RDP partnerships by Wavehill

wavehill

ymchwil gwerthuso arolygon research evaluation surveys

An evaluation of the Partnerships for Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-2013 A report by Wavehill for the Welsh Government

November 2011

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

Acknowledgements We would like to offer our thanks to all those interviewed and who responded to the survey undertaken as part of this evaluation. This report would not have been possible without all these contributions. Report by: Endaf Griffiths John Grieve Charlotte Ellis If you have any queries about this report, please contact Endaf Griffiths via email: endaf.griffiths@wavehill.com

Welsh Government contact: Nigel Pearson, Sustainability & Environmental Evidence Division (SEED) T: 0300 062 2171 E: nigel.pearson@wales.gsi.gov.uk

Report version: FINAL

ÂŠCopyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 1

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 3 1.

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 13 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4.

Literature review..................................................................................................................... 16 2.1. 2.2. 2.3.

The sample ................................................................................................................................................. 42 Role, remit and responsibility................................................................................................................... 44 Vision, aims, objectives and targets......................................................................................................... 49 Commitment and ownership.................................................................................................................... 51 Distribution of roles and responsibilities................................................................................................. 53 Partnership working arrangements ......................................................................................................... 55 General views on the Partnership ............................................................................................................ 58

Findings: issues emerging from stakeholder interviews.......................................................... 67 7.1. 7.2. 7.3. 7.4. 7.5. 7.6. 7.7. 7.8.

Evolution, role and responsibilities .......................................................................................................... 34 The relationship between the Partnerships and the LAGs ..................................................................... 38

Findings: a survey of partnership members and stakeholders ................................................ 41 6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.4. 6.5. 6.6. 6.7.

The Regulation and the LEADER approach .............................................................................................. 24 The structure in Wales .............................................................................................................................. 27 Support structure ...................................................................................................................................... 30 The RDP process ........................................................................................................................................ 31

Findings: partnership structures ............................................................................................. 33 5.1. 5.2.

Scotland...................................................................................................................................................... 20 Northern Ireland ........................................................................................................................................ 22 England....................................................................................................................................................... 23

The context within which the RDP Partnerships are working.................................................. 24 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4.

What is a partnership? .............................................................................................................................. 16 The effectiveness of partnership working ............................................................................................... 16 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................. 19

Axes 3 and 4 implementation structures in other parts of the UK .......................................... 20 3.1. 3.2. 3.3.

The Rural Development Plan for Wales ................................................................................................... 13 The Partnerships........................................................................................................................................ 13 The evaluation ........................................................................................................................................... 14 Structure of the report.............................................................................................................................. 15

Overlap between the LAG and the Partnership ...................................................................................... 68 The motivation of Partnership members ................................................................................................ 69 The support provided to Partnerships ..................................................................................................... 70 The role of the Lead Body ......................................................................................................................... 73 Appraisal and approval of business plans and projects.......................................................................... 74 Competition within the system ................................................................................................................ 75 An emphasis on developing projects ....................................................................................................... 76 The layers within the hierarchy................................................................................................................ 78

Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................................................ 80 8.1. 8.2.

Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................. 80 Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 81

Appendix 1: Roles and responsibilities ........................................................................................... 83 Appendix 2: Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 89 Appendix 3: Partnership self evaluation - per area analysis ........................................................... 91

ÂŠCopyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 2

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

Executive Summary In April 2011, the Welsh Government commissioned evaluation specialists Wavehill to undertake an evaluation of the Partnerships within the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13. The Rural Development Plan 2007-2013 (hereafter referred to as the RDP) is one of the mechanisms by which the Welsh Government is delivering European funded activities which support the countryside and rural communities. The Welsh Government is managing and implementing Axis 1 (the competitiveness of agriculture and forestry) and Axis 2 (environment and countryside) activities nationally. Axis 3 (quality of life in rural areas) and Axis 4 (the LEADER approach) are being implemented on the basis of Local Authority areas, by accountable and representative local partnerships (the RDP Partnerships). There are 18 such partnerships in Wales covering all but the most urban parts of the country. The evaluation Interviews were undertaken with the Lead Body for each of the 18 partnerships. As part of these interviews, various documents and information which could support the evaluation was collected. For example, lead bodies provided any evaluation work or assessments of the partnerships that they had undertaken. Those interviews were followed by a survey of partnership members and stakeholders which was undertaken online and by telephone; 151 participated in the survey. Finally, a number of interviews were undertaken with other key stakeholders including Welsh Government, the Wales Council for Voluntary Action (WCVA) and the Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA). The role of the Partnerships The role of the RDP Partnerships can be summarised as follows: (1) prepare a local development strategy; (2) develop or identify projects to deliver that strategy; (3) monitor its delivery; and (4) promote the programme on a local level. The RDP regulation differentiates between Axis 3 and Axis 4 activities specifying the need to use the LEADER approach to deliver activities funded under Axis 4. But, in Wales, Axis 3 and 4 have been integrated via the fact that the RDP Partnerships have been given a role that combines both the Axes. It is important to be aware that partnerships are a requirement of the Welsh Government, not of the European Commission who only specify the need for a Local Action Group (LAG) in relation to Axis 4 (LEADER) activities. However, the RDP Partnerships actually fulfil large parts of the ‘LAG role’ as envisaged by the Commission. For example, the partnership is charged with the development and monitoring of a strategy for the local area, a role which the Commission specifies that a LAG should undertake. This has led to some overlap and duplication within the ‘RDP structure’ in Wales with each area required to have both a Partnership and a LAG which, to some extent at least, are undertaking overlapping roles.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 3

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

The structure in each area There is no standard model for an RDP Partnership in Wales and the structure in each area has been influenced by what existed there previously. Some parts of Wales have had access to funding for Axes 3 and 4 type activities in the past (via programmes such as Priority 5 of the Objective 1 programme, Article 33 of the previous RDP, LEADER+ and the Welsh Government’s Rural Community Action Programme). However, a number of the local authority areas within the 2007-2013 RDP are delivering a programme of this nature for the first time. As such, they had no existing ‘rural’ structure to build upon and the difference in the ‘maturity’ of the partnerships is very clear. There appears to be a correlation between the role that the RDP Partnership has and the ‘rurality’ of the county. For example, the whole of Gwynedd is considered rural and, as such, the main economic development partnership for the area has the role of being the RDP Partnership. The same can be said for Ceredigion and Anglesey. In other areas, where only part of the county is considered to be rural, the ‘RDP partnership’ is more likely to be a sub-group of the main economic development partnership for the area and/or a partnership set up specifically for the purposes of the RDP. Both approaches have their merits. If the partnership is only concerned with the RDP this will obviously be the main focus of discussions. But, should there be a more senior partnership considering the economic regeneration of the areas as a whole (other than the RDP) there is a risk that RDP activities will not be fully integrated with other activities in the area. If the RDP Partnership function is carried out by a broader economic development partnership discussions about the implementation of Axes 3 and 4 take place alongside discussion about the broader regeneration of the area. Although clearly this may be advantageous in terms of ensuring complementarity with other development activity, there is a risk that the RDP will be merely one item on a long agenda. The relationship between the RDP Partnerships and the LEADER LAG in each area is crucial as it has a significant influence on what the partnership does and how it does it. In general terms, three types of structures exist although there is a significant blurring of the lines between Types 1 and 2. • • •

Type 1: the LAG is a formal ‘sub-group’ of the main partnership which has been given the responsibility for Axis 4 or, in one case, all projects. Type 2: the LAG has been set up as a ‘stand-alone group’ but its project staff are employed and managed by the Local Authority. Type 3: the LAG is a stand-alone organisation. In each instance, it is a company limited by guarantee, with its own board of directors and so on.

The structure is strongly influenced by the history of rural development in each area and there is a degree of tension between the desire to integrate Axis 3 and 4 activities and (in some areas) the need to accommodate existing structures (i.e. LAGs) present as a legacy of the previous LEADER programmes. In some areas, this has led to a degree of overlap and it could be argued that two ‘LAGs’ are active; one for Axis 3 and one for Axis 4. It is also apparent that there is at least some overlap in terms of membership of the RDP Partnership and Axis 4 LAG in a number of areas, especially in the ‘new’ RDP areas. Viewed positively this will help to ensure that there are strong links between the two bodies but there is also a risk of duplication and of ‘fatigue’ amongst local stakeholders who are being asked to be members of a number of different local bodies.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 4

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

The evaluation concludes that when the desire to maintain existing structures and other political considerations are taken out of the equation, there is a strong argument for merging the activities of the RDP Partnership and the LAG at a Local Authority level. Further, the requirement to set up (or maintain) two separate entities in each area has clearly been complicated to administer; this has been especially so in the ‘new’ areas and has limited the effectiveness with which Partnerships have been able to undertake their role. Roles and responsibilities of partnership members Whilst respondents to the survey generally had positive views about their understanding of their own and the partnership’s role and responsibilities, they were least positive about (1) the clarity of the role of the LAG, (2) the difference in the remit of the RDP Partnership from that of other partnerships in the area, and (3) whether all key local partners were represented on the partnership. Representatives of the private and 3rd sector were also generally less positive than their public sector counterparts about their understanding of the roles and responsibilities relating to the Partnership. This is possibly due to the fact that they are involved on a less regular basis. The issue that respondents were least positive about within the whole questionnaire was the reliance of the Partnership on officers and members of staff. However, during qualitative interviews, partnership members highlighted that this was not unexpected; “that’s what the staff are for... of course you rely on them” being typical of the comments made. The motivation of partnership members was a constant issue in the interviews with Lead Bodies a number of which highlighted the fact that it can be difficult to ‘engage’ partnership members. One potential solution would be to formalise the role of ‘partnership member’ and produce formal (and consistent across Wales) ‘job descriptions’ that clearly set out roles, responsibilities and what is expected of them as members. Alongside this formalisation (and standardisation), the potential to pay members (for non-public sector members) for undertaking that role should be considered. Such an arrangement would have a number of benefits including: • • • •

Encouraging those who may not otherwise participate to do so by recognising the value of their contribution; Formalising the role of partnership member and thereby allow lead bodies and others to make more demands on those who hold those roles (e.g. to take responsibilities or attend training events); Allow local stakeholders to hold members to account if they are not undertaking their role (e.g. communicating with the sector that they represent); and Encourage members to take a more active role in terms of holding the Lead Body and others to account.

The added benefit is that it would distribute RDP funding into the third and private sectors. There would also be a ‘training’ benefit in that the members of the partnership would take the knowledge and skills that they gain from their membership of the Partnership back to benefit another third sector organisation or even their business.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 5

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

The support provided to the Partnerships The evaluation has found that every Lead Body is providing at least basic guidance information to the members of the partnership in the form of briefing packs, terms of reference, an introduction to the projects and so on. However, the detail of the information being provided varies as does the amount of training provided. Eighty three percent (99/119) of the partnership members responded to a question within the survey asking them to rate the effectiveness of the training, advice and/or guidance they had received in terms of increasing their understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the Partnership/LAG and its members. Forty seven percent (47/99) described it as being effective with 15% (15/99) describing it as very effective. However, one in four (25/99) gave a negative response suggesting a need for further support. When asked what further training, advice or guidance they needed, 37% (44/119) of partnership members said that they needed further advice and/or guidance on their role as members of the partnership / LAG. Whilst not black and white, the difference in the support needed in what could be described as ‘established’ and ‘new’ areas seems clear. Some of the less experienced areas identified an ongoing need for what could be described as ‘basic RDP’ support (e.g. an introduction to the programme). More experienced partnerships however, expressed a need for information on new project ideas (other than their own) and potential new structures for delivering projects. The partnerships in Wales are at different stages in their development and this should be taken into account. For example, some areas have greater experience of working in a partnership structure and delivering an RDP programme. It is also inevitable that partnership members and officers in some areas have moved on to other roles or are no longer part of the ‘system’ for other reasons. This will mean that the knowledge and experience of both partnership members and the officers that support them varies from area to area. In the absence of any other form of support, the situation that can develop is one of inexperienced staff providing advice, guidance and support to inexperienced partnership members. The situation could be addressed in a number of ways. For example, training could be provided to the officers who then pass that information to the members. Also, officials from the Welsh Government could provide support to them and also attend Partnership meetings to provide advice and guidance directly to members. The structure in place within the Welsh Government was initially designed to do exactly that. However, due to staff shortages and other demands upon the time of staff (matters discussed at length in Mid Term Evaluation of the RDP) this support has not been available at the level envisaged and Welsh Government facilitation team staff have not been attending partnership meetings. The loss of that support has clearly had a detrimental impact.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 6

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

Role of the Lead Body The role of the Lead Body (and that of the Financial Coordinator) is not limited to the support that they provide to the Partnership; they play a key role in a number of other respects which, the evaluation has concluded, makes the involvement of Local Authorities as Lead Bodies very valuable. For example, employing and managing staff on behalf of the partnership, ensuring that all the necessary procedures are in place, providing project level advice and guidance (i.e. support for projects funded by the Partnership) and monitoring and evaluating the impact of projects. The consequence of this however is that some stakeholders are of the view that the Local Authority has too much influence or even control over the activities and decisions of that Partnership. But, we would argue that it is up to the partnerships and their members to be aware of this ‘risk’ and to take action if necessary. Therefore, the key issue is the ‘capacity’ of partnership members to deal with the issue; to ensure that the Local Authority does not have too much influence on the Partnership rather that a ‘structural’ one. It is important to be aware that Local Authorities, in their capacity as Lead Bodies, provide a service to the Partnerships; they are not members. In this context, there is an argument that it is not necessary (or in fact efficient) to have 18 Local Authorities providing the Lead Body ‘service’. There are examples of projects funded by the EC Convergence Programme in Wales in which one Local Authority is providing a service similar to that of the Lead Body on behalf of a group of Local Authority areas. Although those examples have not been reviewed in detail as part of this evaluation, the potential advantages of such an approach are clear in terms of economies of scale and the potential to develop a pool of knowledge and expertise that can be shared amongst a number of areas. Top down vs. bottom up In many ways the structure that has been put in place to implement Axes 3 and 4 in Wales is seeking to achieve the benefits of both the bottom-up (and LEADER) process for developing projects but with the top-down control. One of the concerns about any national programme or scheme that is delivered on a local level is that the projects it supports will not be ‘strategic’ or that there will be duplication of activities being undertaken on a national level. Within the RDP, this is addressed by all projects being appraised centrally by the Welsh Government. This is a classic example of the conflict between a ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’ approach. From a Welsh Government perspective the benefit of this is that there is a ‘quality control’ on projects and that the potential for duplication is controlled. From a partnerships perspective it means that if, as has happened in a number of areas for the Business Plan 2 period of the programme, individual project are rejected by the Welsh Government, there are holes in the strategies / plans that they have developed.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 7

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

The key issue here is one of control; what ‘control’ should the Welsh Government have on the activities being undertaken at a local level? Under the current system, it is possible to argue that even though partnerships are charged with developing strategies and projects to address the need (as they perceive it) in their area, the Welsh Government does not actually completely trust them to do that; it is deemed necessary that projects (rather than just the strategy as is the case in other parts of the UK) are appraised and approved centrally. This raises a number of issues. For example, why, if a project is rejected by the Welsh Government after their appraisal on the basis that it duplicated existing provision, was that not identified by Welsh Government representatives within the Partnership when the project was being appraised there? An informed and effective partnership should have identified the issue and addressed it. Further, there is an argument that restricting the areas of work / sectors in which the partnerships can operate would be a more effective way of avoiding duplication. There is also an efficiency issue that needs to be considered; is it an efficient use of resources to appraise projects at a local level and then again at a national (or central) level? If those appraisals are looking at the same issues – for example, need, duplication, etc. – the answer is obviously no. If the appraisal is different – for example, if the central appraisal is a final check on the eligibility of the project (i.e. compliance) – there may be an argument for two levels of appraisal. But even then, there is a compelling argument that if a structure is being put in place to develop and / or select projects it should be allowed (i.e. empowered) to do that. If the Welsh Government have concerns about a project those should be raised at a partnership level and as an active member of that partnership. If this is not the case, why go to the expense of having the partnerships? Competition within the system Another reason for appraising and approving projects centrally is that it is a method for allocating funding to local authority areas. It should be noted that different processes were used by the Welsh Government to appraise and approve projects for the two Business Plan periods 1. With the exception of a handful of projects rejected due to eligibility issues, all projects submitted by Partnerships for the Business Plan 1 period were approved by the Welsh Government. Essentially, there was therefore no competition at that stage. However, for the Business Plan 2 round it was agreed (after consultation by the Welsh Government with the Partnerships and LAGs) that it would be a competitive process and that an appraisal takes place at the ‘expression of interest’ (EOI) stage; only projects scoring highly enough at EOI stage would be asked to submit full scale project applications. This process was adopted with a view to avoiding unnecessary development work on projects which could not be supported. Despite the fact that all areas were aware of the budget available, the total value of the applications submitted exceeded the available budget by approximately 100% meaning that it was a highly competitive process. This has a number of impacts: •

Use of the resource available: Whilst we recognise that competition was at the EOI stage, it is still clear that a significant amount of resource has been spent (a) developing, and then (b) appraising projects that have not (and could not) been funded. Is this an efficient use of limited resources? Would it not be more efficient to focus on developing projects (or a strategy) to address the issues that had been identified by utilising a set amount of resources?

1 For the purposes of Axes 3 and 4, the RDP programme has been split into two ‘business plan’ periods; Business Plan 1 ran from June 2007 and February 2011 (although the deadline for a number of Business Plan 1 projects was subsequently extended) and Business Plan 2 will run from the 1st March 2011 to 31st December 2013.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 8

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

•

Cooperation between Partnerships: Are partnerships going to cooperate and share ideas with other partnerships when they know that they are going to be competing with them for funding? Whilst some partnerships have cooperated with their neighbours, the suggestion from interviews is that cooperation could be more significant and that ‘competition’ has had a negative impact here. Ill feeling: Competition has clearly contributed to the ill-feeling towards the Welsh Government that was very evident during discussions with the Lead Body and Partnership members, especially amongst those who had some of their projects rejected for reasons that they do not accept. Such ill-feeling is not conducive to partnership working. Fairness: Is it fair to ask inexperienced local partnerships who are delivering an RDP programme for the first time to compete for funding with experienced areas that have been active in similar programmes for over 10 years?

The argument in favour of competition is that it improves standards; projects are better because applicants are aware of the fact that there is competition from other projects. This is an argument that most would accept. The key is however where (or at what level) within the process that competition takes place. Within the current process, there is competition at a local level (when projects are submitted or developed by the Partnership) and then again when business plans are submitted to the Welsh Government and it is that second element of competition that is damaging for the reasons outlined above. Competition at a partnership level is however the mechanism that the Welsh Government are (after consultation with the Partnerships and the LAGs it should be noted) using to allocate the funding that is available between the local authority areas. If you take this competition away, how is the funding going to be allocated? This question has been discussed at meetings of the Welsh Government, the Partnerships and the LAGs in the past but without any consensus becoming apparent. There are a number of alternative ways to distribute funding at a partnership level which we would argue need to be considered. For example, funding could be allocated per head of population or linked to the alternative funding available in the area. We would however acknowledge no system for allocating funding / resource is perfect and whatever system is used is going to be controversial. However, a system that provides partnerships with an indicative budget allocation will take competition between them out of the process. Our view is that – if partnerships are being used - it would be more effective and efficient to allocate an amount of funding to each area and then allow them (possibly within a set timescale) to devise a strategy / plan to utilise that funding. The funding could be withdrawn or reduced if it is not being utilised, if projects are not meeting the required standards, if targets are not being achieved and so on. Layers within the hierarchy One of the first things that becomes apparent when the structure in place to implement Axes 3 and 4 in Wales is examined, is the number of layers within the hierarchy. Anybody looking at the structure for the first time would question the need for so many layers; is there a more efficient way of delivering the scheme? The key to answering this question is whether the roles and responsibilities at each level are sufficiently different to make them necessary. As already discussed, there is an argument for merging the functions of the Partnership and the LAG. There is also an argument for increasing the efficiency of the ‘support structure’ by reducing the number of Lead Bodies (and increasing the number of Partnership / LAGs that they service).

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 9

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

The other possible change that has not yet been discussed is the potential to merge some of the functions of the Welsh Government with that of the Lead Bodies. There will always be a role for ‘the centre’ in any scheme which has a local element. But, the role of the centre depends on the level of responsibility given to the local structure. As previously discussed, if it is the role of the local partnership (with the support of the Lead Body) to develop a strategy and a plan for implementing that strategy, they should be allowed (empowered) to do that. In such circumstances the role of the centre can be restricted to one of ensuring ‘compliance’; a role similar to that undertaken by WEFO within the Objective 1 programme which also included local partnerships. Conclusion The principle conclusion of this evaluation is that the RDP Partnerships in each local authority area are fulfilling their role. The effectiveness with which they are fulfilling their role does however seem to vary depending on a number of factors. Principal amongst these is the experience that they (and the Lead Body staff) have of undertaking a similar role in the past; partnerships and their support structures take time to become established and they become more effective as their experience grows. The structure that is in place to deliver Axes 3 and 4 is however overly complicated and the need to satisfy the requirement to have a separate partnership and LAG has affected progress especially in the new areas where it has been necessary to develop two new structures. Further, it has been necessary to do that and almost simultaneously develop one set of projects, then, whilst monitoring their delivery develop a second set of projects. This has clearly been challenging especially given the need (for Business Plan 2) to compete for the funds that are available at a Partnership level. This has generated an unhealthy competition between partnerships and an ill-feeling towards the Welsh Government. In terms of support structures, there is clearly scope to operate more effectively and efficiently by merging certain roles and responsibilities. But, perhaps the key issue is that the effectiveness with which the partnerships are able to undertake their role has been limited by the fact that they are not fully empowered to undertake that role. The structure in place is a classic example of the conflict between a ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’ approach. If the Partnership approach is going to be used, the Government should commit fully to it. If it does not do so, the rational for maintaining the structure (which is not cheap 2) must be questionable.

The total funding approved to Lead Bodies / Partnerships as running costs to administer Axis 3 and 4 is in the region of £19million over the lifetime of the programme. Source: Welsh Government

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 10

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

Recommendations Short-term (current programme period) 1. The wide range of guidance for Partnership members produced by Lead Bodies should be collated and shared between Lead Bodies with a view to sharing good practice and reducing the potential for duplication of effort. 2. A training needs analysis should be undertaken assessing the needs of Partnerships on an individual basis. Budget permitting, a bespoke development programme should then be designed for each individual (or a group of) Partnerships with a view to addressing their own specific needs. 3. Consideration should be given to the potential to introduce a bespoke programme of ‘continuous professional development’ for Lead Body staff with a view to improving their own performance and the support that they are able to provide to Partnership members who are (in the short term) likely to be difficult to engage in training directly. 4. The potential to introduce a number of action learning sets3 that would operate alongside the above and offer Lead Body staff the opportunity to share their knowledge and experience should be explored. 5. Further research should be undertaken to explore potential alternative structures for facilitating and supporting the Partnerships structure in the future including the roles and responsibilities of the Lead Bodies and the Welsh Government. This review should include alternative structures employed by past and current other programmes in Wales (e.g. Convergence and Objective 1), other RDP structures elsewhere in Europe and the ongoing work of the European Network for Rural Development 4.

Action learning is an educational process whereby the participant studies their own actions and experience in order to improve performance. Learners acquire knowledge through actual actions and repetitions, rather than through traditional instruction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_learning 4 http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 11

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

Longer-term (next programme period) 6. The current Partnership-LAG structure should be replaced with a simpler, streamlined structure which requires a single LAG in each area which takes on the roles and responsibilities currently shared between the Partnership and the LAG. By definition, this would mean fully encompassing the LEADER approach for all activities delivered by this element of the RDP. 7. Subject to the above, the new LAGs should be empowered to undertake their role fully. This should include making decisions on how the funding that is available to them is utilised based on the strategy that they have devised working within set parameters. In order to facilitate this, the Welsh Government should review the system being used to allocate funding to Local Authority areas with a view to removing competition at a LAG level from the system. Potential systems currently used in other parts of Europe could be explored as part of the study previously recommended (recommendation 5). 8. Building on the guidance already provided, a standard set of guidance documents for LAG members should be produced which all Partnerships use. These documents should include ‘job descriptions’ for LAG members that set out in detail their roles and responsibilities. 9. The potential to pay non-public sector members of the new LAG to undertake their role should be explored with a view to ‘professionalising’ the role of the LAG and improving the robustness with which it undertakes its role. 10. Further to the findings of the study proposed by recommendation 5, the potential to integrate some of the activities of the Lead Body and the Welsh Government should be explored with a view to improving the effectiveness of efficiency of the support structure.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 12

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

1. Introduction In April 2011, the Welsh Government commissioned evaluation specialists Wavehill to undertake an evaluation of the Partnerships within the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13. This report sets out the findings of that evaluation.

1.1.

The Rural Development Plan for Wales

The Rural Development Plan 2007-2013 (hereafter referred to as the RDP) is one of the mechanisms by which the Welsh Government is delivering European co-funded activities which support the countryside and rural communities 5. The RDP secures EU funding from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development with Wales managing a budget of approximately £795 million over the lifetime of the programme with approximately £195 million (25%) coming from Europe. There are 4 key areas that the plan will improve: • • • •

Axis 1: The competitiveness of agriculture and forestry Axis 2: Our environment and countryside Axis 3: The quality of life in rural areas Axis 4: The LEADER approach: locally based approaches to rural development

In broad terms, the types of activities the RDP supports include working with the countryside and rural communities, encouraging the sustainable management of agriculture and the environment. The Welsh Government is managing and implementing Axis 1 and Axis 2 activities nationally. Axis 3 and Axis 4 are being implemented on the basis of Local Authority areas, by accountable and representative local partnerships capable of reflecting the needs and aspirations of rural communities.

1.2.

The Partnerships

The requirements of the Welsh Government for the delivery of the RDP are discussed further in Section 3 of the report. In summary the role of the RDP Partnership is to devise and oversee the delivery of a Local Development Strategy that covers Axes 3 and 4 of the RDP programme. There are 18 RDP Partnerships in Wales: Anglesey Bridgend Caerphilly Carmarthenshire Ceredigion Conwy

Denbighshire Flintshire Gwynedd Merthyr Tydfil Monmouthshire Neath Port Talbot

Pembrokeshire Powys Swansea Torfaen Vale of Glamorgan Wrexham

The only Local Authority areas in Wales not covered by the RDP are therefore Blaenau Gwent, Cardiff, Newport, and Rhondda Cynon Taff.

Further information about the Rural Development Plan for Wales can be found here: http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/farmingandcountryside/ruraldevelopment/?lang=en

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 13

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

1.3.

The evaluation

1.3.1. Aims and objectives The aim of the evaluation was to establish the effectiveness of the RDP Partnerships, including to: • • • •

Assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the delivery model(s); Obtain the views of key stakeholders on the strategic fit, performance, role and impact of the local partnerships; Evaluate the working of these Partnerships, focusing on incidences of good practice, conflict resolution, support, areas for improvement, day to day issues and so on ; and Assess the effectiveness of the guidance and training support provided.

1.3.2. Methodology Interviews were undertaken with the Lead Body for each of the 18 Partnerships. As part of these interviews, various documents and information which could support the evaluation was collected. For example, lead bodies were asked to provide any evaluation work or assessments of the partnerships that they had undertaken. Those interviews were followed by a survey of partnership members and stakeholders which was undertaken online and by telephone; 151 participated in the survey. Finally, a number of interviews were completed with other key stakeholders including Welsh Government, the WCVA and WLGA. Critique of the methodology We believe that the findings of this evaluation are robust and evidence based. However, it is important to acknowledge that every evaluation or research has its limitations. For this evaluation we did not take an ‘audit approach’ whereby we have asked to see copies of procedures and other documents that the Partnerships or the Lead Bodies used. Our findings are based on discussions with stakeholders and the information that they provided on a voluntary basis. Our sample of partnership members is also exactly that, a sample. We have not interviewed every member of every partnership although we believe that every member had the opportunity to contribute should they wish to do so. We would however note that it was difficult to engage with some partnership members for the purpose of the research and that some were critical of the questionnaire being used for that part of the evaluation in terms of its length and it complexity. Whilst we believe that the questionnaire was as brief and straightforward as it could be given the subject matter, we acknowledge that criticism. Preparing a questionnaire is always a balancing act between collecting the information that is needed whilst being as brief and simple as possible. As discussed later in the report, the questionnaire was based on ‘best practice’ in terms of evaluating the effectiveness of partnerships and partnership working. We also piloted draft versions of the questionnaire and distributed it to a number of the Lead Bodies for comment before it went ‘live’.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 14

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

1.4.

Structure of the report

The remainder of this report is structured as follows: • • • • • • •

Section 2 reviews some of the previous research that has been undertaken into the effectiveness of partnership working; Section 3 briefly sets out at the structures that are in place to deliver Axes 3 and 4 in other parts of the UK; Section 4 considers the context within which the Partnerships are working; Section 5 sets out the RDP Partnerships models in Wales; Section 6 discusses the findings of the survey of Partnership members and stakeholders undertaken; Section 7 discusses in greater detail some of the key issues identified by the evaluation; and Section 8 concludes the report with conclusions and recommendations that are being made.

As an aid to the reader, a brief summary of the key issues or findings has been included at the beginning of each section. Examples of ‘interesting practice’ which have been identified during the course of the evaluation are included throughout the report and have been shaded in order to differentiate them from the main text of the report.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 15

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

2. Literature review This section briefly reviews some of the literature that has been produced on partnerships and their effectiveness. The review is by no means exhaustive. However, it has been included in order to provide a flavour of research that has been undertaken.

Summary The general consensus of the research reviewed is that using a local partnership as a mechanism for delivering programmes has a number of benefits. For example, partnership working enables problems which are too big to be handled by one single organisation to be addressed; through capacity building and the sharing of resources. However, research has also identified a number of important potential negative effects which it is important to understand and take into account. A number of the themes identified by previous research, including the strengths and weaknesses, are apparent in the discussion about the RDP Partnerships within this report.

2.1.

What is a partnership?

Partnerships can be described as a working agreement between two or more parties that strive to achieve better outcomes for their service users. The advantages include building capacity, achieving shared priorities and goals, sharing resources and staff skills, pooling the risks and rewards as well as reaching out to a wider group. As Corcoran (2003) explains, the brief of a partnership is “to overcome the difficulties of harmonising both ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ voices”. This quote is very applicable to the RDP where, as discussed further later, there is an emphasis on the ‘bottom-up’ approach via Axis 4 activities which utilise the ‘LEADER approach’. In their article Partnership Working in Rural Regeneration, Edwards et al. (2000) define partnerships as “an arrangement which deliberately draws together the resources of specified partners in order to create a capacity to act with regard to a defined objective or set of objectives.” (p2) They go on to explain that this definition is made up of three aspects; the first is that partnerships are established for a specific purpose, i.e. they are deliberate. The second is the underlying principle for the creation of partnerships: the combining of resources in order to achieve the desired outcomes; and thirdly, partnerships pool resources from a number of different partners.

2.2.

The effectiveness of partnership working

Partnership working tends to be built around the third principle, which gives even weighting to partners from each of the voluntary, private and public sector. This principle can, however, be problematic given the limited size of the private sector. It can also result in a high overdependence on small enterprises. Third sector groups often struggle and find their participation compromised due to their lack of resources. Therefore, although most partnerships aim to work on this principle they are often left with an over representation of public sector institutions which do not face these resourcing constraints. In a few instances evidence exists that ‘false partnerships’ were established in order to meet the criteria set out by the programme with some ‘partners’ participating in name only. (Jones and Little 2000 and Woods 2005)

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 16

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

As Geddes (2000) adds, frequently partnerships are dominated by the public sector that has the skills, capacity and resources to devote to the task. Pike et al. (2006) state that although ‘partnerships have become more important as a mode of governance, the nature of these partnerships is shaped in large measure by choices made by governments’. (p150). There have been several evaluations of partnerships that deal with the delivery of rural programmes some of which are listed in the bibliography (Appendix 2). They suggest that the success of local partnerships can be attributed to two main characteristics; their success in bringing together local organisations and pooling resources and how successful they have been in terms of integrating the interests of both the top-down, and bottom-up organisations. This second point has been achieved through experimenting and creating innovative practice as well as through swift adaption to changing circumstances. Rural partnerships in Europe tend to focus on two main discourses, ‘integration’ and ‘participation’. These two discourses help to bring together an increasingly multi-actor partnership and legitimize increasingly decentralised governance (Derkzen 2010). When comparing the partnerships in Wales and in the Netherlands for example it is possible to see that while the Dutch rural partnerships focus on integration, in Wales the focus is much more concentrated on participation. These two countries are unlike many others in the European Union because they often combine both national and EU priorities; and this combination results in a more decentralised and bottom up form of governance. (ibid) In 1999 an extensive survey was undertaken by the Partnerships for Rural Integrated Development in Europe (PRIDE), this survey looked at 330 local rural partnerships located across eight countries. Its aim was to address to what extent the local partnership approach actively promotes rural development and how these partnerships might be made more effective as well as highlighting examples of best practice. Using partnership working to deliver rural programmes enables greater community involvement, for example it enables the capability of fora to be established and consequently, those people who would previously be excluded from discussion are able to voice their opinions. This can be seen in the South Lanarkshire Rural Partnership 6. Here the partnership used consultancy support from the South Lanarkshire Community Planning Partnership and Communities Scotland to undertake an innovative approach to involving specific topic groups. The existing organisations and partnerships representing communities of interest were invited to send participants to be trained to gather information and feedback on the strategy from their own network of contacts. Three different topic groups, young people, older people and users of community based health services were identified. The consultants ran training and briefing sessions to support and motivate these volunteers to act as 'peer researchers'. As stated in Moseley et al. (2001) Ireland can be seen as having ‘one of the strongest records in Europe of using local partnerships to address the challenges of rural development.’ Therefore looking at LEADER (a concept introduced in greater detail later in this report) as an example of good practice we can see that it has a way of working that is based on localised partnership and multisector governance.

the full South Lanarkshire Rural Partnership report is downloadable here: http://www.southlanarkshire.gov.uk/downloads/file/838/south_lanarkshire_rural_strategy_20072013_working_towards_sustainable_rural_communities

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 17

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

It has the specific features of implementing an area based approach, emphasizing ‘bottom-up’ development, creating a partnership across lots of sectors and focusing on innovation. There appears to be a need for a holistic approach to evaluation and monitoring needs to incorporate strong and distinctive qualitative methods in both the collection of material and the presentation of findings. The research revealed, however, that these activities or capabilities are only released or unlocked if a host of other things are in place such as the shared vision, adequate funding, competent staff and adequate delegation. Although there are many positive advocates of partnership working in delivering rural programmes, research has also shown that there are also several negative aspects that need to be considered. Woods (2005) claims that there are five such issues raised through partnership working to deliver rural programmes. The first, he argues, is that partnerships and community engagement often focus their power to a small group of established organisations or individuals, albeit using a language that appears to be inclusive. In some instances those organisations that are the intended focus of the initiative can find themselves excluded. Secondly Woods, drawing on work by Edwards et al. (2000), questions the legitimacy of these new governance structures, stating that elected government institutions are democratic and accountable to their citizens; partnerships and other forms of governance are legitimate only in so far as the breadth of their organisation and are only accountable to partner organisations. Thirdly Woods argues that the essence of a shared partnership is undermined by the unequal resource base of partners. Fourthly, partnerships are often unsustainable, with much effort and energy being placed on simply ensuring their existence, creating inherently unstable partnerships. Woods’ final point is that rural governance can create a geographical unevenness of partnership-rich and partnership-poor communities, with local funds and facilities being competed over. It was also expected that as the Rural Policy was passed down to partnership working that this would result in more independence and responsibility being passed down by the state to the private and third sector organisations and ultimately closer to those whom the policies are intended to benefit. (Edwards et al. 2001; Moseley et al. 2001) However, in many cases research has shown that this has not happened to the degree expected and the state has still maintained a strong grip of control over the policies supposedly being devolved. Measuring the specific outcomes of the effectiveness of the partnership has been found to be difficult. One example, as Saraceno (1999) explains, is that there have been problems in capturing the ‘intangibles’ associated with the added value of LEADER, documenting the impact of partnerships on local policy and aggregating the data without compromising the decentralised nature of LEADER. Westholm et al (1999) undertook an analysis into local rural development partnerships in Europe and noted that although there is the widespread application of the principle of partnership working, there is in fact, a significant difference in the form and organisation of the partnership organisations. Westholm et al. go on to highlight that whilst the EU has encouraged partnership working in Europe, partnerships have become a feature of local and domestic rural development programmes.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 18

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

2.3.

Conclusion

The general consensus is that using a local partnership approach in encouraging rural development is a sustainable option, through the shared drive to achieving priorities and goals, the sharing of resources and skills and pooling the risks. The sharing of human, physical and financial resources from a variety of sources provides a wider range, and increased number of both skills and experiences; thus enabling a more targeted use of services. Partnership working enables problems which are too big to be handled by one single organisation to be addressed; through capacity building and again, the sharing of resources. It also helps to add value to products, strengthen local identities and thus increasing competitiveness. And, it facilitates problem solving through the encouragement of innovation and bringing new perspectives on familiar problems. But, along with the positives that partnership working bring there are several negative aspects that skew and hinder effective development. Therefore, although partnerships can bring a varied and shared dynamic to rural development through extending their reach, capability and effectiveness it is important to understand and account for the potential negative effects and imbalance working in partnership can bring to an organisation or local area.

ÂŠCopyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 19

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

3. Axes 3 and 4 implementation structures in other parts of the UK This section very briefly looks at the structures that are in place to deliver Axes 3 and 4 in other parts of the UK. It has been included in order to provide some comparison for the discussion about the structure in Wales that follows.

Summary •

Axes 3 and 4 of the Scotland RDP Programme has two delivery strands, Rural Development Contracts: Rural Priorities and LEADER. Rural Priorities represents a top down approach being delivered through Government Agencies and LEADER is a bottom up approach delivered through 20 Local Action Groups (LAGs).

•

The Northern Irish approach is based on a regional structure focusing on the delivery of Axes 3 and 4 in unison, which they call ‘Rural Life’. This element of the RDP is being delivered by seven Council Clusters using the LEADER approach.

•

Initially, the RDP for England was a regional programme delivered via the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs). However, after the Government’s decision to abolish the RDAs, responsibility for the delivery of the socio-economic elements of the RDP in England and for management of community-led LEADER approach (Axis 4) transferred to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Essentially, this was a move away from a regional delivery model to a more nationally consistent approach. LAGs are however still funded and use local knowledge to promote an integrated “bottom up”, community-led delivery of RDP funding.

3.1.

Scotland

Axes 3 and 4 of the Scotland Rural Development Programme 7 (SRDP) has two delivery strands, Rural Development Contracts: Rural Priorities and LEADER. As discussed further below, Rural Priorities represents a top down approach being delivered through Government Agencies and LEADER is a bottom up approach delivered through 20 Local Action Groups (LAGs). Rural Priorities is a £500 million fund administered by 11 Regional Project Assessment Committees (RPACs) comprising staff from various Government agencies and Local Authorities. It contributes to the delivery of the Scottish Government's strategic objectives through regional priorities established for the regions but which must fit with national priorities. Applications to Rural Priorities must choose from 75 options covering a wide range of activities from manure/slurry storage to offwintering of sheep and community services and facilities. The options for Axis 3 are identified below: • • • 7

Diversification Outwith Agriculture Support for Renewable Energy - Non Land-Based Development/Creation of Micro-Enterprises

http://scotland.gov.uk/Topics/farmingrural/SRDP

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 20

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

• • • • • • • • •

Information & Awareness Raising Area Access Management Reducing Bacterial Contamination in Watercourses Community Services and Facilities Management of Archaeological or Historical Sites Management and Repair of Vernacular Buildings Enjoyment of Rural Landscapes Skills Development to Improve Quality of Life Collaborative Local Development Strategies

LEADER accounts for 5% of the total SRDP allocation (around £38m). An additional £19.2m Convergence Funding has been awarded to 7 LAGs in the Highlands and Islands in recognition of its previous Objective One status as a disadvantaged and remote area. The 20 LAG budgets vary from £14.26million in the Highlands to £340,000 in East Renfrewshire. Applications are made on an individual project basis and are assessed by LAGs against their Development Strategies and Business Plans. LAG strategies were developed on a competitive basis; they all bid for funds and there was no pre-allocation.

3.1.1. Partnership example: South Lanarkshire The rural area is 157,600 hectares (89.2% of South Lanarkshire) resulting in a rural population density (per hectare) of 0.49. The area has a dispersed settlement pattern and is characterised by small villages (over 50) with populations below 3,000. Historically, the villages were dependent on agriculture or coal mining and the four larger market towns (Lanark, Biggar, Strathaven and Carluke) serviced their surrounding communities and the associated neighbouring villages and farms. As well as being the LEADER LAG, the South Lanarkshire Rural Partnership (SLRP) also has a key role in rural strategy development, project co-ordination and the identification of appropriate funding. It is one of seven ‘theme based partnerships’ under the umbrella of the South Lanarkshire Community Planning Partnership (CPP). This ensures integration with the Community Planning framework, and potential to further integrate delivery of LEADER with Rural Priorities and other funding streams. The SLRP strategy is more than just a strategy focusing on LEADER. It has adopted an integrated approach that also looks at the contribution a range of rural initiatives can make to the area, including RP, community benefit monies from energy developments and ERDF Measure 4 (Rural Development). SLRP sees LEADER as being the driver for the implementation of the strategy and has adopted the LEADER approach throughout. The SLRP rural strategy identifies a number of priorities where LEADER support will be directed. These relate to supporting and developing: • • • • • • • • •

a proactive approach to the development of community owned assets; a one stop rural service delivery; the competitiveness of the local tourism and agricultural sectors through collaboration; innovative rural transport delivery and co-ordination; the capacity and capability of our rural communities; community involvement in visitor information provision; local tourism initiatives; environmental management, bio mass and renewable energies; and the contribution our youngsters can make to both our communities and economy.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 21

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

3.2.

Northern Ireland

The Northern Irish approach is based on a regional structure focusing on the delivery of Axes 3 and 4 in unison, which they call ‘Rural Life’ 8.This element of the RDP is being delivered by seven Council Clusters using the LEADER approach. Council Clusters have facilitated the creation of Local Action Groups (LAGs), which cover all sectors of the community. Local Development Strategies have also been developed setting out plans for each area, including selection criteria for local projects. Each LAG is responsible for delivering against their Local Development Strategy, selecting and funding projects which best meet the priorities for their area and support the delivery of their Strategy. £100million is dedicated to the ‘Rural Life’ theme focused on six measures supporting a wide range of projects which include diversification, business creation, tourism, basic services for rural communities, village renewal, conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage.

3.2.1. Partnership example: North East Region NI The North East is a distinct sub-region within Northern Ireland and the five Local Authority areas that presently define the sub-region have a combined population of some 350,000 inhabitants (21% of the population of N Ireland). The sub-region is framed by a 30-mile section of Lough Neagh shoreline in the Antrim Borough (Lough Neagh being the UK’s largest freshwater lake), by the Lower Bann river corridor stretching some 40-miles between the villages of Toomebridge on Lough Neagh to Castlerock on the Atlantic coast and by a significant maritime coastline stretching from Whiteabbey on Belfast Lough to Downhill on the Atlantic Coast in the Coleraine Borough. This coastline includes well know attractions such as Carrickfergus Castle, the Antrim Coast Road, Mussenden Temple and the Giants Causeway World Heritage Site. Agriculture remains an important but declining sector while the manufacturing businesses centred in the main settlements continue to face growing competition in the increasingly global marketplace. The service industries have expanded in recent decades and there is a strong tourism sector in the Causeway Coast region. Other notable features of the sub-region include the two campuses of the University of Ulster at Coleraine and Jordanstown and main regional hospitals at Coleraine and Antrim. As well as delivering part of the RDP the Partnership also is also involved in the INTERREG IVA Programme for Northern Ireland, the Border Region of Ireland and Western Scotland. At a local level the RDP is strategically delivered by a Joint Committee representing all five Councils in the North East Region. The Joint Committee is made up of three elected representatives from each of the five Council areas of Ballymena, Ballymoney, Coleraine, Larne and Moyle. It is administered through a LAG comprised of an equal number of locally elected representatives and social partners. Ballymena Borough Council acts as the administrative Council with responsibility for all financial and administrative matters.

http://www.dardni.gov.uk/index/rural-development/nirdp2007-2013.htm

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 22

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

3.3.

England

Initially, the Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE) was a regional programme delivered via the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs). However, after the Government’s decision to abolish the RDAs, on 1 July 2011, responsibility for the delivery of the socio-economic elements of the RDPE – which comprises support for farming and forestry competitiveness, diversification of the rural economy and rural quality of life under Axes 1 and 3 of the RDPE and for management of community-led LEADER approach (Axis 4) - transferred to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Essentially, this was a move away from a regional delivery model to a more nationally consistent approach. The changes introduced from the 1st July 2011 included the winding down of existing regional schemes and the introduction of new national schemes of support including: a Targeted Small Grants Scheme; a new national approach to RDPE Grants for larger projects; and a Rural Community Broadband Fund. In England, LAGs use local knowledge to promote an integrated “bottom up”, community-led delivery of RDPE funding. LAGs are made up of interested volunteers from the public, private and voluntary sector. Each LAG develops a Local Development Strategy (which forms the basis for their bid for funding) and funds projects in its locality to deliver that strategy.

3.3.1. Partnership example: Forest of Dean Local Strategic Partnership The Forest of Dean Local Strategic Partnership and Transition Forest of Dean originally submitted two separate expressions of interest into the RDPE Programme. However, following feedback from the RDA, both parties started working together to develop a single bid. This resulted in a full submission into RDPE entitled “Securing the Future for the Forest of Dean”. The LAG was subsequently established to manage and deliver the programme which will provide funding for rural development projects in the Forest of Dean, up until the end of 2013. The Forest of Dean District Council has been appointed as the Accountable Body (on behalf of the LAG) and plays an important role in bankrolling the programme, whilst also acting as the legal entity and providing support more generally. Activities are centred on three themes: • • •

Engaging Communities – ensuring that everyone has a chance to voice concerns and contribute towards the solution. Re-localisation – raising the profile of local produce and resources to maximise economic potential within the Forest of Dean. Intelligent Economic Growth – using local resources and “uniqueness” as a driver for economic development.

A guiding principle within the three themes is sustainability – one of the main priorities during the LAG development was to identify partners and train them to ensure a robust sustainability proofing mechanism is developed and a protocol of implementation is agreed.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 23

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

4. The context within which the RDP Partnerships are working In order to consider the effectiveness of the Partnerships, it is important to understand the context of what they have been asked to deliver and the structures that they are working within. This chapter sets out that context.

Summary •

The RDP regulation differentiates between Axis 3 and Axis 4 activities. But, In Wales, Axes 3 and 4 activities have been integrated via the fact that the RDP Partnerships have been given a role that combines both the Axes.

•

Partnerships are a requirement of the Welsh Government, not of the European Commission who specify only the need for a ‘LAG’ to deliver Axis 4 (LEADER) activities.

•

In Wales, it can be argued that the role and function of the ‘LAG’, as defined in the Regulation 1698 by the European Commission, has been split between the Partnerships, which has overall responsibility for the Axes 3 and 4 strategy, and the LAG (as defined in Wales) which is responsible for the design and delivery of Axis 4 activities.

•

A range of structures are in place to facilitate and support the work of Partnerships including the Lead Body for each partnership (in each instance, the Local Authority), the Welsh Government Operations team and the Wales Rural Network.

•

The process that is in place to manage Axes 3 and 4 has led to there being a heavy focus on the development of projects at a Partnership level.

4.1.

The Regulation and the LEADER approach

The essential rules governing EU rural development policy for the period 2007 to 2013, as well as the policy measures available to Member States and regions, are set out in Council Regulation 1698/2005. Under this Regulation, rural development policy for 2007 to 2013 is focused on three themes known as ‘axes’ as introduced in the introduction to this report. To help ensure a balanced approach to policy, Member States and regions are obliged to spread their rural development funding between all three of these thematic axes. A further requirement is that some of the funding must support projects based on experience with the LEADER Community Initiatives (i.e. Axis 4) and using the ‘LEADER approach’; highly individual projects designed and executed by local partnerships to address specific local problems.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 24

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

There is reference throughout this report to ‘the LEADER approach’ and it is therefore useful to set out in greater detail what that approach is. LEADER is a method to achieve the objectives of the EU’s rural development policy through bottom-up implementation rather than the traditional top-down approach. ‘LEADER’ is a French acronym for ‘links between actions for the development of the rural economy’. The first LEADER period started in 1991 as a ‘Community initiative’ and was followed by LEADER II (1994–99) and LEADER+ (2000–06). For the 2006-13 programme period the LEADER approach was ‘mainstreamed’ into the main rural development programme as ‘Axis 4’. There have been LEADER groups active in Wales since 1991. A key difference for the 2007-2013 period is that LEADER is part of the main rural development programme rather than a stand-alone programme as it has been previously. This approach was taken with a view to ‘mainstreaming’ the approach and using it to deliver measures provided for within the three thematic axes. The LEADER approach has seven key features as illustrated by the graphic below (Figure 1) which is taken from a document produced by the European Commission in 2006 The LEADER Approach: a Basic Guide9.

Figure 1: The seven key features of the LEADER approach.

Area based local development strategies Bottom-up elaboration and implementation of strategies

Networking

The LEADER approach

Local publicprivate partnerships Local Action Groups (LAGs)

Cooperation

Innovation

Integrated and multi-sectoral actions

Source: The LEADER approach - a basic guide. The European Commission (2006)

A copy of the document is available here: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rur/leaderplus/pdf/factsheet_en.pdf

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 25

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

The following is an extract from a report in 2010 by the European Court of Auditors on the implementation of the LEADER approach for rural development10 (page 10): The assumption behind the LEADER approach is that there is an added-value compared with traditional top-down implementation. Bottom-up approaches and interaction between different sectors at local level should mobilise local potential. Local groups should be best placed to identify integrated and innovative local solutions to local problems and can be more responsive. Participation in local decision-making should generate enthusiasm and increased commitment and can thereby result in better, more sustainable, local rural development. The community involvement achieved through the bottom-up approach can also lead to less tangible impacts, such as ‘capacity-building’ and ‘empowering the local population.’ Much of the emphasis within the LEADER approach is on the development of a strategy to address the needs of the local area and the Local Action Groups (LAGs). The following graphic (taken from the European Court of Auditors report) is useful as it summarises the role of the LAGs, how they should add value and what they can achieve. It notes that the two areas where LAGs can add value are in terms of ‘better strategies’ and ‘better implementation’. Figure 2: LAG potential activities, added-value and achievements

Source: Implementation of the LEADER Approach to Rural Development. The European Court of Auditors (2010)

There are a number of legal requirements concerning the LEADER approach under Axis 4 of the RDP. They cover the ‘model’ itself, the size of areas, selection, and finance and administration. These are set out in Article 61-65 of the Rural Development Regulation and articles 37-39 of the Implementing Regulation.

A copy of the report is available here: http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/7912812.PDF

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 26

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

Article 61 sets out the requirements that define the LEADER ‘model’. The core requirements that must apply in all cases are that: • • • •

It should be area-based involving well-identified sub-regional territories; It should involve local public-private partnerships (Local Action Groups), which should each comprise at least half non-public sector members; It is a “bottom-up” approach with decision-making powers for LAGs. They will identify their areas’ needs and then select the projects to be supported; and The Local Development Strategy formulated by a LAG must be representative of a broad crosssection of the local economy.

As the following section will discuss, it is possible to argue that in Wales the role and function of the LAG as defined by the European Commission has been split – or at least that there is overlap between the RDP Partnership, which has overall responsibility for the Axes 3 and 4 strategy, and the LAG (as defined in Wales) which is responsible for Axis 4 but works within the strategy devised by the partnership.

4.2.

The structure in Wales

4.2.1. Partnerships In Wales, Axes 3 and 4 activities have been integrated via the fact that partnerships have been given a role that combines both the Axes. The following is an extract from the Scheme Guidance issued by the Welsh Government11 (page 3): The Rural Development Regulation (1698/2005) permits a Partnership and a Local Development Strategy (LDS) to be established for Axis 3 and Axis 4. However, it is the aim of the Welsh Assembly Government to promote closer integration of funding streams and programmes and ensure coherence and co-operation at the local level. Following detailed discussions with local partners, it has been decided that the best option for Wales is for a single Partnership and a single LDS to be developed covering both Axes 3 and 4, with a single Axis 4 Local Action Group per Local Authority Area. It is important to underline the fact that the current partnerships are a requirement of the Welsh Government, not of the European Commission who specify the need for a LAG to deliver Axis 4 activities utilising the LEADER approach including the LDS. The partnerships in Wales have however taken on part of the role set out for LAGs by the European Commission, namely the development of the Local Development Strategy (the LDS) and project selection. There is an argument therefore that the Partnership is actually in some ways the LAG as defined by the European Commission.

The guidance documents are published on the Welsh Government website: http://cymru.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/farmingandcountryside/ruraldevelopment/axes3and4/rdpaxes3and4 /?lang=en

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 27

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

The role of the Partnership is set out in greater detail in the Scheme Guidance (page 8): The main role of the Partnership will be to: • • • • •

Develop and review a LDS to target available Axis resources to local areas of need and opportunity; Monitor and approve reports on progress in implementing the LDS and identify gaps in provision; Monitor the activities of the Delivery Organisation(s); Ensure that robust, good value for money and well developed projects are put forward and selected for appraisal and funded; and Promote the programme locally.

A key part of this evaluation has been to assess how effectively the partnerships have, or have been able to, undertake this role. In terms of membership of the Partnership, the Scheme Guidance notes the following: Partnerships must be relevant, comprehensive and representative of local needs and priorities and based on proportionate representation from the four sectors: private, public, community and voluntary. Membership of the Partnership Board should reflect the characteristics of its area and the opportunities identified in the LDS. In addition, due regard should be given to maximising the potential benefits of drawing upon existing experience and expertise when constituting the Partnership. (pages 7 and 8)

4.2.2. Local Action Groups Whilst the focus of this evaluation is on the RDP Partnerships, one of the key issues discussed is the relationship between the Partnerships and the LAGs. It is therefore important to briefly review the role of the LAGs, described as follows within the Scheme Guidance (page 10): A LAG will be specifically responsible for the implementation of Axis 4 activities although it may also be the chosen delivery organisation for some or all of the activities under Axis 3 (this principle could be extended to Axes 1 and 2 as well, where appropriate). As with Partnerships, due regard should be given to maximising the potential benefits of drawing upon existing experience and expertise when constituting the LAG. The emphasis within the guidance is on the role of the LAG as ‘implementers’ of activities rather than the broader role that the European Commission describes for LAGs as those broader roles have, as previously noted, been taken by the RDP Partnerships. The functions of the LAG (as defined by the European Commission) have therefore been split or even duplicated in Wales between two bodies.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 28

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

The criteria that had to be met to qualify as a LAG were as described as follows within the Guidance (pages 10 and 11): • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Have an area-based local development strategy intended for a well identified sub-regional rural territory; Be a local public-private partnership; Utilise a bottom-up, inclusive approach; Operate through multi-sectoral design and implementation principles based on the interaction between actors and projects of different sectors of the local economy; Implement innovative approaches; Implement co-operation projects; and Develop the networking of local partners / partnerships. Propose an integrated local development strategy based at least on the elements set out above; Consist of either a group already qualified for the LEADER II or LEADER+ initiatives, or according to the LEADER approach, or be a new group representing partners from various locally based socio-economic sectors in the area concerned; At the decision making level, the economic and social partners, as well as other representatives of the civil society, e.g. farmers, rural women, young people and their associations, must make up at least 50% of the partnership; Show an ability to define and implement a development strategy for the area; Select an administrative and financial lead actor able to administer public funds or come together in a legally constituted common structure, the constitution of which guarantees the satisfactory operation of the LAG and its ability to administer public funds; and Cover a coherent area which offers sufficient critical mass in terms of human, financial and economic resources to support a viable development strategy.

Essentially, these are the criteria set out by the European Commission for a LAG and the overlap between the Partnership and the LAG is apparent. Most notably, both are required to have an area based local development strategy (is that the same strategy?) and both will bring together local partners. The obvious question this raises is whether both structures are necessary and to which do the conditions set out in the European Commission regulations apply.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 29

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

4.3.

Support structure

A significant support structure exists for Axes 3 and 4 as set out below. Again, it is important to be aware of this structure when considering the activities being undertaken by the Partnerships.

4.3.1. Lead Body Each RDP Partnership is supported by a Lead Body which, in each instance, is the Local Authority for the area in question. Their role is described as follows in the Scheme Guidance as follows (page 8): The role of the Lead Body will be to oversee the delivery of the Local Development Strategy, on behalf of the Partnership including progress on individual projects, and ensure that the projects supported underpin the overall aims and objectives. The role of the Financial Coordinator [later integrated to be part of the Lead Body role] will be to ensure that grant is applied and used properly and within regulatory requirements in compliance with grant terms and conditions and in accordance with funding agreements, scheme guidance and all approved systems and procedures of the Partnership. In order to meet the controls, governance and compliance requirements of the CAP Regulations that apply to the Rural Development Plan 2007-2013, the Financial Co-ordinator must be the Local Authority.

4.3.2. The Welsh Government Operations Team The Welsh Government has an ‘operations team’ whose role is to facilitate the implementation of Axes 3 and 4 of the RDP. The Welsh Government performed a similar role during the delivery of the LEADER+ programme in Wales. The role of the Operations Team is summarised as follows in an appendix of a May 2006 Welsh Government report on a review of Axes 3 and 4 processes:

Relationship management •Support and guidance to Lead Bodies, Partnerships / LAGs •Project development to Lead Bodies, Partnerships / LAGs •Guidance and coordination support on cooperative projects •Responsibility for providing completed applications for appraisal with recommendations •Building strategic area links

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Appraisal •Appraising fully completed application submissions •Working with finance / compliance, checking for budget availability, monitoring and claim scheduling •Issuing offer / rejection letters •Reviewing project amendment forms (known as PAFs)

Financial •Establishing finance and performance requirements •Advising ‘appraisal’ on budget availability, monitoring and claim scheduling •Inputting finance and outputs offers data •Processing PAFs •Processing claims •Monitoring and compliance •Technical assistance to Lead Bodies and Relationship Management

Page | 30

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

4.3.3. The Wales Rural Network The Wales Rural Network (facilitated by a team within the Welsh Government) is responsible for promoting the exchange of expertise between everyone involved in the RDP in Wales, not just Axes 3 and 4. Its work includes: • • • •

Establishment and support for thematic groups on key topics within the RDP Operation of a website, database and partner search tool to support communications and cooperation within the network Provision of training, mentoring, support and information for LAGs Support for inter-territorial and trans-national working

Along with hosting events, conferences and visits, the Network also shares information between partners through the web-site and by producing bulletins and publications 12. It is one of four regional rural networks established in the UK. A range of training was offered by the Operations Team and the Wales Rural Network in the run up to both bidding rounds (discussed below) which included a series of 12 thematic workshops leading up to the Business Plan 1 period and 12 workshops for the Business Plan 2 period. These brought representatives from Welsh Government, from relevant sectors and other Axes together with the lead bodies to give presentations on mainstream activity with a view to avoiding duplication and identifying opportunities for synergy.

4.4.

The RDP process

Whilst this evaluation is focused on the RDP Partnerships rather than the management and delivery of Axes 3 and 4 as a whole it is important to take into account the influence of the process within which the Partnerships have been working on their activities and the effectiveness with which they have been able to undertake their role. Prospective partnerships were invited to participate in the RDP in September 2006 and asked to prepare their proposals which were submitted to the Welsh Government for initial consideration by late December 2006, with formal submission of final applications to the Welsh Government by March 2007 (a period of 6 months). The application process followed four stages: • • • •

Stage 1: setting up a Partnership Stage 2: setting up a LAG Stage 3: preparation of the LDS Stage 4: preparation of a Business Plan

Further information on the activities of the Network is available here: http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/farmingandcountryside/ruraldevelopment/walesruralnetwork/?lang= en

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 31

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

All 18 Partnerships that submitted a LDS were awarded ‘status’ and invited to submit a business plan with a series of projects to be implemented between June 2007 and February 2011, although the deadline for a number of projects has subsequently been extended; this period is known as Business Plan 1. During 2010, the Partnerships were invited to submit a second business plan (Business Plan 2) to include projects that would run for the period 1st March 2011 to 31st December 2013. Much of the work of partnerships to date has therefore focused in developing projects and business plans an issue discussed further later in the report. It should be noted that different processes were used by the Welsh Government to appraise and approve projects for the two Business Plan periods. Further, a review of the Business Plan 1 process was undertaken by the Welsh Government in the run up to the Business Plan 2 period which sought the views of the Lead Bodies, Partnerships and LAGs in order to seek to improve the process for Business Plan 2 bidding round. Almost all projects submitted by Partnerships for the Business Plan 1 period were approved by the Welsh Government; of the 293 ‘applications’ submitted, 265 were approved, 9 were withdrawn by the Partnerships themselves and 19 were rejected on eligibility grounds. Essentially, there was therefore no competition at that stage. For the Business Plan 2 round it was agreed (after consultation by the Welsh Government with the Partnerships and LAGs) that it would be a competitive process and that appraisal take place at the ‘expression of interest’ (EOI) stage; only EOIs scoring highly enough at EOI stage would be asked to submit full scale project applications. This process was adopted with a view to avoiding unnecessary development work on projects which could not be supported. Despite the fact that all areas were aware of the budget available, the total value of the applications submitted was approximately 100% in excess of the budget that was available which meant that it was a very competitive process. The impact of this is also discussed further later in the report.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 32

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

5. Findings: partnership structures This section discusses the models or structures in place for the RDP in the local authority areas in Wales.

Summary •

The structure in each Local Authority area has been influenced by the structures that have existed there in the past. It is also important to take into account the fact that the geographic coverage of previous rural programmes in Wales has been inconsistent. A number of Local Authority areas within the current programme have not been eligible for ‘rural’ programmes in the past.

•

There would seem to be a correlation between the role of the Partnership and the ‘rurality’ of the county. For example, the whole of Gwynedd could be considered rural and, as such, the main Economic Development Partnership for the area is responsible for the RDP. The same can be said for Ceredigion and Anglesey. In other areas, where only part of the county is considered to be rural, the partnership is more likely to be a sub-group of the main Economic Development Partnership for the area and/or a ‘specialist’ RDP partnership (i.e. their only responsibility is the RDP).

•

For LAGs, in general terms, three types of structures exist although there is a significant blurring of the lines between Type 1 and 2: Type 1: the LAG is a formal ‘sub-group’ of the main Partnership; Type 2: the LAG has been set up as a ‘stand-alone group’ but its project staff are employed and managed by the Local Authority.; and Type 3: the LAG is a constituted standalone organisation.

•

There would seem to be a degree of tension between, on the one hand, a desire to integrate Axes 3 and 4 activities and (in some areas) the need to accommodate structures (i.e. LAGs) that were in place as a legacy of the previous programmes. This has led to some overlap of structures in some areas where it could be argued that in many respects two LAGs are active.

•

It is also apparent that there is significant overlap in terms of membership of the Partnership and LAG in a number of areas and especially in the ‘new’ RDP areas.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 33

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

5.1.

Evolution, role and responsibilities

The structure in each Local Authority area has been influenced by the structures that existed there in the past. It is also important to take into account the fact that the geographic coverage of previous rural programmes in Wales has been inconsistent. For example, whilst some areas (e.g. parts of Pembrokeshire) have been involved with the LEADER programme since the early 1990’s this is the first time 6 of the 18 areas – Bridgend, Caerphilly, Merthyr Tydfil, Swansea, Neath Port Talbot and Torfaen - have been involved in a ‘rural’ programme. Table 1 sets out the following for each Local Authority area: • •

The history of rural programmes in the area; and Whether the Partnership is new or evolved.

The programmes noted in the column on the history of rural programmes in the area are: • • •

• •

LEADER II (1994-1999) LEADER+ (2000-2006) Rural Community Action (2003-2007): a WG funded programme which provided support to RCA Partnerships across rural Wales which worked with communities to bring together and fund projects in an integrated, strategic approach across a wide range of social, environmental, cultural and other sectors. Article 33 of the RDP programme 2000-2006: Part of the previous RDP, this programme invested in the infrastructure of rural communities in East Wales and had three priorities: provision of basic services, renovation of villages and tourism and craft activities. Priority 5 of the Objective 1 programme 2000-2006: Part of the previous Structural Funds programme in West Wales and the Valleys. Elements of Priority 5 provided funding for projects that were very similar in nature to those currently funded through Axis 3 of the RDP.

Partnerships or LAGs were required as part of each of the above programmes. Accordingly, in many parts of Wales, there was scope to evolve the RDP partnership from an existing structure, should that be deemed appropriate.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 34

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

Table 1: Evolution of the Partnership in each area Local authority area Anglesey

New or evolved Evolved

Evolution of the Partnership

Bridgend

Rural prog. history LEADER II LEADER+ RCA P5, Objective 1 None

New

Caerphilly

None

New

Carmarthenshire

LEADER II RCA P5, Objective 1

Evolved

Ceredigion

LEADER II RCA P5, Objective 1 LEADER+ RCA P5, Objective 1 LEADER II LEADER+ RCA P5, Objective 1 LEADER II LEADER+ RCA Article 33 LEADER II RCA P5, Objective 1 None

Evolved

The partnership was established specifically for the purposes of the RDP in 2007. The Caerffili Cwm a Mynydd Partnership was launched in 2007 specifically for the purposes of the RDP. The partnership, Grŵp Cefn Gwlad, is a sub-group of the Carmarthenshire Regeneration Partnership and was established approximately 8-9 years ago for the purposes of the delivery of Objective 1 in the area. The Adfywio Regeneration Partnership was established in 2000 for the purposes of the Objective 1 programme.

LEADER+ RCA Article 33 None

New

Swansea

LEADER II LEADER+ RCA P5, Objective 1 LEADER II LEADER+ RCA Article 33 None

Torfaen

None

Evolved

Vale of Glamorgan Wrexham

RCA Article 33 LEADER+ RCA Article 33

Evolved

Conwy

Denbighshire

Flintshire

Gwynedd

Merthyr Tydfil Monmouthshire

Neath Port Talbot Pembrokeshire

Powys

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Evolved

New

Evolved

New

Evolved

The role of the partnership is undertaken by Anglesey Economic Regeneration Partnership (AERP); established in 1999 for the purpose of Objective 1.

The Conwy Rural Partnership was formed in early 2000 and it has been successful in advising initiatives under Objective 1 and a range of other initiatives. The Denbighshire Rural Development Plan Partnership was established in 2007 specifically for the purposes of the RDP.

The Flintshire Rural Partnership was established in September 2006 for the purposes of the RDP. A partnership already existed in the area to oversee the delivery of the Article 33 programme but was not considered to be robust enough. The Gwynedd Economic Partnership was established in 2000 as the Objective 1 partnership for the area. Rural Action Merthyr (RAM) Partnership was established in 2006 with responsibility solely to monitor and deliver the RDP. The Adventa+ Monmouthshire Partnership was set up by Monmouthshire County Council in 2008 to deliver the RDP The Partnership evolved from the Neath Port Talbot Regeneration Partnership was initially established for the Objective 1 regeneration programme. Pembrokeshire Advance was set up by the Local Authority specifically for the purposed of the RDP.

Evolved

The Powys Regeneration Partnership was set up in 2000 to oversee the development, management and implementation of the EC’s Objective 2 and Objective 3 programmes in Powys.

New

The Swansea Rural Partnership was set up specifically for the purposes of the RDP. The Partnership was originally established in April 2000 in relation to Objective 1. The Partnership was initially established in 2003 when the Rural Communities Action programme was introduced. The Northern Marches Cymru Partnership was initially established in 2001 to oversee the LEADER+ programme. Since then, it has overseen a number of other funding programmes including; Article 33 and Rural Community Action Development Strategies.

Evolved

Page | 35

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

The split is fairly even with 10 of the 18 partnerships having ‘evolved’ most commonly from the Objective 1 structural funds programme 13. It is also interesting to consider whether or not the Partnership has a broader role than that of the RDP. All partnerships have some kind of “overview” role for rural issues in their area and, as such, may discuss developments in their area more generally. Some partnerships however have a more formal role outside the RDP. For example: • • • • •

Anglesey: as well as being the RDP partnership, the AERP is the principal economic regeneration partnership for the island and is the ‘strategic partnerships’ contributing towards delivery of the Local Authority’s Community Plan. Ceredigion: The Adfywio partnership is responsible for issues to do with regeneration in the county and community strategy as well as the RDP. Adfywio also oversees a number of projects funded by the Convergence programme 14. Gwynedd: The Gwynedd Economic Partnership is the principle economic partnership for the county – not just its rural parts. Powys: Similar to the above, the Powys Regeneration Partnership is the lead Partnership for the economic theme of the Powys Community Strategy. Monmouthshire: As well as the RDP, the Partnership is responsible for a project funded by the WG Supply Chain Initiative (part of RDP, Axis 1) and the Monmouthshire ‘Tidy Towns’ scheme.

All of the above are examples of ‘evolved’ partnerships that have either developed into a broader role from a ‘rural’ starting point (e.g. Monmouthshire) or that have had a broader role that has evolved to include rural within their remit (e.g. Gwynedd and Anglesey). There would seem to be a correlation between the role of the Partnership and the ‘rurality’ of the county. For example, the whole of Gwynedd could be considered rural and, as such, the main economic development partnership for the area is responsible for the RDP. The same can be said for Ceredigion and Anglesey. In other areas, where only part of the county is considered to be rural, the Partnership is more likely to be a sub-group of the main economic development partnership for the area and/or a ‘specialist’ RDP partnership (i.e. their only responsibility is the RDP). This is the case in Bridgend, Caerphilly, Merthyr Tydfil, Neath Port Talbot and Swansea; all of which are areas which have become eligible for support under the RDP for the first time in this current programme period. These are also what could be described as the more ‘urban’ of the counties within the RDP. Essentially, the RDP Partnership in each area is based on what is considered to be most appropriate for that area. This does mean that there is a significant variance in the previous experience of Partnerships. Importantly, it also means that there is a difference in terms of how ‘central’ the RDP partnership is to broader policy or strategy within the county; in Gwynedd, the RDP is at the centre of economic development policy but in Merthyr Tydfil it is a ‘sub-group’ of the main policy forum.

Objective 1 was the EC Structural Funds programme which ran in West Wales and the Valleys between 2000 and 2006. As part of the programme, local partnerships were set up in each Local Authority area. Their role was in many ways similar to that of the RDP Partnerships: (1) to develop and review a local strategy or action plan to target Objective 1 resources to local areas of need and opportunity; (2) to monitor progress in implementing the strategy and identify gaps in provision; (3) to assist applicants in developing projects which will deliver the objectives of the strategy; and (4) to promote the programme locally. 14 The West Wales and the Valleys region has been awarded the highest level of support known as Convergence, from the European Union for the Structural Funds programming round 2007–2013. Convergence is the successor to Objective 1: Further information is available here: http://wefo.wales.gov.uk/programmes/convergence/?lang=en

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 36

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

Both approaches have their merits. If the Partnership is only concerned with the RDP this will obviously be the main focus of discussions. But, should there be a more senior partnership considering the economic regeneration of the areas as a whole (other than the RDP) there is a risk that RDP activities will not be fully integrated with other activities in the area. If the RDP partnership function is carried out by a broader economic development partnership discussions about the implementation of Axes 3 and 4 take place alongside discussion about the broader regeneration of the area. Although clearly this may be advantageous in terms of ensuring complementarity with other development activity, there is a risk that the RDP will be merely one item on a long agenda.

Interesting practice: use of sub-groups The RDP Partnership for Anglesey is the Anglesey Economic Regeneration Partnership (AERP). In addition to the full partnership, there is a co-ordination group and four subgroups. The Coordination Group undertakes the initial assessment of each local project and makes a subsequent recommendation to the AERP; it drives forward the strategy implementation process; whilst coordinating actions that cut across the works of the subgroups. The four subgroups consist of: Human Assets Subgroup; Infrastructure Subgroup; Community Subgroup; and the Business Assets Subgroup. The subgroups are tasked with developing action plans for the implementation of the Anglesey Economic Regeneration Strategy.

Interesting practice: wider membership Membership of Gwynedd Economic Partnership (known as PEG) is open to individuals living or working in Gwynedd and organisations interested in the area’s future prosperity. The Partnership has over 100 members. PEG's Steering Group (which is ‘the Partnership’ for the purposes of the RDP) is empowered by the membership to implement the objectives of the Partnership. Steering Group members are elected every three years, and represent the views of the public, private, voluntary and community sector. In Anglesey, the Economic Regeneration Partnership has over 250 ‘associate members’ who are kept informed of the Partnership's activities and given the opportunity to contribute to its work. The LAG in Swansea use a similar approach in order to increase the range of individuals and organisations taking an interest in the activities of the LAG but who may not necessarily want to attend meetings.

Interesting practice: representing a wider group on the Partnership In Powys, you are only allowed to be a member of the Partnership (the Powys Regeneration Partnership) if you are there on behalf of a local representative organisation. If no such organisation exists but the Partnership feels that sector should be represented on the Partnership, support is provided via one of the partners to set up a new representative organisation that can then nominate a member to represent them on the Partnership.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 37

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

5.2.

The relationship between the Partnerships and the LAGs

As discussed in Section 4, each area was required to set up a LAG in addition to a Partnership in order to undertake Axis 4 activities. In general terms, three types of structures exist although there is a significant blurring of the lines between Type 1 and 2. • • •

Type 1: the LAG is a formal ‘sub-group’ of the main partnership which has been given the responsibility for the delivery of Axis 4 or, in one case, all projects. Type 2: the LAG has been set up as a ‘stand-alone group’ but its project staff are employed and managed by the Local Authority. Type 3: the LAG is a stand-alone organisation. In each instance, it is a company limited by guarantee, with its own board of directors, etc.

Table 2: LAG relationship with the RDP Partnership per Local Authority area Type 1: Formal sub-group Bridgend Caerphilly Conwy Gwynedd Wrexham (L+)

Type 2: Separate but ‘within’ the LA Carmarthenshire Ceredigion Merthyr Tydfil Monmouthshire (L+) Neath Port Talbot Powys (L+) Swansea Torfaen Vale of Glamorgan (L+)

Type 3: Stand alone Anglesey (L2) Denbighshire* (L2) Flintshire* (L2) Pembrokeshire (L2)

L2 – LEADER II programme LAG L+ - LEADER+ programme LAG * The same LAG covers both these areas: Cadwyn Clwyd

In both Type 1 and Type 2 there are strong links between the LAG and the Partnership. And, in both cases, the Local Authority is the Lead Body for both the Partnership and the LAG. Staff are also employed by the Local Authority on behalf of the LAG and Partnership. Some would therefore argue that in those cases, the LAG is effectively operating (at least from a delivery perspective) as part of the Local Authority. And, this would seem to be at the core of why some stakeholders are critical of the structures that are in place to delivery Axis 3 and 4; the Local Authority is deemed to have too significant an influence. The Type 3 LAGs – Menter Môn, Cadwyn Clwyd and PLANED - are a legacy of the LEADER II programme in Wales. In each instance, the LAG has been set up as an independent company limited by guarantee and, therefore, has complete autonomy from the Local Authority unlike the other LAGs. But again, that structure is criticised by some stakeholders for the lack of control the Partnership then has on the activities of the LAG / Axis 4 activities. The alternative argument is of course that a LAG should not have to be ‘under the control’ of the Partnership. But, the structure in Wales is that the LAG is appointed to lead elements of the strategy (Axis 4) by the Partnership.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 38

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

5.2.1. Integration of the Axes and the need to accommodate an existing LAG Central to this issue would seem to be the ‘conflict’ between, on the one hand, an integration of Axes 3 and 4 activities and (in some areas) the need to accommodate structures (i.e. LAGs) that were in place as a legacy of the previous programmes. The intention of the European Commission was always that LAGs (under Axis 4) could deliver activities that contributed to the objectives of the other Axes. However such a close integration of Axes 3 and 4 in Wales on a structural level has led to some overlap. If we look at Powys as an example; as noted in the previous tables, the role of the Partnership is undertaken by the Powys Regeneration Partnership and the LAG is Glasu, a body set up for the delivery of the LEADER+ programme. A number of the projects being delivered in the area require applications to be assessed and approved by a ‘steering group’. For Axis 3 projects, it is not practical for the Partnership as a whole to carry out that function so a ‘strategic management panel’ has been set up to carry out that function. In parallel to this, the LAG (Glasu) is delivering the Axis 4 activities which includes taking ‘projects’ to the LAG for approval. Figure 3: Outline of the Axes 3 and 4 management / delivery structure in Powys Partnership: Powys Regeneration Partnership

Partnership subgroup

Axis 3

The LAG: Glasu

Axis 4

As illustrated by the above graphic, essentially the structure in Powys now includes what could conceivably be described as two ‘local action groups’; one for Axis 3 (the Strategic Management Panel) and one for Axis 4. The potential for overlap is clearly there although there is an argument that this is no different to setting up more than one sub-group to be responsible for different elements of a strategy. The potential for placing a heavy demand on certain key individuals who would sit on the Partnership, the sub-group and the LAG is however clear. Gwynedd is an example of an area which did not need to accommodate an existing LAG. Further, their strategy was to completely integrate Axes 3 and 4 activities within the same management structure. The LAG is a formal sub-group of the Partnership and is responsible for overseeing the delivery of both Axes 3 and 4 activities. A sub group of the Partnership was established as the LAG and it was given the role of overseeing the delivery of both Axes 3 and 4 projects within the business plan / strategy devised by the full Partnership. The advantage of such an approach is that there is no overlap. However, in Gwynedd’s case, neither is there a ‘stand alone’ LAG. And, whilst some projects which are the responsibility of the LAG are committed / required to utilise the LEADER approach others are not.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 39

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

5.2.2. Overlap in membership As will become apparent from the discussion in the following section, it also seems clear that there is overlap in terms of membership of the Partnership and LAG in a number of areas and especially in the ‘new’ RDP areas. In Caerphilly for example, the membership of the LAG were selected by the Partnership: two representatives from each of the four sectors represented on the Partnership; all LAG members are also therefore members of the Partnership. In Merthyr Tydfil, the LAG was set up to deliver Axis 4 and report to the Partnership. Again, an overlap in membership is apparent to the extent that Partnership and LAG meetings were integrated in an attempt to encourage greater attendance. Again, the question this raises is whether it is an efficient use of the resources that are available. In many ways, as discussed later in the report, it does not make sense especially if the pool of people that is being drawn upon (or relied upon) to sit of the Partnership and the LAG is relatively small as inevitably it can be in a rural area.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 40

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

6. Findings: a survey of partnership members and stakeholders This section of the report sets out the findings of the survey of partnership members and stakeholders. Essentially, this was the ‘self-evaluation’ element of the overall evaluation as it asked partnership members and those involved with the Partnership to reflect on the partnership. The questionnaire was based on ‘The Partnership Assessment Tool’ published in 2003 by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minster; a tool was designed to allow the effectiveness of partnership working to be assessed 15.

Summary •

Sixty eight percent (81/119) of respondents said that they were involved with other similar partnerships, local groups or committees in their area suggesting that, in terms of those sitting around the table, there is some overlap between the RDP Partnerships and other ‘group’ in the area. But, 32% (38/119) were only involved with the RDP Partnership suggesting that the programme is also drawing new people into ‘local governance’.

•

Whilst respondents generally had positive views about their understanding of their and the Partnership’s role and responsibilities, they were least positive about (1) the clarity of the role of the LAG, (2) the difference in the remit of the RDP Partnership from that of others in the area, and (3) whether all key local partners were represented on the Partnership.

•

Representatives of the private and 3rd sector were generally less positive than their public sector counterparts about their understanding of the roles and responsibilities relating to the Partnership.

•

Fifty eight percent of respondents (54/93) agreed that they had received adequate training, advice and/or guidance on their roles and responsibilities to undertake their role on the Partnership effectively. But, over a quarter of respondents - 28% (30/109) - rated the training, advice and/or guidance they had received as being ineffective.

•

The issue that respondents were least positive about within the whole questionnaire was the reliance of the Partnership on officers and members of staff. However, during qualitative interviews, partnership members highlighted that this was not unexpected; “that’s what the staff are for... of course you rely on them” being typical comments.

•

Eighty three percent (126/151) of respondents said that they believed the structures that have been put in place to implement the RDP improved the quality of the rural development activities in their area most commonly because it had enabled funding to be accessed.

Office of the Deputy Prime Minster, Assessing Strategic Partnership - The Partnership Assessment Tool (2003)

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 41

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

6.1.

The sample

The questionnaire was distributed in one of two ways; directly by Wavehill to lists of partnership members and stakeholders provided by the Lead Body or by the Lead Body themselves if they were not able to provide a distribution list to Wavehill. There were 151 responses to the survey split as follows: • • •

119 Partnership and LAG members – 37% (44/119) were members of both the Partnership and the LAG; 31 staff who report to the Partnership / attend meetings; and 1 who worked in the same field as the Partnership but was not directly involved with the work of the Partnership.

If we assume that there are in the region of 20 members per partnership, which interviews with Lead Bodies suggests in reasonable, there are 360 members in total, suggesting that our sample (119) represents approximately 33% of the population as a whole. Figure 4: Distribution of survey respondents per Local Authority area 15

14 11

12 10

11 7

8 6

9 5

7 5

9 6

4 2 0

N: 151

Respondents to the survey placed themselves in one of four cohorts or groups: • • • •

Observers, advisors, etc. (staff) Public sector Private sector Voluntary / community sector (the 3rd sector)

It should be noted that for the purposes of presenting the findings of the survey we have merged the responses from the voluntary and community sectors. The reason for this was to ensure that the number of respondents within the group was large enough for analysis.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 42

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

However, it was also apparent during the interviews that some respondents were unclear as to whether they were representatives of the community or voluntary sector often describing themselves as being representatives of both. Table 3 shows the number of responses split according to the above cohorts and per Local Authority area. Table 3: Distribution of survey respondents per local authority area and role/representation16 Staff

Private Sector

Public Sector

3rd Sector

Total

Bridgend

Caerphilly

Carmarthenshire

Ceredigion

Conwy

Denbighshire

Flintshire

Gwynedd

Isle of Anglesey

Merthyr Tydfil

Monmouthshire

Neath Port Talbot

Pembrokeshire

Powys

Swansea

Vale of Glamorgan

Torfaen

Wrexham

151

21%

28%

17%

33%

100%

LA area

Total

It is important to be aware of the limitations of the sample. Firstly, it is self selecting and therefore only reflects the views of those who wanted to respond. There is also inconsistency in terms of the number of responses from each area and from the different sectors. One way in which to address this may have been to ‘weight’ the data to eliminate these variances. However, this would not change the analysis significantly and, therefore, the analysis that follows is based on the data as collected. As discussed in the previous section, 2007-13 is the first time some areas in Wales have been able to access ‘rural’ funding. Some of the analysis that follows assesses whether this has any impact on the views of members and stakeholders interviewed. Do members and stakeholders from ‘established’ areas17 have different views than those in the ‘new’ areas 18?

Please note that this table does not include the staff interviewed as part of the discussions with the Lead Bodies. It only includes those who responded to the survey subsequently distributed. 17 Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion, Conwy, Denbighshire, Flintshire, Gwynedd, Isle of Anglesey, Monmouthshire, Pembrokeshire, Powys, Vale of Glamorgan, Wrexham. 18 Bridgend, Caerphilly, Merthyr Tydfil, Neath Port Talbot, Swansea and Torfaen.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 43

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

6.2.

Role, remit and responsibility

6.2.1. Experience and links to overlap of members A large group of the partnership members within the sample (68% - 81/119) said that they were involved with other partnerships, local groups or committees in their area. This suggests that, in terms of those sitting around the table, there is some overlap between the RDP Partnerships and other ‘groups’ in the area. This may obviously be desirable in terms of creating the links between the work of the RDP Partnerships and other activities in the area. But it may also mean that the ‘usual suspects’ are to be found on the RDP Partnerships. Thirty two percent (38/119) were only involved with the RDP Partnership. Half of the partnership members (59/119) said that they had been involved in local partnerships or similar before they became involved with the RDP Partnership; the other half (60/119) had not had any previous involvement. This is interesting because it suggests that a group of partnership members are getting involved in this type of activity for the first time. This is particularly relevant given that one of the objectives of the RDP programme (Axis 4) is to have a positive impact on local governance; people are getting involved for the first time. Thirty four percent (44/119) of partnership members were members of both the Partnership and the LAG. This is another indication of the potential of duplication / complementarily in terms of the membership between the two previously discussed.

6.2.2. The difference between the role of the Partnership and the LAG Respondents were asked to differentiate between the role of the Partnership and the LAG in their area. A range of responses were given; the three most common being: Role of the Partnership The Partnership has strategic approach x 34 The Partnership is broader x 14 The Partnership ‘oversees’ x 10

Role of the LAG LAG delivers Axis 4 x 30 LAG delivers local priorities x 12 LAG smaller and steers x 9

Two descriptions stand out, that of the Partnership as having the ‘strategic’ role and that of the LAG as the ‘delivery’ of Axis 4 projects. This division is an issue discussed further in Section 7.

6.2.3. Perceived understanding of roles and responsibilities Respondents were asked to agree or disagree with a series of statements designed to explore their views and perceived understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the Partnership as a whole and themselves as members (Table 4). All statements were positive in order to allow the ‘score’ for each to be compared. Any ‘score’ above 2 is positive; on average, respondents agreed with the statement.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 44

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

Table 4: Response to the question – do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please use a scale of 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) to respond. Whole sample Statement

I am aware of and understand the aims and objectives of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-2013 The remit of the Partnership is clear to me The remit of the LAG is clear to me The remit of the Partnership is clearly different to the remit of other partnerships in the area The Partnership plays an important role in the development of the rural parts of the County The LAG plays an important role in the development of the rural parts of the County I understand the role and responsibilities of the Lead Body The division of responsibility between the Partnership and the Lead Body is clear - what they are responsible for as Lead Body and what you are responsible for as a partnership member They key local partners and sectors are represented on the Partnership; there are no obvious gaps The key local partners and sectors are represented on the LAG; there are no obvious gaps

Number of responses

Mean

151

3.3

151 148

3.1 2.9

150

2.9

151

3.3

149

3.1

142

3.4

141

3.0

150

2.7

149

2.6

The first thing to note is that the average (mean) is positive in each instance. The most positive scores (highlighted by the blue circle) are for the respondents’ perception of their understanding of why they are a member of the Partnership and what their role and area of responsibility is. But, of perhaps more interest are the lowest average scores. The four instances where the average score is below 3 are circled in red in the table. They are: • • • •

The remit of the LAG is clear to me The remit of the Partnership is clearly different to the remit of other partnerships in the area They key local partners and sectors are represented on the Partnership; there are no obvious gaps The key local partners and sectors are represented on the LAG; there are no obvious gaps

It is important to stress that in these instances, the average score is positive which means that, on average, respondents gave a positive response. They are however the ‘areas’ where the response was least positive. A review of the average score for each statement by the different sector representatives (public, private and 3rd sector) shows that there is a difference of opinion in a number of instances (Table 5). However, it is again important to stress that the average response was positive in each sector and that the differences are not substantial.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 45

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

Table 5: Response to the question – do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please use a scale of 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) to respond. Per Sector Statement

The remit of the Partnership is clearly different to the remit of other partnerships in the area The division of responsibility between the Partnership and the Lead Body is clear - what they are responsible for as Lead Body and what you are responsible for as a partnership member They key local partners and sectors are represented on the Partnership; there are no obvious gaps

Public

Private

3rd Sector

3.0

2.7

3.2

2.8

2.7

2.9

2.8

2.5

The private and 3rd sectors are less positive than the public sector representatives about the difference in the remit of the RDP Partnership compared to other partnerships in the area, possibly because the public sector have a clearer understanding of the differences. They are also less positive about the clarity of the division of responsibility between the Partnership and the Lead Body. Interestingly, the 3rd sector is less positive than both the public and private sectors about the representation of the Partnership. The respondents who did not believe that all the key local partners and sectors were represented on the Partnership and/or LAG were asked to identify the gaps and, all identified the private sector as being under represented. When we compare the views of respondents from new and established areas some degree of difference of opinion is evident although the differences are marginal (Figure 5). The difference is greatest in terms of respondents’ views on whether the Partnership plays an important role in the development of the rural parts of the county; respondents in new areas are less positive than their counterparts in the established areas. Figure 5: Response to the question – do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please use a scale of 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) to respond. New vs. established areas

The Partnership plays an important role in the development of the rural parts of the County The remit of the Partnership is clearly different to the remit of other partnerships in the area

3.08 3.47

2.85 2.9 New Established

The remit of the Partnership is clear to me

I am aware of and understand the aims and objectives of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-2013

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

3.02 3.15

3.19 3.32

Page | 46

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

6.2.4. Training, advice and guidance Eighty three percent (99/119) of the partnership members responded to a question asking them to rate the effectiveness of the training, advice and/or guidance they had received had been in terms of increasing their understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the Partnership/LAG and its members. As illustrated by Figure 6, 47% (47/99) described it as being effective with 15% (15/99) describing it as very effective. However, 25% (25/99) gave a negative response. Figure 6: Response to the question - On a scale of 0 to 4, how effective has training, advice and/or guidance been in terms of increasing your understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the Partnership/LAG and its members? 35%

32%

30%

27%

25% 20% 15%

15%

14% 11%

10% 5% 0% 0 - not very effective at all

4 - very effective

N=99

The training most often given as examples of that provided was: • • •

Outline of responsibilities x 12 Just what is available at meetings x 8 Conferences/Presentations x 5

A review of the responses per sector shows that a slightly higher percentage of private and 3rd sector representatives had negative views compared to their counterparts from the public sector. However, the analysis suggests that a similar proportion in each sector has a negative view; no single sector stands out. • • •

Public sector – 22% (6/27) Private sector – 27% (7/26) 3rd sector – 26% (12/46)

Thirty seven percent of Partnership members (44/119) said that they needed further advice and/or guidance on their role as members of the Partnership / LAG. As shown below, the need was perceived to be far greater by the 3rd sector and in particular by the private sector. • • •

Public sector – 21% (9/43) Private sector – 65% (17/26) 3rd sector – 36% (18/50)

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 47

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

When asked what training, advice or guidance they would like to receive, the most frequent answers were: • • • •

A review of the process x 7 A refresher course x 6 Basic introduction to everyone and their roles x 6 How to deal with bureaucracy x 5

It is interesting to compare the responses from new and established areas when respondents were asked to agree or disagree with the statement “I have received adequate training, advice and/or guidance to undertake my role on the Partnership effectively”. Figure 7: Response to the question – Do you agree or disagree with the statement: ‘I have received adequate training, advice and/or guidance to undertake my role on the Partnership effectively’; new vs. established areas. Established

New

48% 36%

33%

15%

19%

17%

15%

14% 3%

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Established N = 67 New N= 36

A higher percentage of respondents from the established areas gave a positive response; 63% compared to 50%. This suggests a greater confidence amongst respondents from established areas that they have received the training, advice and/or guidance necessary. Fifty percent of respondents from new areas did not agree with the statement. It is also interesting to note that a slightly higher percentage of respondents from established areas gave a negative response; 18% compared to 14%.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 48

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

6.3.

Vision, aims, objectives and targets

As previously, the tables below show the average (mean) response to a series of statements within the questionnaire about the vision, aims, objectives and targets relating to the Partnership. The first table shows the mean for the sample as a whole and the table that follows splits the response according to the sectors which respondents represented. Table 6: Response to the question – do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please use a scale of 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) to respond. Whole sample Statement

The vision, as set out in our Local Development Strategy, is clear to me I understand how the Local Development Strategy complements (fits with) other activities in the County I have a clear understanding of the vision, shared values and agreed principles of the Partnership The Partnership has clearly defined aims and objectives The Partnership’s aims and objectives are realistic I am fully aware of the ‘service delivery’ targets which the Partnership is responsible for - the outputs and results it is seeking to achieve within a set timescale The ‘service delivery’ targets that are in place are realistic and achievable within the set timescales

Number of responses

Mean

138

3.2

138

3.0

139

3.1

144 142

3.0 3.0

138

3.0

138

2.8

Table 7: Response to the question – do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please use a scale of 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) to respond. Per Sector Public

Private

3rd Sector

The vision, as set out in our Local Development Strategy, is clear to me

3.1

3.2

3.1

I understand how the Local Development Strategy complements (fits with) other activities in the County

3.1

2.9

I have a clear understanding of the vision, shared values and agreed principles of the Partnership

3.0

3.1

The Partnership has clearly defined aims and objectives

3.1

3.0

3.1

The Partnership’s aims and objectives are realistic

3.1

2.7

3.0

3.2

2.5

3.0

2.2

2.8

Statement

I am fully aware of the ‘service delivery’ targets which the Partnership is responsible for - the outputs and results it is seeking to achieve within a set timescale The ‘service delivery’ targets that are in place are realistic and achievable within the set timescales

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 49

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

All responses are again positive but are least positive for the statement regarding how realistic and achievable the targets set are. The spit between the different sectors shows that private sector representatives are slightly less positive that their counterparts in the public and 3rd sector about: • • •

How realistic the aims and objectives of the Partnership are; Their awareness of the ‘service delivery’ targets which the Partnership is responsible for; and Whether the targets are realistic and achievable within the set timescales.

When the responses from ‘new’ and ‘established’ areas are compared, there is very little difference in opinion although the response was slightly less positive from new areas in a number of instances. Table 8: Response to the question – do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please use a scale of 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) to respond. New vs. established areas Statement

Established

New

The vision, as set out in our Local Development Strategy, is clear to me

3.2

3.1

I understand how the Local Development Strategy complements (fits with) other activities in the County

3.0

I have a clear understanding of the vision, shared values and agreed principles of the Partnership

3.2

3.0

The Partnership has clearly defined aims and objectives

3.1

The Partnership’s aims and objectives are realistic

3.0

2.9

3.0

2.8

2.7

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 50

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

6.4.

Commitment and ownership

The tables below set out the response to a series of statements about the commitment of partnership members, the ownership of the Partnership, how representative it is and its communication with the local community. Table 9: Response to the question – do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please use a scale of 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) to respond. Whole sample Statement

I am committed to being a member of the Partnership for the foreseeable future Partnership members in general are clearly committed to the Partnership There is a consistent commitment to the Partnership from its members generally There is widespread ownership of the Partnership across all partners I actively communicate with those whom I am representing on the Partnership The Partnership is as representative as possible of the local community The Partnership has effective processes in place to communicate with the local community There is a good level of awareness of the activities supported / being undertaken by the RDP programme in the local area

Number of responses

Mean

103

3.3

138

3.1

138

3.0

138

2.7

138

2.9

145

2.8

145

2.7

145

2.5

Table 10: Response to the question – do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please use a scale of 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) to respond. Per Sector Statement

I am committed to being a member of the Partnership for the foreseeable future Partnership members in general are clearly committed to the Partnership There is a consistent commitment to the Partnership from its members generally I actively communicate with those whom I am representing on the Partnership The Partnership is as representative as possible of the local community The Partnership has effective processes in place to communicate with the local community There is a good level of awareness of the activities supported / being undertaken by the RDP programme in the local area I actively communicate with those whom I am representing on the Partnership

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Public

Private

3rd Sector

3.4

3.2

3.3

3.0

3.2

2.9

3.1

2.6

2.5

2.9

3.1

2.9

3.0

2.8

2.9

2.7

2.6

2.5

2.4

2.5

Page | 51

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

The average response is least positive for those statements relating to ownership, communication and, in particular, levels of awareness within the community. Interestingly, representatives of the 3rd sector are more positive than their counterparts but are slightly less positive about the processes that the Partnership has in place to communicate with the local community. A number of respondents made comments about the issue of communication and awareness the most common of which are noted below. • • •

Awareness of RDP could be improved x 11 We try to publicise what we do but there is a limit to what you can do x 6 Communication (generally) could be improved x 5

The following table compares the views of respondents from ‘new’ and ‘established’ areas. It shows a slight difference in opinion in a number of instances. Interestingly, respondents from new areas were more positive in terms of their commitment to being a member of the partnership for the foreseeable future and in terms of their communication with those who they were representing on the partnership. One possible explanation for this is the fact that the work of the partnership is ‘new’ and, as such, they are more enthused by it. Table 11: Response to the question – do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please use a scale of 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) to respond. New vs established areas Statement

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Established

New

3.2

3.4

3.1

3.0

3.1

2.9

2.7

2.8

3.1

2.8

2.7

2.5

Page | 52

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

6.5.

Distribution of roles and responsibilities

The statements in the tables below related to the distribution of roles and responsibilities within the Partnership. The first thing to note is that the average scores given by respondents are notably lower than for the majority of issues previously discussed. Most notably, the score for the ‘reliance of the Partnership on officers / members of staff’ is the only one in the whole survey to fall below 2; it is the only negative response. However, during qualitative interviews, partnership members highlighted that this was not unexpected; “that’s what the staff are for... of course you rely on them” being typical comments. Table 12: Response to the question – do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please use a scale of 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) to respond. Whole sample Statement

Number of responses

Mean

138

2.4

138

2.4

There is a good distribution of roles and responsibilities between Partnership members The Partnership is not dependent for its success / effectiveness solely upon a few individuals The amount of work I am expected to do as a member of the Partnership appropriate / fair The Partnership does not rely too much on officers / members of staff The way the Partnership is structured recognises and values each partner’s contribution The way the Partnership’s work is conducted recognises each partner’s contribution

2.8

138 138

1.9

138

2.9

138

3.0

Table 13: Response to the question – do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please use a scale of 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) to respond. Per Sector / group Statement

Staff

Public

Private

3rd Sector

2.2

2.5

2.1

2.5

2.3

2.6

n/a

2.9

2.6

2.9

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

3.0

2.9

2.8

3.0

2.9

3.0

For this analysis, we have included the views of members of staff within the table that splits the responses per ‘sector’ and it is interesting to note that staff, along with the public sector representatives, are less positive about the reliance of the Partnership on officers and members of staff; staff feel that partnership members are too reliant on them.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 53

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

The staff were also less positive about whether the Partnership was dependent upon a few of the members for its effectiveness and success. The same issues were raised during the interviews with the Lead Body during which a number of interviewees said that they would like to decrease “the reliance of partnerships on staff” or that they would like members “to take more ownership of the work”. Comparison of the data for ‘established’ and ‘new’ areas shows very little difference of opinion between the two groups (Table 14). The biggest difference was that respondents from new areas perceived themselves to be more dependent on a few individuals for their success; something which is perhaps not unsurprising given that they are ‘new’ groups. Table 14: Response to the question – do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please use a scale of 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) to respond. New vs. established areas Statement

Established

New

2.4

2.5

2.3

2.8

2.0

1.9

2.9

3.0

2.9

The fact that the ‘scores’ for are on average lower for the distribution of roles and responsibilities than in the other categories demonstrates a difference in opinion on these matters. Some partnership members are clearly of the view that the Partnership is indeed reliant on a few members. This conclusion is supported by the comment made by respondents at this point in the survey the most common of which were: • •

The RDP is heavily reliant on a few members x 13 There is an increasing reliance on staff members x 10

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 54

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

6.6.

Partnership working arrangements

Of the statements regarding the working arrangements of the Partnership, the one that respondents were least positive about was the amount of resource available. The response was most positive in terms of the openness and fairness with which partnership business is conducted. Table 15: Response to the question – do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please use a scale of 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) to respond. Whole sample Statement

Partnership working arrangements are simple, time-limited and taskoriented The Partnership’s principal focus is on achieving its vision, aims & objectives and service targets The way in which Partnership business is conducted is open and fair The Partnership has sufficient resources (e.g. staff) available to it to operate effectively Adequate information is provided to Partnership members by officials (i.e. the Lead Body) to allow it to undertake its role The Partnership has an appropriate level of ‘control’ over projects to undertake its remit There is effective communication between the Partnership and the LAG The Partnership has effective processes in place to deal with any management issues that may arise, such as disagreements between partners, conflicts of interest, etc. The Partnership has robust procedures in place for monitoring progress against targets that have been set within the business plans Clear criteria exist to judge the extent to which the Partnership’s aims and objectives are being achieved Partnership achievements are well communicated amongst the partner agencies and beyond The achievements of the RDP programme are well communicated amongst the partner agencies and beyond The partnership learns from its experience and, where necessary, changes

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Number of responses

Mean

138

2.8

138

3.0

138

3.2

138

2.6

138

3.1

138

2.9

138

3.0

138

2.8

138

3.0

138

2.9

138

2.7

137

2.8

138

3.0

Page | 55

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

Table 16: Response to the question – do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please use a scale of 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) to respond. Per Sector / group Statement

Partnership working arrangements are simple, time-limited and task-oriented The Partnership’s principal focus is on achieving its vision, aims & objectives and service targets The way in which Partnership business is conducted is open and fair The Partnership has sufficient resources (e.g. staff) available to it to operate effectively Adequate information is provided to Partnership members by officials (i.e. the Lead Body) to allow it to undertake its role The Partnership has an appropriate level of ‘control’ over projects to undertake its remit There is effective communication between the Partnership and the LAG The Partnership has effective processes in place to deal with any management issues that may arise, such as disagreements between partners, conflicts of interest, etc. The Partnership has robust procedures in place for monitoring progress against targets that have been set within the business plans Clear criteria exist to judge the extent to which the Partnership’s aims and objectives are being achieved Partnership achievements are well communicated amongst the partner agencies and beyond The achievements of the RDP programme are well communicated amongst the partner agencies and beyond The partnership learns from its experience and, where necessary, changes

Public

Private

3rd Sector

2.8

2.5

3.0

3.1

2.7

3.3

3.2

3.1

2.7

2.4

2.5

3.2

2.8

3.2

3.0

2.6

3.0

3.1

2.8

2.9

2.8

2.6

2.7

3.1

2.8

3.1

3.0

2.6

3.0

2.8

2.4

2.8

2.3

2.8

2.9

3.1

It is interesting to note that private sector representatives are less positive than their counterparts in a number of instances (highlighted within the table by the red circle). One possible explanation for this is that private sector members may be used to a different (private sector) way of working and may be more inclined to be frustrated by ‘public sector bureaucracy’ than their counterparts in the public and 3rd sectors. Comparison of the data for ‘established’ and ‘new’ areas does not identify any substantial difference of opinion (Table 17). The greatest difference of opinion is in terms of (a) whether the Partnership’s principal focus is on achieving its vision, aims & objectives and service targets – established areas are more positive; and (b) whether the Partnership has an appropriate level of ‘control’ over projects to undertake its remit – new areas are more positive than their established counterparts.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 56

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

Table 17: Response to the question – do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please use a scale of 0 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) to respond. Established vs new areas Statement

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Established

New

2.8

3.1

2.9

3.2

2.6

3.1

2.8

3.0

2.9

2.8

2.9

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.7

2.8

2.7

2.9

3.0

Page | 57

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

6.7.

General views on the Partnership

The questionnaire finished with a series of qualitative questions about the Partnership.

6.7.1. The benefits of the structure Respondents were asked whether, in their opinion, the structures that have been put in place to implement the RDP (i.e. the Partnership and the LAG) improved the quality of the rural development activities in their area; 83% (126/151) said that they believed that it had with 25% (38/151) believing that the improvement was significant. Only 7% (10/151) have a negative response with the remainder being unsure. The following table split the responses according to the sector the respondents were representing (Table 18). It suggests that members of the partnership are more positive than staff when it comes to judging the benefits of the structure; the 3rd sector is the most positive. Table 18: Response to the question: have the structures that have been put in place to implement the RDP improved the quality of the rural development activities in your area? Split by sector

Staff Public sector Private sector 3rd sector

Yes - significantly 19% 23% 23% 32%

Yes 56% 63% 62% 54%

No 6% 9% 4% 6%

Don’t know 19% 5% 12% 8%

Table 19 splits the data according to ‘established’ and ‘new’ areas and shows that whilst both groups are positive, a higher percentage of respondents in the new areas said that they believed the structure had significantly improved the quality of the rural development activities in your area. Table 19: Response to the question: have the structures that have been put in place to implement the RDP improved the quality of the rural development activities in your area? Split by ‘established’ and ‘new’ area

Established New

Yes - significantly 19% 29%

Yes 62% 56%

No 8% 6%

Don’t know 11% 9%

When asked to explain their positive answer, the most common comments related to the following: • • • • •

Delivering business plan 1 x 19 Delivering the projects x 16 Achieving approval/submission of business plan 2 x 13 Development of a better understanding of rural affairs/raising rural profile within the area x 12 Bringing sectors together x 12

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 58

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

The three most common comments related to the fact that the structure had enabled projects to be undertaken and delivered; it had brought funding into the area. The improvement identified was therefore the result of the funding the structure led to, not the structure itself. The other two most popular comments are however related more directly to the benefits generated by the Partnership itself.

6.7.2. Greatest challenges When respondents were asked to note the biggest challenge that the Partnership had faced to date, the most common responses were: • • • • • •

Bureaucracy x 17 Bringing the sectors of the Partnership together x 11 Financial constraints x 9 A drop in attendance x 7 Access to information x 6 Understanding the procedures and regulations of the RDP x 6

A number of these issues are discussed further in the following section of the report. Bureaucracy was however also the most common theme in the comments made by respondents when they were asked to make any further comments at the end of the survey. This is an indication of the strengths of feeling that clearly exists amongst the partnership members and stakeholders interviewed about the bureaucratic nature of the RDP programme. In many respects, the issue is overshadowing all other issues. When asked what advice they would give to those setting up a similar partnership in another part of Wales, the most common comments were: • • •

Clearly defined roles and responsibilities x 19 Draw upon experience and good practice x 18 Bring members from all types of business backgrounds together/ensure all sectors are represented x 14

These comments provide an insight into what respondents perceive to be the main lessons they have learned. Again, this is discussed further in the following section of the report.

6.7.3. Three words to describe the Partnership With a view to summing up their views on the Partnership, respondents were asked to note three words that described the Partnership. The following ‘word clouds’ have been created using the words used and give greater prominence to the words that were used most frequently 19.

The ‘word clouds’ have been created using the software Wordle: http://www.wordle.net/

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 59

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

Figure 8: Word cloud illustrating the response to the question: If you had to choose three words to describe the Partnership, what would they be? Whole sample

This first word cloud includes the words used by all respondents (i.e. the sample as a whole). The most prominent word is very clearly ‘committed’. Other prominent words include: ‘inclusive’, ‘enthusiastic’ and ‘supportive’. These are all positive terms. However, a number of negative terms have also been used including: frustrated, bureaucratic, hard and constrained. The next four word clouds present in turn the words used by the staff reporting to the Partnerships, the public, private and 3rd sectors.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 60

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

Figure 9: Word cloud illustrating the response to the question: If you had to choose three words to describe the Partnership, what would they be? staff

The word ‘committed’ is again prominent. But, the terms ‘inclusive’ and ‘local’ are more prominent than within the sample as a whole. Positive terms are still far more prominent than negative terms although the terms ‘immature’, ‘frustrated’, ‘under-resourced’, ‘under-utilised’ and ‘under-valued’ are to be seen.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 61

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

Figure 10: Word cloud illustrating the response to the question: If you had to choose three words to describe the Partnership, what would they be? Public sector representatives

‘Committed’ and ‘enthusiastic’ were the terms most commonly used by public sector representatives. Although not commonly used, negative terms used included ‘frustrated’, ‘endless’, ‘over-technical’ and ‘constrained’.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 62

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

Figure 11: Word cloud illustrating the response to the question: If you had to choose three words to describe the Partnership, what would they be? Private sector representatives

It is noticeable that, in the case of the private sector, the term ‘committed’ does not feature. The most common words used were ‘knowledge’ and ‘innovative’. Negative terms used included ‘deaf’, ‘inflexible’, ‘exhausting’ and ‘confusing’.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 63

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

Figure 12: Word cloud illustrating the response to the question: If you had to choose three words to describe the Partnership, what would they be? 3rd sector representatives

For the 3rd sector, ‘committed’ is again the most commonly used term followed by ‘working’ and ‘success’. The very few negative terms used include ‘weak’, ‘obscure’ and ‘inconsequential’. The final two word clouds are for the words used by respondents from the ‘established and ‘new’ areas.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 64

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

Figure 13: Word cloud illustrating the response to the question: If you had to choose three words to describe the Partnership, what would they be? Established areas

ÂŠCopyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 65

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

Figure 14: Word cloud illustrating the response to the question: If you had to choose three words to describe the Partnership, what would they be? New areas

ÂŠCopyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 66

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

7. Findings: issues emerging from stakeholder interviews This section of the report considers the main issues that were identified during discussions with the Lead Bodies and other key stakeholders on a local and national level. Where appropriate, it also links the discussion to other findings already presented in the previous section of the report.

Summary •

There is a compelling argument for merging the activities of the Partnership and the LAG at a Local Authority level.

•

The need to set up (or maintain) two separate entities in each areas has been complicated to administer, especially in the ‘new’ areas.

•

Lead Bodies highlighted the fact that it can be difficult to ‘engage’ partnership members. One potential solution would be to formalise the role of ‘partnership member’ and produce formal ‘job descriptions’. The potential to pay partnership members to undertake the role should also be considered.

•

Every Lead Body is providing at least basic guidance information to the members of the Partnership in the form of briefing packs, terms of reference, an introduction to the projects and so on. However, the amount of the information and training being provided varies.

•

The RDP Partnerships across Wales are at different stages in their development and this must to be taken into account when the support / training that they require is being considered. Inevitably, this means that the knowledge and experience of both partnership members and the officers that support them varies from area to area. In the absence of any other form of support, the situation that can develop is one of inexperienced staff providing advice, guidance and support to inexperienced partnership members.

•

The structure that has been put in place to implement Axes 3 and 4 in Wales is a classic example of an attempt to manage the conflict between a ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’ approach.

•

It is important to recognise that the role of the Lead Body is not limited to the support that they provide to the Partnership; they play a key role in a number of other respects. This makes the involvement of Local Authorities as the Lead Bodies very valuable. However, it may not be necessary (or in fact efficient) for 18 Local Authorities to provide a Lead Body ‘service’.

•

There is an argument for merging some of the functions of the Welsh Government with those of the Lead Bodies.

•

The fact that the RDP Partnerships compete with each other for funding has a number of negative impacts.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 67

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

7.1.

Overlap between the LAG and the Partnership

As set out in Section 4, each Local Authority area has both a Partnership and a LAG. When somebody who is unfamiliar with the various factors that had an influence on the matter, looks at the structure for the delivery of Axes 3 and 4 the question they might raise is why is there a Partnership and a LAG in each area? This is a very fair question but a very complicated one to try and answer. Although this is possibly a simplistic summary of the situation, when combined, the roles that need to be undertaken for Axes 3 and 4 are: a) Strategic – to develop a local development strategy that identifies local needs and opportunities; b) Delivery – to identify and oversee the delivery of projects that are designed to address the needs and opportunities identified within the strategy; and c) Promote – to increase local awareness of the programme. The next question is whether you need two separate local bodies to undertake these roles. In many ways, these roles set out above go hand in hand. It is therefore difficult, we believe, to argue for any kind of division in responsibility. If you are devising a local strategy, it makes sense that you also oversee the projects that have been devised for its delivery. Indeed, this is the structure envisaged for LAGs by the European Commission within the regulation. There is therefore a strong argument, when the desire to maintain existing structure and other political considerations are taken out of the equation, for merging the activities of the RDP Partnership and the LAG. The requirement to set up (or maintain) two separate entities in each areas has clearly been complicated to administer from a Lead Bodies perspective. The survey of partnership members also suggests that, whilst the basic division of responsibility is clear (overall strategic responsibility and delivery of Axis 4) the issues that members are least positive about are the role of the LAG, the difference in the remit of the RDP Partnership from that of others in the area and whether all key local partners were represented on the Partnership and the LAG (see Section 5). Given the fact that the programme is now at the mid way point, this is of some concern. It is interesting that many of the Lead Bodies have recognised that there needs to be a clear division between the RDP Partnership and the LAG. Indeed, in every case where the LAG was not an independently constituted body, a review of LAG and partnership membership had or was in the process of being undertaken in order to further emphasise the difference between the two. In most cases, this meant encouraging more “community focused” or “business people” to become members of the LAG. It was considered more appropriate for them to be members of the LAG rather than the Partnership because they would be more interested in delivering a project and the more ‘hands-on’ role of the LAG rather than the ‘strategic’ discussions that the Partnership has. But, does such a split make sense when the feedback from members is of the need to broaden the membership of the Partnership in order to make sure that it is better reflects the local community (see Section 5)? Our view is that it does not and that, by combining the strategic and Axis 4 function, it would be easier to develop and maintain a ‘fuller’ partnership. It also reduces the risk of duplication and of ‘fatigue’ amongst local stakeholders who are being asked to be members of a number of different local bodies. Further, this would also reflect the wider objectives envisaged by the EC for LEADER in terms of delivering the RDP. Again, the fact that the structure and the membership of the two bodies is still evolving in such a way at the mid-point of the programme is also of concern.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 68

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

7.2.

The motivation of Partnership members

The motivation of partnership members was a constant issue in the interviews with Lead Bodies a number of which highlighted the fact that it can be difficult to ‘engage’ partnership members. This manifested itself in many ways. Some Lead Bodies talked of difficulty in terms of encouraging members to take on responsibility for specific tasks (although the members may well say that it is the role of the Lead Body staff – see Section 5). Others, especially again the in the new areas, had found it difficult to engage stakeholders in the Partnership itself (and the LAG). Further, as discussed later, Lead Bodies have found it difficult to engage members in training and ‘capacity building’ issues. The fact that there are multi-partnerships also clearly mitigates against involvement from the ‘non-public’ sectors as it creates competing demands for their time. A number of Lead Bodies highlighted a particular issue regarding the motivation of partnership members – their willingness to engage was more obvious when decisions were being made about projects that were going to be supported. A few Lead Bodies – and in fact partnership members went as far as to suggest that attendance and participation was better when members (or the organisations that they represent) had an interest in the decisions being made. Whilst not going as far as to suggest that there have been conflicts of interest (an issue discussed further below), the suggestion was that the underlying motivation of some members was their own (or their organisations) self interest. In reality, it is possible to argue that this is common in any partnership; after all, members are there to ‘represent’ their sector and/or area and an element of self-interest is therefore inevitable. However, the suggestion that members disengage once key decisions have been made is of concern especially given that business plans up until the end of the programme period have now been approved. The difficulties of engaging certain organisations / sectors in partnership working (especially the private sector) is a constant theme in any review of programmes or projects that involve partnerships as briefly discussed in Section 2. One obvious solution is to reduce the burden on members through a variety of means such as location of meetings, the timing of meetings, simplifying procedures and so on. However, none of these will help to attract members or address any issues about their motivation. Neither would that address the issues relating to an overdependence on a few key partnership members identified by the survey and interviews with Lead Body staff. One potential solution which may however address those issues would be to formalise the role of ‘partnership member’ and produce formal (and consistent across Wales) job descriptions that clearly set out roles, responsibilities and what is expected from them as members. Alongside this formalisation (and standardisation), the potential to pay members (for non-public sector members) for undertaking that role should be investigated. Some may argue that this could lead to a situation where people want to become partnership members for the wrong reasons and processes will need to be put in place to negate conflict of interest. However, such an arrangement would have a number of benefits including: • •

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 69

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

• •

Allow local stakeholders to hold members to account if they are not undertaking their role (e.g. communicating with the sector that they represent); and Encourage members to take a more active role in terms of holding the Lead Body and others to account.

An added benefit is that it would distribute RDP funding into the 3rd and private sectors. There would also be a ‘training’ benefit in that the members of the partnership would take the knowledge and skills that they gain from their membership of the Partnership back to benefit another 3rd sector organisation or even their business.

7.3.

The support provided to Partnerships

The evaluation has found that every Lead Body is providing at least basic guidance information to the members of the Partnership in the form of briefing packs, terms of reference, an introduction to the projects and so on. However, the detail of the information being provided varies as does the amount of training provided. In some areas the Lead Body were of the view that their members did not require any significant amount of training due to the fact that they already had extensive experience; as one interviewee put it: “they are not coming into this cold”. As might be expected, this was usually the view in areas where the Partnerships were ‘mature’. In other areas however – most notably the areas which had no previous experience of an RDP programme – the Lead Body was of the view that the need for training was very clear. And the findings of the survey previously discussed supports their view; one in four or the partnership members who participated in the survey said that they were not satisfied with the amount of training, advice and guidance that they had received. Further, 37% (44/19) said that they needed further training advice and/or guidance. This clearly suggests that there is a need for further support. It is however apparent that Lead Bodies have found it difficult to engage partnership members in any formal training activities. A number of Lead Bodies (in new and established areas) reported that they had not utilised the budget that they had allocated for training during the Business Plan 1 period. One of the main reasons for this was that members did not recognise the need for training (as they do not in the survey undertaken as part of this evaluation) but also because members do not have the time to commit to training or attending networking events. One interviewee suggested that the only way in which this problem could be addressed was by designing a training programme that included provision for delivery at individual local partnership meetings. This is an example of a classic training issue: the difference between a training need and the training demanded. How do you convert an identified need into demand? In this case, the suggestion is that there is a low (self) perceived need for training resulting in low demand although, the findings of the survey suggest that a group of partnership members to recognise the need for additional training. Whilst the situation is clearly not ‘black and white’, the difference in the support needed in ‘established’ and ‘new’ areas also seems clear. Some of the less experienced area identified an ongoing need for what could be described as ‘basic RDP’ support (e.g. an introduction to the programme). More experienced partnerships however, expressed a need for information on new project ideas (other than their own) and potential new structures for delivering projects.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 70

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

A number of factors will obviously influence the knowledge and experience of both staff and partnership members. However, it is clear from the interviews with Lead Body staff that one of the main influences is history of partnerships and RDP programmes in the area in question. In ‘experienced’ areas, staff are obviously able to draw upon the experience that they have, something that inexperienced staff clearly cannot do. Experienced staff may move to another role or become unavailable for one of a number of other possible reasons. However, even in those situations, some kind of ‘hand-over’ is usually possible or new staff can be guided by experienced colleagues or partnership members. In ‘new’ areas, that is unlikely to be possible. Importantly, the low uptake of formal training means that Partnerships are often reliant on the advice and guidance that they are provided via the officers and the documentation that they received. In the absence of any other form of support, the situation that can develop is therefore one of inexperienced staff providing advice, guidance and support to inexperienced partnership members. The situation could be addressed in a number of ways. For example, training could be provided to the officers who are then required to pass on that training to partnership members. Also, officials from the Welsh Government could provide support to them and also attend Partnership meetings to provide advice and guidance directly to members. The structure in place within the Welsh Government was initially designed to do exactly that. However, due to staff shortages and other demands upon the time of staff (matters discussed at length in Mid Term Evaluation of the RDP for Wales) this support has not been available at the level envisaged and Welsh Government facilitation team staff have not been attending partnership meetings. The loss of that support has clearly had a detrimental impact, especially in the less experienced areas but also, due to the administrative difficulties that have been experienced (please refer to the Mid Term Evaluation) in the more experienced areas. The following is a typical quote: •

“The Welsh Government assumed that the Partnership knew the programme inside out... however, we were new to it in 2007 and the background knowledge required on how to oversee projects and delivery wasn’t there. We’ve had to learn as we go along”.

The other obvious potential method for addressing this issue would be to develop better links between the experienced and inexperienced lead bodies. This could be done via: • • •

Sharing of resources produced (e.g. partnership review tools, terms of reference, etc.) – could these materials be posted online? Encouraging discussion between Lead Body staff – again, could this be done online via a discussion forum? The introduction of a continuous professional development programme for Lead Body staff that brings them together (possibly in an ‘action learning’ format20) on a regular basis.

The other question raised by stakeholders when discussing the ‘capacity’ of lead bodies was whether there is a need for such a provision for each individual area. This is an issue that we will return to later in the discussion.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 71

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

Interesting practice: Self evaluation by partnerships A number of Lead Bodies identified the benefits of ‘self evaluation’ at a Partnership level as a means of reflecting on activities to date and identifying what’s worked and areas for improvement. For example: •

In Anglesey, a review of the Partnership was undertaken in August 2010 using as its basis a guide published by the Home Office in 2007 which outlined hallmarks of effective partnership working.

•

Conwy Rural Partnership Health Check Report: As part of the 2009/10 annual audit plan the Conwy County Borough Council Internal Audit Service audited the Conwy Rural Partnership and finalised its report in January 2010. One of the recommendations of that report was that the CRP must undertake an annual self assessment to evaluate and take stock of the effectiveness of partnership working. An assessment report based on the outcomes of the assessment must be produced and submitted to the Partnership Board & each of the partners.” The ‘Health Check’ is this annual self assessment.

•

Denbighshire County Council commissioned an external facilitation services for a Mid Term Review of the RDP Partnership via a one day session at a local hotel. The session followed a morning visit by partnership members to a number of RDP funded projects in the county. The aim was firstly to consider progress to date by taking stock of how the Partnership has operated since 2007 and secondly to suggest ways in which the operation of the Partnership might be improved going forward.

Interesting practice: Team building training The Denbighshire RDP Partnership members had two days of teamwork and collaboration training looking at managing the group formation. Similarly, the Cynal Y Cardi LAG (Ceredigion) members took part a team-building day during which members participated in woodland activities.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 72

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

7.4.

The role of the Lead Body

It is important to recognise that the role of the Lead Body is not limited to the support that they provide to the Partnership; they play a key role in a number of other respects which, the evaluation has concluded, makes the involvement of Local Authorities as Lead Bodies very valuable. These roles include: • • • • •

‘Bank rolling’ the delivery of the RDP programme on a local level 21; Employing and managing staff on behalf of the Partnership and (in all but four areas) on behalf of the LAG; Ensuring that all the necessary procedures are in place; Project level advice and guidance (i.e. support for projects funded by the Partnership); and Monitoring and evaluating the impact of those projects.

The third point above is important as it is one of the issues which the RDP programme (Axis 4) in particular can be criticised (e.g. the 2010 European Court of Auditors report). The Local Authority, in their capacity as Lead Body can produce and provide procedures such as an equalities policy or procedures for dealing with a conflict of interest for the Partnership “off the shelf”. The consequence of this however is that some stakeholders are of the view that, as a result of their role as Lead Body, the Local Authority has too much influence or even control over the activities and decisions of that Partnership and, whilst this evaluation has found no clear evidence of such an influence, other evaluations have done so 22. But, it is up to the Partnerships and their members to be aware of the risks and to take action if necessary. Therefore, the key issue is the ‘capacity’ of partnership members to deal with the issue rather that a ‘structural’ one. Partnership members should ensure that the Local Authority does not have too much influence on the Partnership; it is not something that needs to be addressed by changes to the structure that is in place. Further, there are no obvious alternative structures in which another body can provide the same service as is being provided by the Local Authority. It is important to be aware that Lead Bodies provide a service to the RDP Partnerships; they are not members. In this context, there is an argument that it is not necessarily (or in fact efficient) for 18 Local Authorities to provide the Lead Body ‘service’. There are examples of projects funded by the EC Convergence Programme in Wales in which one Local Authority is providing a service similar to that of the Lead Body on behalf of a group of Local Authority areas. Although those examples have not been reviewed in detail as part of this evaluation, the potential advantages of such an approach are clear in terms of the economies of scale that would provide and the potential to develop a pool of knowledge and expertise that can be shared amongst a number of areas.

Funding is paid to the Lead Bodies by the Welsh Government on a ‘defrayed expenditure’ basis - all costs claimed against a project must have been 'defrayed' (i.e. paid by the Lead Body) before they can be processed and paid by the Welsh Government. 22 For example: the ex-post evaluation of LEADER+, LEADER Mainstreaming Study for DEFRA and LEADER+ MTE in England.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 73

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

7.5.

Appraisal and approval of business plans and projects

Axes 3 and 4 of the RDP is a national scheme that is being delivered on a local level. One of the concerns about any national programme or scheme that is delivered on a local level is that the projects it supports will not be ‘strategic’ or that there will be duplication of activities being undertaken on a national level. Within the RDP, this is addressed by the fact that all projects are appraised centrally by the Welsh Government (please refer to Section 4). The rational for ‘central’ appraisal is clear. However, in many ways it goes against the principles of partnership working and of the LEADER approach which is, at least in part, core to the activities of the RDP Partnerships. This is one of the consequence of integrating Axis 3 (where the LEADER approach is not a requirement) and Axis 4 (where it is required). One the one hand RDP Partnerships are charged with developing a strategy and project to implement that strategy. But their plans (on an individual project basis) are then subject to the approval further up ‘the hierarchy’. This is a classic example of the conflict between a ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’ approach. In many ways the structure that has been put in place to implement Axes 3 and 4 in Wales is seeking to achieve the benefits of both the bottom-up (and LEADER) process for developing projects but with the top-down control. From a Welsh Government perspective the benefit of this is that there is a ‘quality control’ on projects and that the potential for duplication is controlled. From a partnerships perspective it means that if, as has happened in a number of areas for the Business Plan 2 period, individual projects are rejected by the Welsh Government, there are holes in the strategies / plans that they have developed. The key issue is here is one of control; what ‘control’ should the Welsh Government have on the activities being undertaken at a local level? Under the current system, it is possible to argue that even though partnerships are charged with developing strategies and projects to address the need (as they perceive it) in their area, the Welsh Government does not actually completely trust them to do that; it is deemed necessary that projects (rather than just the strategy as is the case in other parts of the UK) are appraised and approved centrally. This raises a number of issues. For example, why, if a project is rejected by the Welsh Government after their appraisal on the basis that it duplicated existing provision, was that not identified by Welsh Government representatives within the Partnership when the project was being appraised there? An informed and effective partnership should have identified the issue and addressed it. Further, there is an argument that restricting the areas of work / sectors in which the Partnerships can operate would be a more effective way of avoiding duplication. There is also an efficiency issue that needs to be considered; it is an efficient use of resources to appraise projects at a local level and the again at a national (or central) level? If those appraisals are looking at the same issues – for example, need, duplication, etc. – the answer is obviously no. If the appraisal is different – for example, if the central appraisal is a final check on the eligibility of the project (i.e. compliance) – there may be an argument for two levels of appraisal. But even then, there is a compelling argument that if a structure is being put in place to develop and / or select projects it should be allowed (i.e. empowered) to do that. If the Welsh Government have concerns about a project those should be raised at a partnership level and as an active member of that partnership. If this is not the case, why go to the expense of having the Partnerships?

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 74

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

7.6.

Competition within the system

Another reason for appraising and approving projects centrally is that it is a method for allocating funding to Local Authority areas if the demand for funding is greater that the resource available. As discussed in Section 4, different processes were used by the Welsh Government to appraise and approve projects for the two Business Plan periods. With the exception of a handful of projects rejected due to eligibility issues, all projects submitted by Partnerships for the Business Plan 1 period were approved by the Welsh Government. Essentially, there was therefore no competition at that stage. However, for the Business Plan 2 round it was agreed (after consultation by the Welsh Government with the Partnerships and LAGs) that it would be a competitive process and that appraisal take place at the ‘expression of interest’ (EOI) stage; only projects scoring highly enough at EOI stage would be asked to submit full scale project applications. This process was adopted with a view to avoiding unnecessary development work on projects which could not be supported. Despite the fact that all areas were aware of the budget available, the total value of the applications submitted exceeded the available budget by approximately 100% meaning that it was a highly competitive process. This has a number of impacts: •

Use of the resource available: Whilst we recognise that competition was at the EOI stage, it is still clear that a significant amount of resource has been spent (a) developing, and then (b) appraising project that have not (and could not) been funded. Is this an efficient use of limited resources? Would it not be more efficient to focus on developing projects (or a strategy) to address the issues that had been identified by utilising a set amount of resources?

•

Ill feeling: Competition has clearly contributed to the ill-feeling towards the Welsh Government that was very evident during discussions with the Lead Body and Partnership members, especially amongst those who had some of their projects rejected for reasons that they do not accept. Such ill-feeling is not conducive to partnership working.

•

Fairness: Is it fair to ask inexperienced local partnerships who are delivering an RDP programme for the first time to compete for funding with experienced areas that have been active in similar programmes for over 10 years?

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 75

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

Competition at a partnership level is however the mechanism that the Welsh Government are using to allocate the funding that is available between the Local Authority areas. If you take this competition away, how is the funding going to be allocated? This question has been discussed at meetings of the Welsh Government, the Partnerships and the LAGs in the past but without any consensus becoming apparent. There are a number of alternative ways to distribute funding at a partnership level which we would argue need to be considered. For example, funding could be allocated per head of population or linked to the alternative funding available in the area. We would however acknowledge no system for allocating funding / resource is perfect and whatever system is used is going to be controversial. However, a system that provides partnerships with an indicative budget allocation will take competition between them out of the process. Our view is that â&#x20AC;&#x201C; if partnerships are being used - it would be more effective and efficient to allocate an amount of funding to each area and then allow them (possibly within a set timescale) to devise a strategy / plan to utilise that funding. The funding could be withdrawn or reduced if it is not being utilised, if projects are not meeting the required standards, if targets are not being achieved and so on.

7.7.

An emphasis on developing projects

As set out in Section 4, the implementation of Axes 3 and 4 has been split into two business plan periods (Business Plan 1 covering the period June 2008 to the end of February 201123 and Business Plan 2 will be implemented from the 1st March 2011 to the end of February 2013). The split has had a number of consequences at a Partnership level the most notable of which was that partnerships (and the Lead Body and LAG staff) had to split their attention between overseeing the implementation of Business Plan 1 projects whilst at the same time developing proposals for inclusion in Business Plan 2. Some would argue that the Partnerships / Lead Bodies are provided with adequate resources to manage these dual roles and the timescales have been clear for a considerable time and should therefore have been planned for. However, feedback from both the Lead Bodies and partnership members is that the split into two business plan periods has created difficulties, especially (as noted countless times in this report) given that the structures that were in place in some of the areas were new and very much still finding their feet. The logic for splitting the programme into two business plan periods was that Partnerships should not be required to commit themselves to a set programme of activity for the whole period of the programme; something that is clearly understandable. However, it can be argued that there are other ways of doing that including a mid-term review of the business plans (or strategies) and the projects being delivered. However, again, this is dependent on taking competition (at a partnership level) out of the process and using an alternative mechanism for distributing funds between the Local Authority areas in the first instance.

This deadline had subsequently been extended for some projects.

ÂŠCopyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 76

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

Interesting practice: developing projects Partnerships have used one of or a combination of two distinct approaches to develop projects for inclusion in their business plans, both of which have proven to have strengths and weaknesses: •

Open-call – Partnerships invite local organisations to submit their ideas for projects that will fit with and/or help to deliver the priorities set out in the LDS. The Partnerships then ‘sift’ or appraise the submissions and select those for inclusion in the business plan. The strength of this approach is that it encourages local organisations to get involved and propose their ideas. A potential criticism is that this approach can raise expectations within the community.

•

The development of projects within the Partnership – In this approach, the partnership members develop projects that will address the priorities set out within the LDS as a group or initially as individuals representatives and then as group. The advantage of this approach is that projects are more ‘strategic’ and directly address the priorities within the strategy. The potential criticism is that the concept can be seen as being too insular.

A number of partnerships have taken a combined approach whereby they initially have an open-call for project ideas and then develop projects within the Partnership forum to address parts of the LDS not addressed via the open call ideas submitted.

Interesting practice: community consultation In early 2010 a public consultation was undertaken in Monmouthshire on the project ideas for inclusion in Business Plan 2. This included a series of five community consultations at community centres in key locations. In addition an on-line survey was undertaken to collate views from a wider sample. More targeted consultations have also taken place with the farming unions, national government organisations (such as CCW) and also charities such as the Woodland Trust, Gwent Wildlife Trust, etc. Axis 4 consultations have also been undertaken via the ‘Made in Monmouthshire’ forum, the events steering group, the Village Halls Forum and the Tourism Trails Steering group. In order to finalise the public consultations a Rural Stakeholder Event was held on 24th February to identify any gaps and galvanise the plan. This business plan was then approved by the Monmouthshire Adventa+ Partnership.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 77

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

7.8.

The layers within the hierarchy

One of the first things that become apparent when the structure in place to implement Axes 3 and 4 in Wales is examined is the number of layers within the hierarchy as illustrated by the following graphic. Figure 15: The Axis 3 and 4 management / delivery hierarchy in Wales Level 1: Welsh Government

Central / National management

Level 2:

Partnership

Lead Body

Local management

Level 3: Delivery

Level 4: Sub contracted delivery

LAG (Axis 4 projects)

Axis 3 projects

Projects delivered on behalf of the LAG

Projects delivered as part o f Axis 3 projects

As illustrated, the hierarchy includes four levels. At the top is the Welsh Government which has ultimate control over the programme; they gave partnerships their status and they also approve all projects (as discussed above). The Partnerships are at Level 2 in the hierarchy and essentially have (via the Lead Body that they appoint) a ‘local management’ role for both Axes 3 and 4. Beneath the Partnership comes the delivery layer (which splits between Axes 3 and 4) and then, in some cases, there is a fourth layer of projects that are being delivered as part of the broader projects approved by the Partnerships (e.g. if the project supported by the Partnership is an umbrella project as many are in Business Plan 2). Again, the outsider looking at the structure for the first time would question the need for so many layers; is there a more efficient way of delivering the scheme? The key to answering this question is whether the roles and responsibilities at each level are sufficiently different to make them necessary. As already discussed, there is a strong argument for merging the functions of the Partnership and the LAG. There is also an argument for increasing the efficiency of the ‘support structure’ by reducing the number of Lead Bodies (and increasing the number of Partnership / LAGs that they service).

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 78

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

The other possible change that has not yet been discussed is the potential to merge some of the functions of the Welsh Government with that of the Lead Bodies. In terms of their roles and responsibilities, there is overlap within the system in that they both provide advice and guidance to the Partnership (although Welsh Government does that via the Lead Bodies). They also both appraise projects that are proposed within the businesses plans. Of course, the current situation is that central appraisal is deemed necessary for the reasons discussed previously. But, if that need was taken away, one of the functions of the central management element of the hierarchy would be taken away. There will always be a role for ‘the centre’ in any scheme which has a local element. But, the role of the centre depends on the level of responsibility given to the local structure. As previously discussed, if it is the role of the local partnership (with the support of the Lead Body) to develop a strategy and a plan for implementing that strategy, they should be allowed (empowered) to do that. In such circumstances the role of the centre can be restricted to one of ‘compliance’; a role similar to that undertaken by WEFO within the Objective 1 programme which also included local partnerships.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 79

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

8. Conclusions and recommendations This final section draws together the discussion in the previous sections of the report by setting out the principal conclusions of the evaluation followed by a series of recommendations.

8.1.

Conclusion

The principle conclusion of this evaluation is that the RDP Partnerships in each Local Authority area are fulfilling their role. The effectiveness with which they are fulfilling their role does however seem to vary depending on a number of factors. Principal amongst these is the experience that they (and the Lead Body staff) have of undertaking a similar role in the past; partnerships and their support structures take time to become established and they become more effective as their experience grows. The structure that is in place to deliver Axes 3 and 4 is however overly complicated and the need to satisfy the requirement to have a separate Partnership and LAG has affected progress especially in the new areas where it has been necessary to develop two new structures. Further, it has been necessary to do that and almost simultaneously develop one set of projects, then, whilst monitoring their delivery develop a second set of projects. This has clearly been challenging especially given the need (for Business Plan 2) to compete for the funds that are available at a Partnership level. This has generated an unhealthy competition between Partnerships and an ill-feeling towards the Welsh Government. In terms of support structures, there is clearly scope to operate more effectively and efficiently by merging certain roles and responsibilities. But, perhaps the key issue is that the effectiveness with which the Partnerships are able to undertake their role has been limited by the fact that they are not fully empowered to undertake that role. The structure in place is a classic example of the conflict between a ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’ approach. If the Partnership approach is going to be used, the Government should commit fully to it. If it does not do so, the rational for maintaining the structure (which is not cheap 24) must be questionable.

The total funding approved to Lead Bodies / Partnerships as running costs to administer Axis 3 and 4 is in the region of £19million over the lifetime of the programme. Source: Welsh Government

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 80

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

8.2.

Recommendations

Short-term (current programme period) 1. The wide range of guidance for partnership members produced by Lead Bodies should be collated and shared between Lead Bodies with a view to sharing good practice and reducing the potential for duplication of effort. 2. A training needs analysis should be undertaken assessing the needs of partnerships on an individual basis. Budget permitting, a bespoke development programme should then be designed for each individual (or a group of) partnerships with a view to addressing their own specific needs. 3. Consideration should be given to the potential to introduce a bespoke programme of ‘continuous professional development’ for Lead Body staff with a view to improving their own performance and the support that they are able to provide to Partnership members who are (in the short term) likely to be difficult to engage in training directly. 4. The potential to introduce a number of action learning sets 25 that would operate alongside the above and offer Lead Body staff the opportunity to share their knowledge and experience should be explored. 5. Further research should be undertaken to explore potential alternative structures for facilitating and supporting the Partnerships structure in the future including the roles and responsibilities of the Lead Bodies and the Welsh Government. This review should include alternative structures employed by past and current other programmes in Wales (e.g. Convergence and Objective 1), other RDP structures elsewhere in Europe and the ongoing work of the European Network for Rural Development 26. Longer-term (next programme period) 6. The current Partnership-LAG structure should be replaced with a simpler, streamlined structure which requires a single LAG in each area which takes on the roles and responsibilities currently shared between the Partnership and the LAG. By definition, this would mean fully encompassing the LEADER approach for all activities delivered by this element of the RDP. 7. Subject to the above, the new LAGs should be empowered to undertake their role fully. This should include making decisions on how the funding that is available to them is utilised based on the strategy that they have devised working within set parameters. In order to facilitate this, the Welsh Government should review the system being used to allocate funding to Local Authority areas with a view to removing competition at a LAG level from the system. Potential systems currently used in other parts of Europe could be explored are part of the study previously recommended (recommendation 5).

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 81

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

8. Building on the guidance already provided, a standard set of guidance documents for LAG members should be produced which all partnerships use. These documents should include ‘job descriptions’ for LAG members that set out in detail their roles and responsibilities. 9. The potential to pay non-public sector members of the new LAG undertake their role should be explored with a view to ‘professionalising’ the role of the LAG and improving the robustness with which it undertakes its role. 10. Further to the findings of the study proposed by recommendation 5, the potential to integrate some of the activities of the Lead Body and the Welsh Government should be explored with a view to improving the effectiveness of efficiency of the support structure.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 82

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

Appendix 1: Roles and responsibilities The following is an extract from guidance by the Welsh Government on the roles and responsibilities of the local partnerships, Lead Bodies and Local Action Groups relating to the RDP issued on the 15th September 2006. Activity Function and Overview

Local Partnership The Local Partnership must be relevant, comprehensive and representative of local needs and priorities. The Local Partnership must have proportionate representation from the four sectors: private, public, community and voluntary. Their key role will be to: • Ensure the key functions of the Partnership, Lead Body and LAG are established to meet the requirements set by the Commissions and the Welsh Government. • Develop a Local Development Strategy(LDS) for the area for approval by the Welsh Government. • Develop, submit and review the combined Business Plan for Axes 3 and 4 which meets the aims and objectives of their approved LDS. • Ensuring robust, good value for money and well developed projects are put forward and selected for appraisal • Monitor and approve reports on progress with regard to implementation of both Axes 3 and 4 of the Business Plan and identifying gaps in provision • Monitor the activities of the Delivery Organisation (s). • Promotion of the Programme locally

Lead Body

Local Action Group (LAG)

The Lead Body’s role is to assist the Local Partnership to meet and carry out its roles and responsibilities under the programme.

The ‘Local Action Group’ must be responsible for the implementation of activities under Axis 4 LEADER and be a part of the combined Axes 3 & 4 Local Partnership. It may also be the chosen delivery organisation for some or all of the activities under Axis 3.

To oversee the delivery of the Local Development Strategy (LDS), on behalf of the Partnership via a Service Level Agreement. This will include the monitoring of progress on individual projects, and ensure that they underpin the overall aims and objectives of the LDS.

The key role will be to: • To ensure the development of projects under Axis 4 are consistent with the aims and objectives of the Local Development Strategy (LDS). These must be fully endorsed by the Local Partnership. • Manage an agreement with the Lead Body, acting on behalf of the Local Partnership, to ensure coherence in the delivery of Axis 3 and 4 activity • Ensuring that grant is applied and used properly for Axis 4 LEADER. • Collate all relevant information for the completion and submission of grant claims, outputs and quarterly reports. • Monitor progress on the implementation of the Business Plan and report to the Local Partnership on a regular basis. • Publicise activities in accordance EU requirements and in cooperation with the Local Partnership publicity activities

To carry out the Secretariat function for the Local Partnership.

©Copyright Wavehill Ltd. 2011

Page | 83

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

Activity Main requirements

Local Partnership Formally appoint a Chair and other key posts, with the Chair subject to a mandatory 3-year review. Agree on the nature of the Partnership and expertise available. Agree Terms of Reference for the operation of the Partnership and its members. Appoint a Lead Body to act on behalf of the Local Partnership. Agree services required of the Lead Body function i.e. Service Level Agreement. Formally select the LAG to deliver Axis 4 and Axis 3 if applicable. Agree reporting mechanisms and meeting arrangements. Ensure the appointed Chair is a member of the Local Partnership. Draw up the LDS, consult on it, secure its endorsement by the Spatial Plan Area Action Group(s), and submit it to the Welsh Government for approval. Establish effective systems for assessing projects and secure the Welsh Government endorsement of them. Approve the delivery organisation(s) for Axis 3. Assess projects submitted for inclusion in the Business Plan and ensure those selected fulfil the aims and objectives of the LDS and are fit with measure.

Lead Body

Local Action Group (LAG)

Act as Secretariat for the Local Partnership â&#x20AC;&#x201C; provide advice and assistance as required under the Service Level Agreement.

Assist with the development of the LDS and provide specific input on the LEADER approach.

To ensure that the LAG and any organisation(s) contracted to deliver Axis 3 are governed by appropriate terms and conditions and/or contractual provisions.

A develop innovative / pilot projects to implement Axis 4 that fit with the aims and objectives of the LDS and which follow the LEADER approach.

Complete due diligence checks on all delivery organisations relating to Axis 3 activities, and manage the agreements once in place on behalf of the Local Partnership.

To assist with the preparation of a publicity strategy and the associated implementation arrangements. To assist with the delivery of the strategy.

Under Axis 4, but depending on the delivery agreements, the Lead Body for the LAG may implement project activity.

To ensure compliance with the 20% maximum limit on LAG administrative costs.

To assist with the preparation of a publicity strategy and the associated implementation arrangements. If so decided, to co-ordinate the delivery of the strategy.

Where delegated to the LAG, to undertake payroll duties for staff employed by the LAG.

To ensure compliance with the 15% maximum limit on Axis 3 administrative costs and 20% for Axis 4 (if applicable i.e. depending on delivery model).

Prepare a publicity strategy to promote the programme locally and engage local communities.

Page | 84

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

Activity Complying with the terms of the Funding Agreement

Local Partnership

Lead Body

Local Action Group (LAG)

Endorse the requirements of the signed Funding Agreement.

In the capacity of Lead Body and acting on behalf of the Local Partnership, sign the Funding Agreement.

Receive, review and approve quarterly reports on performance against the business plan and approved projects within it.

Prepare quarterly reports for endorsement by the Local Partnership and to support the claim, showing detail of how the business plan has been implemented and progress against each of the approved projects.

If an incorporated Local Action Group, sign the Funding Agreement, otherwise the Lead Body for the LAG to sign the Funding Agreement for Axis 4.

Formally agree any changes to the LDS and any significant changes to projects i.e. changes to content, financial changes greater than 10% of the total costs of a project, virement between axis, etc, prior to submission to the Welsh Government.

Prepare quarterly claims, including all required supporting documentation, and submit to the Welsh Government by the due date given when the claims are issued.

Monitor compliance with this process to ensure that all significant changes are approved by the Welsh Government prior to implementation. Ensure that that full records of such changes are maintained and are readily available for inspection. Actively participate in the Wales Rural Network.

Present changes to the LDS, Business Plan and Projects to the full Partnership for formal approval. Prepare Project Amendments Forms as required and seek endorsement by the Local Partnership. To agree minor changes to projects i.e. reallocations between budget headings or financial changes less than 10% of the total costs of a project. To ensure that a full audit trail is maintained for every project undertaken including project amendment forms, invoices, receipts etc. Ensure compliance with any ‘special conditions’ as set out in the Project Funding Letters.

To present significant changes to Axis 4 projects to the Lead Body of the Local Partnership for formal approval by the full Partnership. To agree minor changes to Axis 4 projects i.e. reallocations between budget headings or financial changes less than 10% of the total costs of a project, and notify the Welsh Assembly Government. To provide quarterly summary reports on any minor changes to the Lead Body. To account for the use of Axis 4 grant. To ensure that a full audit trail is maintained for every project undertaken including project amendment forms, invoices, receipts etc. To work with the Lead Body and the Welsh Government to resolve difficulties and agree any remedial action.

Actively participate in the Wales Rural Network. Actively participate in the Wales Rural Network.

Page | 85

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

Activity Compliance and Monitoring

Local Partnership

Lead Body

To be clearly representative of the main partners having an interest in the LDS.

To ensure that the Partnership complies with its own agreed Memorandum of Understanding and Terms of Reference.

To take overall responsibility for the delivery and management of Axes 3 and 4 through preparation of the LDS. To take overall responsibility for the robustness of the project appraisal, selection and monitoring process. To receive detailed quarterly reports on progress against the aims and objectives of the LDS. To oversee the delivery of projects either by the LAG or by a contracted organisation in respect of Axis 3.

To ensure that grant is used properly for approved purposes. To compile annual progress reports on the LDS and quarterly reports on the Business Plans, secure their approval by the full Partnership and submit them to the Welsh Government. To ensure compliance with Welsh Government monitoring requirements in relation to the LDS and the Business Plans.

Local Action Group (LAG) To deliver Axis 4 projects in accordance with the provisions of the legislation and in accordance with grant terms and conditions. To assist the Lead Body with the preparation of annual progress reports on the LDS and quarterly reports on the Business Plans. To ensure compliance with Welsh Government monitoring requirements in relation to Axis 4 activity.

To approve annual progress reports from the Lead Body on the LDS and quarterly progress reports on the Business Plans prior to their submission to the Welsh Government.

Page | 86

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

Activity Accounting and Retention of Records

Local Partnership

Lead Body

Ensure all records of meetings are endorsed as being a true and accurate record.

Maintain a separate accounting system or adequate accounting coding system for all transactions relating to the funding.

Establish detailed procedures for the receipt, recording and processing of claims.

Clearly demonstrate a division of duties within the organisational structure. Retain any original invoice, account or other documents related to an approved project for a period of 6 years from the date of last payment.

Regularity and Propriety

Agree on the Local Partnerships standard set of rules with regard to regularity and propriety. Include rules for avoiding conflicts of interest in relation to the selection of projects for financial assistance and all other Partnership activities. To ensure its general policies reflect these rules and basic principles of propriety. To receive an annual report on the application of the rules and good practice relating to the public procurement of works, goods and services by the Axis 3 Delivery Organisation(s) and the LAG.

Local Action Group (LAG)

To confirm the appropriateness of the Partnershipâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rules on regularity and propriety.

To ensure compliance with UK standard good practice procedures.

To undertake management checks that such rules are properly followed and applied by the Partnership.

To ensure compliance with all applicable rules and good practice relating to the public procurement of works, goods and services.

To keep records of all Partnership decisions on project appraisal and selection, of all guidance and directions given to project applicants and of all other material decisions or issues affecting decisions.

Page | 87

Evaluation of the Partnerships within Axes 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Plan for Wales 2007-13 | November 2011

Activity Grant Payment Processes

Local Partnership

Lead Body

To agree procedures for arranging payments of grant.

Following procedures as set out in the Funding Agreement for arranging payment of grant.

To prepare grant claims and ensure that all payments are due and payable.

To receive quarterly reports demonstrating that payments made were due and that proper audit trails are in place.

To prepare a quarterly report to the Partnership on all aspects of grant payment to demonstrate that all procedures have been followed, that payments were due and payable and that an audit trail is in place.

To ensure compliance with UK standard good financial practice.

Asset Inventory

To receive an annual report covering the Asset Inventory.

Asset Holding

To receive an annual report on assets held within the Partnership.

To ensure that all records on all aspects of activity undertaken as part of the programme are available for inspection. Such records must be retained for a period of at least 6 years after the final payment is made. To check that an Asset Inventory is established and maintained.

To select and approve projects suitable for funding out of income derived from the use of assets held for the benefit of the community.

Disposal of Assets

Local Action Group (LAG)

To consider the proposed disposal of any assets and seek the Welsh Governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s approval of any such disposal prior to any disposal taking place.

To ensure that a full audit trail is maintained for all payments and to present a quarterly report to the Lead Body on all aspects of grant payment to demonstrate that all procedures have been followed, that payments were due and payable and that an audit trail is in place. To set up and maintain an inventory in accordance with the terms of the Funding Agreement for all assets created, acquired or enhanced by project applicants with financial assistance from grant funds. To ensure that beneficial ownership of assets is retained within the LAG unless the Partnership approves, in advance, an asset transfer. To ensure that income derived from use of such assets should be used to further projects that contribute towards implementation of the LDS. To secure the approval of the Partnership prior to the disposal of any assets.

Page | 88

Appendix 2: Bibliography Derkzen, P. (2010) Rural Partnerships in Europe – A Differentiated View from a Country Perspective: The Netherlands and Wales. European and Regional Studies 17 (1) 17-30. Edwards, B., Goodwin, M., Pemberton, S., and Woods, M (2000) Partnership Working in Rural Regeneration Bristol, UK: Policy Press. EKOS (2003) Mid Term Evaluation of the LEADER + Community Initiative in Wales, Final Report. Geddes, M. (2000) Tackling Social Exclusion in the European Union, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 24(4): 581-592. Goodwin, M. (1998) The Governance of Rural Areas: Some Emerging Research Issues and Agendas, Journal of Rural Studies, 14, 5-12. Jones, O. and Little J. (2000) Rural Challenge(s): Partnership and the New Rural Governance, Journal of Rural Studies, 16, 171-183. Office of the Deputy Prime Minster (2003) Assessing Strategic Partnership - The Partnership Assessment Tool Pike, A., Rodriguez-Pose, A. and Tomaney, J. (2006) Local and Regional Economic Development London: Sage. Saraceno, C. (1999) Gendered Policies: Family Obligations and Social Policies in Europe: San Giacomo Charitable Foundation Working Paper 99 The Future of Rural Society. Commission communication transmitted to the Council and to the European Parliament. COM (88) 501 final, 29 July 1988. Wavehill (2011) Evaluation of Gwynedd’s Local Development Strategy and the Progress in its Delivery through the Rural Development Plan Projects. Wavehill (2011) Evaluation of the Powys Rural Development Process and Projects 2008-2011. Wavehill (2011) Evaluation of the Swansea Rural Development Business Plan 1: 2008 to 2011. Westholm E., Moseley, M. and Senlas, N. (1999) Local Partnerships and Rural Development in Europe Falun, Sweden: Darlana Research Institute. Woods, M. (2005) Rural Geography London: Sage.

Page | 89

Websites http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rur/leaderplus/pdf/factsheet_en.pdf http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications http://bookshop.cabi.org/Uploads/Books/PDF/9780851996578/9780851996578.pdf http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/07/16085900/16 http://www.southlanarkshire.gov.uk/downloads/file/838/south_lanarkshire_rural_strategy_20072013_working_towards_sustainable_rural_communities http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/

Page | 90

Appendix 3: Partnership self evaluation - per area analysis Distribution of the sample per Local Authority area 15

14 11

12 10

11 7

8 6

9 5

7 5

4 2 0

Overall: All areas Monitoring and communication

2.73

Partnership working arrangements Distribution of roles and responsibilities Wider ownership, awareness and understanding

2.93 2.58 2.74

Commitment of members

3.16

Aims, objectives and service delivery targets

2.96

Understanding of vision and strategy Training, advice and guidance received Individual and collective roles and responsibilities

3.12 2.56 3.13

Page | 91

Bridgend Monitoring and communication

2.83

Partnership working arrangements

2.83

Distribution of roles and responsibilities

2.63

Wider ownership, awareness and understanding

2.57

Commitment of members

2.84

Aims, objectives and service delivery targets

2.75

Understanding of vision and strategy

2.63

Training, advice and guidance received

2.2

Individual and collective roles and responsibilities

2.96 0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Caerphilly Monitoring and communication

2.58

Partnership working arrangements

2.89

Distribution of roles and responsibilities

2.26

Wider ownership, awareness and understanding

2.65

Commitment of members

Aims, objectives and service delivery targets

2.9

Understanding of vision and strategy

3.06

Training, advice and guidance received

2.4

Individual and collective roles and responsibilities

3.16 0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Carmarthenshire Monitoring and communication

3.06

Partnership working arrangements

3.04

Distribution of roles and responsibilities

2.85

Wider ownership, awareness and understanding

3.07

Commitment of members

2.89

Aims, objectives and service delivery targets

2.62

Understanding of vision and strategy

Training, advice and guidance received

2.67

Individual and collective roles and responsibilities

3.29 0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Page | 92

Ceredigion Monitoring and communication

2.63

Partnership working arrangements

2.66

Distribution of roles and responsibilities

2.46

Wider ownership, awareness and understanding

2.61

Commitment of members

3.19

Aims, objectives and service delivery targets

2.96

Understanding of vision and strategy

3.25

Training, advice and guidance received

1.67

Individual and collective roles and responsibilities

3.04 0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Conwy Monitoring and communication

2.45

Partnership working arrangements

2.61

Distribution of roles and responsibilities

2.24

Wider ownership, awareness and understanding

2.12

Commitment of members

2.93

Aims, objectives and service delivery targets

2.63

Understanding of vision and strategy

2.98

Training, advice and guidance received

2.33

Individual and collective roles and responsibilities

2.88 0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Denbighshire Monitoring and communication

2.74

Partnership working arrangements

2.77

Distribution of roles and responsibilities

2.49

Wider ownership, awareness and understanding

2.66

Commitment of members

3.58

Aims, objectives and service delivery targets

3.11

Understanding of vision and strategy

3.38

Training, advice and guidance received

3.2

Individual and collective roles and responsibilities

3.37 0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Page | 93

Flintshire Monitoring and communication

2.72

Partnership working arrangements

3.13

Distribution of roles and responsibilities

3.05

Wider ownership, awareness and understanding

2.78

Commitment of members

3.61

Aims, objectives and service delivery targets

2.9

Understanding of vision and strategy

Training, advice and guidance received

2.83

Individual and collective roles and responsibilities

3.23 0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Gwynedd Monitoring and communication

2.79

Partnership working arrangements

3.13

Distribution of roles and responsibilities

2.57

Wider ownership, awareness and understanding

3.05

Commitment of members

3.75

Aims, objectives and service delivery targets

Understanding of vision and strategy

3.3

Training, advice and guidance received

3.5

Individual and collective roles and responsibilities

3.18 0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Isle of Anglesey Monitoring and communication

2.47

Partnership working arrangements

2.95

Distribution of roles and responsibilities

2.52

Wider ownership, awareness and understanding

2.58

Commitment of members

2.74

Aims, objectives and service delivery targets

Understanding of vision and strategy

3.25

Training, advice and guidance received

Individual and collective roles and responsibilities

3.14 0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Page | 94

Merthyr Tydfil Monitoring and communication

2.64

Partnership working arrangements

2.81

Distribution of roles and responsibilities

2.33

Wider ownership, awareness and understanding

2.8

Commitment of members

3.22

Aims, objectives and service delivery targets

Understanding of vision and strategy

Training, advice and guidance received

2.5

Individual and collective roles and responsibilities

2.81 0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Monmouthshire Monitoring and communication

2.88

Partnership working arrangements

2.93

Distribution of roles and responsibilities

2.35

Wider ownership, awareness and understanding

2.71

Commitment of members

2.79

Aims, objectives and service delivery targets

2.85

Understanding of vision and strategy

3.04

Training, advice and guidance received

2.13

Individual and collective roles and responsibilities

3 0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Neath Port Talbot Monitoring and communication

2.29

Partnership working arrangements

2.64

Distribution of roles and responsibilities

2.57

Wider ownership, awareness and understanding

2.49

Commitment of members

3.08

Aims, objectives and service delivery targets

2.33

Understanding of vision and strategy

3.05

Training, advice and guidance received

Individual and collective roles and responsibilities

2.84 0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Page | 95

Pembrokeshire Monitoring and communication Partnership working arrangements Distribution of roles and responsibilities Wider ownership, awareness and understanding Commitment of members Aims, objectives and service delivery targets Understanding of vision and strategy Training, advice and guidance received Individual and collective roles and responsibilities

2.4 2.98 2.26 2.4 3.11 3 3.2 2.33 3.08 0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Powys Monitoring and communication Partnership working arrangements Distribution of roles and responsibilities Wider ownership, awareness and understanding Commitment of members Aims, objectives and service delivery targets Understanding of vision and strategy Training, advice and guidance received Individual and collective roles and responsibilities

2.61 2.81 2.5 2.61 3.01 3.04 2.94 2.14 3.21 0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Swansea Monitoring and communication

Partnership working arrangements

2.89

Distribution of roles and responsibilities

2.29

Wider ownership, awareness and understanding

2.97

Commitment of members

3.17

Aims, objectives and service delivery targets

3.39

Understanding of vision and strategy

3.43

Training, advice and guidance received

Individual and collective roles and responsibilities

3.42 0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Page | 96

Vale of Glamorgan Monitoring and communication

3.06

Partnership working arrangements

3.14

Distribution of roles and responsibilities

3.25

Wider ownership, awareness and understanding

3.33

Commitment of members

3.62

Aims, objectives and service delivery targets

3.28

Understanding of vision and strategy

3.26

Training, advice and guidance received

2.88

Individual and collective roles and responsibilities

3.4 0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Torfaen Monitoring and communication

3.09

Partnership working arrangements

3.49

Distribution of roles and responsibilities

2.95

Wider ownership, awareness and understanding

3.09

Commitment of members

3.4

Aims, objectives and service delivery targets

3.22

Understanding of vision and strategy

3.11

Training, advice and guidance received

2.86

Individual and collective roles and responsibilities

3.08 0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Wrexham Monitoring and communication

2.86

Partnership working arrangements

3.1

Distribution of roles and responsibilities

2.86

Wider ownership, awareness and understanding

Commitment of members

Aims, objectives and service delivery targets

3.29

Understanding of vision and strategy

3.5

Training, advice and guidance received

2.33

Individual and collective roles and responsibilities

3.28 0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

Page | 97

wavehill t: e: w:

ymchwil gwerthuso arolygon research evaluation surveys

01545 571 711 info@wavehill.com www.wavehill.com

Wavehill Ltd, 8 Water Street | 8 Heol y Dŵr, Aberaeron, Ceredigion, SA46 0DG

Page | 98