Practioners’ PerspectiveRegional / Structural Funds

Mike Shaw (Ceredigion County Council)for Welsh Local Government Association

9th December 2010

Local Government in Wales

Safe Quality environment Opportunities to Work and prosperFulfilled and healthy livesLearn and develop to fulfill potential

Important role played by European funding

Structural Funds ERDFESF

Agricultural / Rural Development FundsEAFRD

• 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

• 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

challengingo Alignment with public investmentso Joining up with other European fundso Consistency between funds

Our Goals

The Welsh experience

UK

European Funds

WALESWelsh Assembly Government

Project LeadWAG/Local Authority

Other ‘Sponsors’/ Stake-holders

Contracted delivery organisations(NfP/Third Sector/Local Authorities)

Procurement

Issues

Long Chains:

• Funding Evidence

• Capacity

• Weakest link

• Bureaucracy

Match Funding:

Where it comes into chain

Procurement:

Advertising

Risk of ‘branding’ Loss

• Real cost methodology becoming more challenging Examples:o Demonstrating defraymento Large volumes of evidence for small sumso Staff apportionmento Disincentive to participate and take–up Leading to uncertainties and higher rates of

error

• 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

Wider view

• 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 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.

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

• 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

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