas would be covered under the 'urban' and 'rural' definitions under each priority. Views on allocations were similarly mixed but with little consensus on an alternative funding split.
In responding, the Executive will make several changes to the priorities. To give greater focus to the region-wide support in the Programme, Priority 1 will now be split: the new Priority 1 will continue to focus on research and innovation (though with a wider view of the processes) while Priority 2 will concentrate on access to finance, entrepreneurship and resource/energy efficiency. No spatial targeting will be introduced for this priority. The new Priorities 3 (urban regeneration) and 4 (rural development) will remain, but overall there has been a re-balancing of funding towards the region-wide priorities (1 and 2).
With regards to ESF priorities, again, respondents were satisfied that they broadly addressed the region's challenges and demonstrated concentration and coherence. However, a significant number of respondents asked whether Priority 3 (lifelong learning) could be subsumed within Priorities 1 and 2 (although there was strong counter-arguments put forward). There were mixed views on spatial targeting, some wanted it relaxed for Priority 1, other extended to the other priorities. There were also a number of concrete suggestions of eligible groups and activities that should feature in the priority descriptions.
The Executive welcomes the broad approval of the priority structure and the strategic focus. We believe that the case for a separate lifelong learning remains strong, but will adjust the allocations somewhat to give more funding to Priorities 1 and 2. The suggestions on revising eligible groups and activities will be examined seriously.
Comments were also made about the Programmes' fit with domestic and other EU policies. Respondents felt that more account should be taken of regional/local strategies as well as a number of major national strategies (particularly for tourism and the environment). In terms of parallel EU funding streams, more needed to be done to make Structural Funds complement the Scottish Rural Development Programme, the European Fisheries Fund, the new EU research funding programmes and other EU initiatives. The Executive accepted that strategic fit was paramount for the new Programmes - at regional and local as well as national level - and would provide more detail on how complementarity with domestic and EU policies can be achieved in the final Operational Programmes.
Horizontal themes
Respondents welcomed the cross-cutting themes of environmental sustainability and equal opportunities and a number of concrete suggestions were made about putting the commitment to these themes into operational practice. With respect to environmental sustainability, the recommendations are part of the Strategic Environmental Assessment consultation and the Executive will set out final views on how to build on the Scottish legacy in these themes as part of the consultation to that response. For equal opportunities, we have conducted an equal opportunities assessment of the Programmes involving stakeholders. Their recommendations will also inform the final shape of the Programme documents. A third cross-cutting theme - social inclusion - has been added for all programmes.
Delivery
On the delivery of the Programmes, respondents believed that the current system of competitive bidding was a strong foundation for the future - it should be 'fine-tuned' not 'overhauled'. As a result, there was some wariness about the proposed use of Intermediate Delivery Bodies, particularly Scottish Enterprise, and respondents asked for greater control and monitoring of the bodies' activities. Several suggestions were made for improving the challenge-fund approach, although several partners did not feel that partnership and minimum project threshold requirements should be introduced. The current structure of peer group appraisal and representative committees should be kept but with the creation of a single Programme Monitoring Committee for the two Programmes. A number of specific recommendations were also made regarding project appraisal and selection.
The Executive fully agrees with the need to preserve the key features of the current system while adopting it to an environment of reduced funding. Peer group appraisal should be maintained. Several of the specific suggestions on project appraisal are welcomed as is the suggestion of a single PMC for the region. However, while the Executive agrees that partnership should be encouraged and not required in project bids, it regards that a modest minimum project threshold across all priorities in the two Programmes will encourage more strategic, legacy projects and reduce the administrative burdens on partners.
With respect to Intermediate Delivery Bodies, the Executive will limit their use to Scottish Enterprise in the new Priority 1 and South of Scotland partners in the new Priority 4 and will ensure that their activities are closely monitored for performance. Projects put forward by both IDBs will need to secure PMC approval.
Stakeholders were also asked about the role of Community Planning Partnerships. Respondents felt that CPPs could make a positive contribution to the new Programmes, but there was numerous comments on how this could be achieved given the varying capacity of the bodies across the region. The Executive intends to fund a selection of CPPs for a pilot period of two years, but this will be limited to a pot of funding within ESF Priority 1 and the new ERDF Priority 3.
Targeting
The issue of geographical targeting of funding generated a considerable number of comments. Overall, partners acknowledged the value of some targeting given the reduction in funds, but there was little consensus over how it should be applied. In particular, there were concerns about the designation and distinction of 'urban' and 'rural' areas in the ERDF urban regeneration and rural development priorities. Some respondents argued that targeting should be more widely applied across the Programmes with resources directed towards areas of need within the region.
In reflecting on the responses, the Executive believes that spatial targeting should only be applied in ESF Priority 1 and the new ERDF Priorities 3 (urban regeneration) and 4 (rural development). For ESF Priority 1 and the new ERDF Priority 3, a limited list of Local Authority areas would be defined on the basis of areas set out in existing relevant Scottish strategies and the most deprived areas identified in the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation. For the new ERDF Priority 4, a limited number of Local Authority areas would be defined using the six-fold urban-rural classification, targeting those Local Authorities with a significant share of their population that are in areas with 'remote rural' or 'accessible rural' areas. Both lists would be updated annually to take account of changes in the eligibility criteria.
In addition, there were concerns expressed at the proposal of ring-fencing funding for South of Scotland partners and the justification set out for the proposal. We remain convinced of the value of ring-fencing funding to support a limited number of large, strategic projects for this sub-region. This not only recognises the significant development challenges of the area but also the successful track record in making effective use of Structural Funds in the past and the area's clearly-articulated Competitiveness Strategy, which shows where Structural Funds can have an additional and significant impact.
« Previous | Contents | Next »