Annex a Reflection Exercise Questions

ANNEX A – REFLECTION EXERCISE QUESTIONS

Please keep your response as brief as possible and refer to supporting evidence if available. Feel free to answer some or all of the questions. Please stipulate whether your response refers to a specific programme or fund.

Please post or email your responses to the following (by 27 January 2012):

Policy Team,

Welsh European Funding Office,

Welsh Government,

Rhydycar,

Merthyr Tydfil, CF48 1UZ.

If you have any questions regarding this exercise please contact WEFO using the details above or telephone Dafydd Munro on 0300 0628329.

The responses received will help the Welsh Government to plan for any new programmes. A brief summary report of the responses received will be published in March 2012.

Name of organisation or group (if applicable): Public Health Wales

Responder Name: Malcolm Ward

Address: 14 Cathedral Rd, Cardiff

Post code: CF119LJ

Tel: 02920 827628

E-mail:

1. PRIORITIES FOR INVESTMENT (THEMATIC CONCENTRATION))

Issue summary

The European Commission’s draft regulations propose the concentration of investments to achieve maximum impact from the programmes. They include compulsory themes and set minimum values for investment in key themes; regions are then able to target the remaining resources on the most appropriate themes through which to address the needs of their areas.

The ERDF regulation states that at least 80% of ERDF resources for “more developed” regions and at least 50% of ERDF resources for “less developed” regions should be focused on R&D and innovation, SME competitiveness and the low carbon economy.

The ESF regulation states that at least 20% of funding needs to be directed to activities supporting social inclusion and tackling poverty with an 80% focus for “more developed regions” and a 60% focus for “less developed regions” on 4 investment priorities around the 4 ESF thematic objectives.

The EAFRD regulation states that a minimum of 25% of the EAFRD is to be allocated to climate change mitigation and adaptation and land management measures (agri-environment-climate, organic farming, Less Favoured Areas), and a minimum of 5% to LEADER.

The proposals for EMFF are less formed at this point, since the EC has not finalised discussion of its revised CFP and has not yet published a draft of its EMFF Regulation. Nevertheless we invite your views now, and we will take them into account when the draft Regulation is published.

Q1. What should be our investment support priorities for any future programmes, considered against the 11 thematic objectives outlined in the draft regulations? Please rank them in order 1 to 11 below?

Thematic Objective / Priority Order
Strengthening research, technological development and innovation / 11
Enhancing access to, and use and quality of, information and communication technologies / 10
Enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises, the agricultural sector (for the EAFRD) and the fisheries and aquaculture sector (for the EMFF) / 5
Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors / 8
Promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management / 9
Protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency / 4
Promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures / 7
Promoting employment and supporting labour mobility / 3
Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty / 1
Investing in education, skills and lifelong learning / 2
Enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration / 6

A. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)

Q1(a). What actions/interventions should be the focus of future investment support within the 3 ring fenced ERDF themes below?;

Q1(b). Where should the emphasis be placed (i.e. approximate percentage split) between these 3 themes?; and

Q1(c). Should there be a different emphasis in East Wales to West Wales and the Valleys?

(a) R&D and Innovation:

1a – Skill and qualification development in the local FE & HE sectors

1b – 20%

1c – No - Resource allocation should be based as far as possible on addressing the equity gradient (not the equity gap).

(b) SME Competitiveness

1a – Matching SME focus to local skills, training, education and demographics

1b – 60%

1c – No - Resource allocation should be based as far as possible on addressing the equity gradient (not the equity gap).

1a – Prioritisation of industries supporting low carbon futures.

1b – 20%

1c – No - Resource allocation should be based as far as possible on addressing the equity gradient (not the equity gap).

Q1(d) What should be the focus of infrastructure investment support within any future programmes?

Future-proofing for sustainable low carbon transport options.

B. European Social Fund (ESF)

Q1(e). What do you consider the main investment priorities for ESF should be?; and

Q1(f). Based on the European Commission’s themes below, how should future ESF support be focussed to provide individuals with the best opportunity for sustainable integration with the labour market?

(a) Promoting employment and supporting labour mobility

(b) Promoting social inclusion and combating poverty

(d) Enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration

1e: The main investment priorities must be to reduce social and economic disadvantage, generate sustainable and meaningful local work opportunities and matching labour force demands with labour force skill sets.

1f: Provision of high quality, equitable education with the greatest resource investment in those areas with the worst education infrastructure.

Q1(g). To what extent should ESF support be used to contribute to measures for tackling social inclusion and poverty?

Wholly.

C. European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)

Q1(h). What do you consider the main investment priorities for EAFRD?

Development of local sustainable food supplies.

D. European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)

Q1(i). Whatdo you consider the main investment priorities for EMFF?

Don’t Know

E. General

Q1(j). Should EU funding be prioritised in favour of the nine sectors[1] which the Welsh Government regards are particularly important to the future of Wales?

Yes

Q1(k). Should we continue to support equality of opportunity and sustainable development as “Cross-Cutting Themes” for all future EU programmes? Are there other themes that should be considered?

Tourism

2. SPATIAL CONCENTRATION OF RESOURCES

Issue summary

The European Commission is intent on pursuing an urban development agenda within its draft regulations, with, for example, 5% of national ERDF resources to be allocated for integrated actions for sustainable urban development delegated to cities. There is also a growing body of research recognising the role of cities and city regions as drivers of economic growth, jobs and innovation. It is now argued that spatially concentrated investments have the potential to generate greater benefits for a territory as a whole, although they could also lead to widening disparities between some territories.

Almost two–thirds of the Welsh population lives within a 50 mile radius of Cardiff, whilst over 30% of Wales’ population lives in rural areas. Incomes in the Valleys and in rural areas lag behind those of Wales as a whole and Gross Value Added (GVA) in rural areas is only 24.8% of Wales’ GVA.

The European Commission is proposing revisions to CAP Pillar 1, direct payments to farmers, and changes there will have a direct effect on farm incomes and a knock-on effect on rural communities. Proposed changes to the basis of calculation of payments will affect a large proportion of current recipients, some receiving more and some less, and in some cases the changes may be significant.

Q2(a). Is there a case for directing more European funding to specific territories, such as city regions, which in turn could produce a greater economic benefit for a wider territorial area, or to particular territories that are significantly affected by structural change?

Q2(b) What particular challenges to the economic development of rural areas should be prioritised in future programmes?

The development of agri & eco-tourism opportunities with supporting infrastructure.

The establishment of local sustainable food sourcing, particularly in the supply to public sector institutions such as schools, hospitals, care homes etc.

3. STRATEGIC / LOCAL DELIVERY

Issue summary

Within the Structural Funds there is currently a more focused approach to the delivery of the outcomes from programmes, with fewer, more strategic projects and greater strategic alignment with Welsh Government and European policy than in previous programme rounds.

However, this has not been so pronounced with the EAFRD or the EFF. In addition, the LEADER approach has continued to operate under the Rural Development Programme, and will do so again in the next period.

Q3(a). What should be the balance between larger, centrally-led projects and projects developed and led at the local level?

The balance should not be dictated by size but by need based on equity profiling.

Q3(b) What are the most effective ways of focusing on rural development (e.g. through the community-led ‘Leader’ approach or through other mechanisms involving Integrated Territorial Investments through the use of Structural Funds)?

By enlisting the support and listening to the advice of rural communities.

4. PRIVATE SECTOR

Issue summary

Private sector engagement in the 2007-13 round of structural fund programmes has been relatively strong, with businesses benefitting from total investments of some £730m. The private sector has also contributed 25% of total match funding and has won 57% of procurement activity to date. However, very few projects are led by the private-sector.

Q4(a) How can the Private sector best be engaged in, and so contribute to the success of, the next round of programmes?; and

Q4(b) Are there particular thematic priorities where the Private Sector is best placed to lead?

By providing financial and infrastructure support that attracts rather than detracts private sector investment.

5. ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES

Issue summary

The European Commission is proposing that at least 25% of Structural Funds resources under more developed areas and 52% and under less developed areas are allocated to ESF. No such ring fencing was imposed under the current round of programmes for which ESF makes up 40% under Convergence and 47% under Competitiveness.

There are potential overlaps between the funds and we could use this to advantage. For instance, if we were to design ERDF and ESF measures to support rural businesses, including farms and fisheries, then EAFRD and EMFF funds might be deployed more on objectives unique to those funds. Conversely, if we were to design EAFRD and EMFF measures to support rural businesses, including farms and fisheries, then ERDF and ESF funds might be deployed more on objectives unique to those funds, such as urban or city aspects.

Q5. How should funds be apportioned between ERDF and ESF to strike the right balance between needs and objectives going forward?

Effectively.

6. EUROPEAN TERRITORIAL CO-OPERATION (ETC)

Q6(a) What should Welsh priorities be for engaging in ETC?

Q6(b) How best can ETC priorities be aligned to those for regional programmes in Wales?

Q6(c) What steps, if any, can be taken to strengthen the contribution of those ETC programmes in which Wales engages to broader economic objectives in Wales?

Q6(d) How can we build upon the successes of Welsh organisations in ETC programmes and benefit from their experience and expertise to take Welsh engagement and influence to another level?

6a:

-Collaborations should, where possible, be initiated by Wales and based on identified needs with partners who have similar needs.

-The funding is utilised principally to generate capacity/ resource improvements and not to establish expensive bureaucracies for managing funds.

6c: By only engaging in those collaborations that have identified outcomes aligned to Wales’ economic objectives and priorities and by taking the lead in initiating collaborations where objectives can be met.

6d: By asking CEO’s etc. from successful programmes to act as mentors and reviewers for prospective Welsh bidders.

7. MEASURING SUCCESS

Q7(a). What do you want to see achieved through implementation of the 2014-2020 programmes and how should we gauge success?

Increases in employment particularly among young people and school leavers.

Reduction in the equity gradient between communities with the highest levels of socio-economic deprivation and those with the least.

Socio-economic indicators including:

Educational attainment

Employment (inc type)

Health indicators (Morbidity, Mortality & Disability)

Well being Indicators (Inc. General satisfaction, Mental well being, suicide & self-harm, Quality of Life, etc)

Poverty & Deprivation indices.

Household income (Inc. Benefits data)

Crime figures.

Demographic indicators (Age, sex, nationality)

Environmental data (Inc. Carbon emissions, play space, recycling data, air quality etc.)

Housing data (Tenure, quality, amount etc.)

Q7(b). How can we ensure a stronger emphasis on the achievement of results?

Ensure results are relevant, measurable, achievable, have a baseline are collected regularly and appropriately, are not used as a stick to beat people and have the buy in of communities. And positive results should receive the same level of publicity as poor results (presently not the case).

8. LESSONS LEARNED

Q8. What are the lessons learned from the current round of programmes and how can we improve implementation in the future (both in overall terms and within individual funds)?

(a) Overall