EU STRUCTURAL & INVESTMENT FUNDS UPDATE 10 September 2013 Sue - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

CHESHIRE & WARRINGTON LEP

EU STRUCTURAL & INVESTMENT FUNDS UPDATE

10 September 2013 Sue Baxter EU Programmes Dept Business, Innovation & Skills

ESI UK 2014-2020 : HOW MUCH?

 UK £9bn  England £5.2bn - notionally allocated to 39 LEPs

• Cheshire & Warrington €142.2m

 Scotland £1.833m; N. Ireland £390m; Wales £1.822bn Same but different….  Same funds, same EU rules Different access channels in each part of UK Different management systems Different emphasis  If collaborating with non English parts of UK, need to ensure proposals fit with slightly different systems

ESI FUNDS : WHAT FOR?

 Innovation and R&D (esp commercialisation)  ICT: Improving access; quality and usage  SMEs: Improving competitiveness

(incl. in the agricultural & aquaculture sectors)

 Shift to low carbon economy (c 20% total ERDF)  Climate change adaptation and risk management (lower priority)  Environmental protection & resource efficiency (lower priority)  Sustainable transport and unblocking key networks (lower priority)  Employment and labour mobility  Social inclusion and fighting poverty (20% total ESF)  Education, skills and lifelong learning  Improving institutional capacity for efficient public administration (not for UK)

4

ESI 3 CATEGORIES OF UK AREAS

National Picture Allocation £m England 5,277 Wales 1,833 Scotland 680 Northern Ireland 390 EU STRUCTURAL FUNDS BUDGET IN ENGLAND: 3 CATEGORIES OF AREAS (allocations are population based) GDP (as %

• f EU

average) Allocation £m Less developed Cornwall & the Isles of Scilly 73.2 457 Transition Cumbria 89.5 70 Devon 88.1 65 East Yorkshire & N. Lincolnshire 85.8 123 Lancashire 84.9 205 South Yorkshire 84.5 137 Shropshire & Staffs 83.9 217 Merseyside 80.2 156 Lincolnshire 79.8 81 Tees Valley & Durham 78.5 277 More developed Rest of country

RINGFENCING BY UK CATEGORIES OF AREAS

CORE THEMES RECOMMENDED SPENDING LEVELS Less Developed Regions Transition Regions More Developed Regions Innovation

• At least 50% of total

ERDF on these 4 themes

• At least 12% of total

ERDF on low carbon

• nly
• At least 60% of total

ERDF on these 4 themes

• At least 15% of total

ERDF on low carbon

• nly
• At least 80% of total

ERDF on these 4 themes

• At least 20% of total

ERDF on low carbon

• nly

SME Competitiveness Low Carbon (high priority) ICT Climate Change Adaptation

Lower priority Lower priority

Environmental Protection

Lower priority Lower priority

Sustainable Transport

Lower priority Lower priority

Employment At least 60% ESF on up to 4 sub-priorities within these themes At least 70% ESF on up to 4 sub-priorities within these themes At least 80% ESF on up to 4 sub-priorities within these themes Skills Social Inclusion (at least 20% of total ESF) Institutional Capacity The 4 Sub Priorities for up to 60%, 70% or 80% ESF are (1) employability; (2) unemployed people into jobs; (3) youth employment; (4) skills upgrading (incl apprenticeships)

CURRENT ENGLAND STRUCTURAL FUNDS PROGRAMMES

2007-13: PROLIFERATION, DUPLICATION, FRAGMENTATION

PROPOSED ENGLAND EU PROGRAMME 2014-2020: STREAMLINED & INTEGRATED PROJECT PROPOSALS

Community Led Local Development,

Maritime and Fisheries Programme

(EMFF)

Rural Development Programme

(EAFRD)

SINGLE EU GROWTH PROGRAMME: > €6.2bn

(ERDF, ESF & part of EAFRD)

LEPs

MA Local Teams

NEW vs OLD PROGRAMMES : RINGING THE CHANGES

 Consistent approach to using EU ESI funds in a combined and complementary way under a single national programme (vs current disconnect between complementary EU funds channelled through 11 separate programmes)  Allocations geared to functional economic areas but with freedom to be shared and ‘pooled’ if desired (vs current regionalised / less accessible programming for ERDF which confines investments to regional administrative boundaries)  >95% allocated for determination at local level, with minimal ‘top slicing’ to finance Government initiatives (vs <50% Government ‘top slice’ in current programmes)  More equalised proportions ERDF and ESF (vs acute ‘skewing’ of ERDF to the north in current programmes)  Coherent, up front, national match funding ‘opt-in offers’ to alleviate financial pressures for project sponsors & encourage strategic investments (vs current ad hoc / non-existent national match funding arrangements)

2012 EU budget €147.2 billion = 1.12% of EU gross national income

Citizens, freedom, security and justice 1% Administration 6% Sustainable growth: Jobs, competitiveness, regional development 46%:

• f which

STRUCTURAL FUNDS 36% (€53 bn) The EU as a global player: including development aid

6%

Natural resources: Agriculture & environment 41%

ESI : A BIG DEAL ATTRACTS HEAVY SCRUTINY

DEVELOPING STRONG PROJECTS

Alignment with programme theme

Innovation SME Competitiveness Low Carbon ICT Climate Change Adaptation Environmental Protection Sustainable Transport Employment Skills Social Inclusion Institutional Capacity

Your Project Proposal

Indicative Checklist

Policy fit EU vision: EU 2020 UK vision: national policy & programmes LEP vision Business case Evidence of need; clear focus and results Rationale for intervention & use of public funds Outputs, Impact & Outcomes VFM Deliverability Match funding & collaboration? Risk management assurance Timeframe Compliance Eligibility with funding rules Audit trail Endorsement from key partners

LEP ESI SPENDING PLANS WILL BE ASSESSED FOR

 Fit of vision & proposed activities with well evidenced analysis of economic, social & environmental needs  Fit with UK’s EU 2020 priorities  Rules of funds (eligbility)  National policy priorities relating to core themes  Outputs and results anticipated  Quality, Deliverability & Risk  Partnership & local governance / engagement  Split between funds by area  Cross cutting themes

7 Oct: LEPs’ draft Strategies received by local “mailbox” National thematic working groups (with sector analysts) review relevant sections of all LEP Strategies and check for:

• alignment/clash with national priorities and policies;
• exploitation of synergies; and
• compliance with any specific European

requirements. National thematic working groups each produce very brief comments on each of the LEP Strategies. Local Teams assess LEP Strategies against local elements of evaluation criteria:

• rationale for selection of strategic activities and supporting

evidence base;

• local governance arrangements and partnership working;
• capacity of local partners;
• risks to delivery; and
• compliance with the regulations.

CSF England Group adds up all LEPs’ spending profiles, output levels etc to give England totals. CSF Eng Gp then assesses LEP Strategies against the following elements of the national-level criteria (in the context of the England spending/output totals):

• potential contribution of proposed activities to

delivery of Europe 2020 goals;

• profile of funding commitments across the 2014-

2020 period;

• the distribution of LEP allocations across thematic
• bjectives;
• the ESF/ERDF split; and
• compliance with the regulations (light-touch).

CSF England Group decides whether compliance with the regulations requires systematic adjustments to all/majority of LEPs strategies or just a few specific adjustments to a few LEPs’ Strategies. BIS collates all “national- level” comments into short report on each LEP. BIS and MA G5s conduct moderation of Local Teams’ final comments and agree draft responses to LEPs to put to the ESI Funds GPB for consideration. CSF England Group drafts summary paper of key issues and recommendations to the GPB. Papers to GPB on Fri 1 Nov. 6 Nov: Growth Programme Board (GPB) considers draft responses to LEPs and issues in summary paper. “Opt-in” programmes/

• rganisations

discuss their

• ffers with LEPs

and local teams. Local Teams work with LEPs on Strategy

• development. Local

Teams update CSF England Group on progress/risks in Aug and Sept. CSF England Group monitor progress systematically.

w/c 7 Oct w/c 14 Oct w/c 21 Oct w/c 28 Oct w/c 4 Nov 6 Nov

AUG/SEPT

ASSESSMENT OF LEP DRAFT ESI PLANS

Central group of cross-dept analysts go through all Strategies to check robustness of each LEP’s intervention logic. Analysts send theme/sector- specific queries to national thematic working groups. Managing Authorities check that Strategies contain sufficient information for development of the Operational Programmes. BIS checks that Strategies contain sufficient information for development of the England Chapter

• f the Partnership Agreement.

Any clarification questions sent to Local Teams to collate and pass to LEPs Local Teams consider all “national-level” comments on LEP Strategies, challenging those comments they don’t agree with. Local Teams produce draft responses to be sent from the ESI Funds GPB to LEPs.

EUROPEAN STRUCTURAL & INVESTMENT FUNDS

LEPS refresh & review ESI spending plans Summer Guidance & indicative allocations ESF/ERDF to LEPs. EAFRD allocation later. 7 October LEPs complete outline ESI spending plans for review by Government Oct – Dec LEPs & Government discuss & agree ESI spending plans Early 2014: Minimal time for local preparation Mid 2014: ESI funds ‘go live’

TIMELINES

January HMG negotiates England plans with EU. LEPs finalise ESI strategies

GET A PIECE OF THE ACTION! ESI funds are complex and bureaucratic but will enable delivery partners to

 Develop transformative interventions in key places  ‘Stretch’ the reach of existing actions  Leverage wider investments for key programmes / projects  Breathe new life into SMEs, communities & innovative ideas to drive economic growth

FURTHER INFORMATION

 Guidance for LEPs and partners at https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/making- european-funding-work-better-for-the-uk-economy  General queries (policy, national priorities & eligibility) eu.structuralandinvestmentfunds@bis.gov.uk  Specific local queries

BIS Local (strategy) Managing authorities (operations)

(ie. DCLG PDTs; DWP central & Job Centre Plus)

Local Intelligence teams (third sector)