Practioners’ Perspective Regional / Structural Funds Mike Shaw (Ceredigion County Council)

1. Practioners’ Perspective Regional / Structural Funds Mike Shaw (Ceredigion County Council) for Welsh Local Government Association 9th December 2010

3. Local Government in Wales Safe Quality environment Opportunities to Work and prosper Fulfilled and healthy lives Learn and develop to fulfill potential Important role played by European funding

4. Structural Funds ERDF ESF Agricultural / Rural Development Funds EAFRD

5. Lots of problems • Not just audit trails • Evolving becoming more complex – error more likely • Wide acceptance of the need for change • EAFRD examples • Indirect costs in Structural funds NOW

6. Cohesion and rural development funds need to work • Successful delivery not failure and clawback • Genuine European added value • Transparency / verifiable / simpler • Meeting the post 2013 agenda will be more challenging • Alignment with public investments • Joining up with other European funds • Consistency between funds Our Goals

7. The Welsh experience • Issues • Long Chains: • Funding  Evidence • Capacity • Weakest link • Bureaucracy • Match Funding: • Where it comes into chain • Procurement: • Advertising • Risk of ‘branding’Loss UK European Funds WALES Welsh Assembly Government Project Lead WAG/Local Authority Other ‘Sponsors’/Stake-holders  Procurement        Contracted delivery organisations (NfP/Third Sector/Local Authorities)

8. Real cost methodology becoming more challenging Examples: • Demonstrating defrayment • Large volumes of evidence for small sums • Staff apportionment • Disincentive to participate and take–up • Leading to uncertainties and higher rates of error

9. Support for reducing administrative burden • Move toward performance based system • Retention of real cost basis • Investments taking longer to achieve • Public Private Partnerships helpful but not always suited – more options = more complex • Income generation v longer term sustainability Considerations

10. Local authorities act as intermediaries for CSOs • Alignment - leads to more procurement • In-kind contributions vital to delivery by local authorities; not unique to CSOs and widely used in RDP • ‘Double ceiling’ - Appropriate at least to maintain intervention rate; State Aid, committed match funding • Systemic error is accepted as an issue for the responsible entity Wider view

11. Wider view 2 • Tolerable risk of error; difficult and often a result of complexity • Good practice in some funds needs to be transferred – for example on underwriting of match funding • Indirect costs Not always helpful but open to misunderstandings about scope • Operating grants – consistency with treatment of revenue by all undertakings, State Aid arising. procurement routes better? • CSOs should have equal status with other potential tenderers and no special status.

12. Wider view 3 • Co-financing needs to have regard to the TFEU and respect State Aid and regional / Cohesion considerations • Local authority experience acting as intermediary for RDP in Wales indicates high levels of audit evidence and bureaucracy for this funding

13. Evidence of the need for simplification • Wide consensus to improve • But will this add to practioners’ problems in delivery? • Relatively little experience in results based approaches. • Avoid adding further difficulty to the real cost regime • Clearer route needed to set the stage for alignment of funds post 2013 and facilitate ‘joining-up’ e.g. common rules Summary

14. CONTACT DETAILS Welsh Local Government Association +32(0)2 506 44 84 Mike Shaw mike.shaw@ceredigion.gov.uk Ceredigion County Council +44(0)1545 572 064