This chapter illustrates the different arrangements used by the SRN partners in their work with stakeholders, citizens and enterprises. It explores aspects of both programme management and project development.
In the specific context of funding programmes, stakeholders may be broadly defined as groups of people or individuals, institutions or government bodies having a relationship with a project and/or a programme1. There are typically big differences in their roles and responsibilities, their access to and control over resources, and the part they play in decision making. To involve them in programme management and delivery, in line with EU requirements, relevant stakeholders need to be identified and mapped2 and arrangements for effective partnership working with them need to be put in place.
Sub-regional organisations typically have good local networks and often take the lead in identifying which stakeholders to involve and the best means of collaborating with them. Increasingly there is a need to work with the private sector in the delivery of regeneration programmes.
Sub-regional organisations are also skilled in supporting community groups, citizens and enterprises in the development and implementation of good quality, relevant projects, especially those which help to secure objectives for innovation and competitiveness, growth and jobs, environmental protection and sustainable development. Giving local authorities a role in project selection can help to ensure that the projects coming forward for funding are in line with sub-regional policy goals and requirements.
In general the potential for close working relationships between the public, social/community and private sectors is particularly strong at the local and sub-regional levels, with enterprises often having well-developed local organisational structures and support agencies.
In some Member States, horizontal partnerships involving local stakeholders from different sectors and types of organisation are very widely used in the management of public services and funding, and sometimes in direct delivery.
This is the case in England, where Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) - bringing together local authorities, the police, education authorities, providers of jobs and welfare and other key stakeholders, including residents - are now central to the management of domestic regeneration budgets. LSPs are an initiative of national government, originally introduced to help develop wide-ranging community strategies in cities and towns, and now with an expanded role. As regards the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, targeted towards the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods, for example, establishment of an LSP has been a requirement to enable a local community to gain access to finance. Not unexpectedly, this requirement has proved to be a stimulus for the creation of new stakeholder partnerships.
LSPs typically have a broad remit and operate at a high strategic level. Many have therefore developed sub-partnerships to deal with specific issues.
In Bristol the LSP (the Bristol Partnership3) has been closely involved in the delivery of Objective 2 funding, with practical implementation falling to a sub-group, the Regeneration Group, made up of representatives of key local agencies, community groups and NGOs. Unusually, this Group has had devolved responsibility for decisions as to which projects to fund (see Chapter 5). In general the Bristol Objective 2 team has close working relationships with the local community and service providers, enabling the special needs of urban populations to be identified and met. Projects are closely aligned with Neighbourhood Action Plans overseen by the LSP and its sub-groups.
In the North West of England, Cumbria has a Strategic Partnership covering the whole county, and four LSPs covering different sub-regions. Although they express views on the distribution of regeneration funds, these partnerships do not have direct control over the way the funds are spent, since this is largely in the hands of two delivery companies established for this purpose. However, stakeholders from Cumbria are involved in other partnerships which do determine expenditure of domestic budgets. For example, nine towns in Cumbria were Beacon Towns under the former Countryside Agency’s Market Towns Initiative4. Each had a scheme managed by a partnership drawing together representatives from the selected town and surrounding villages who jointly decided how to spend a £1million allocation.
In Tampere in Finland an existing stakeholder working group active in the suburb of Hervanta has acquired an important consultative role in the delivery of the Objective 2 programme.
The suburb of Hervanta was eligible for Objective 2 funds under the Western Finland programme for the period 2000-2006. This is a district surrounded by a much larger urban area not eligible for Objective 2, and cooperation with stakeholders has focused on a relatively small area. This narrow focus has had both strengths and weaknesses. For example, projects by high technology institutions and research centres designed to benefit the whole city and the Tampere region rather than just Hervanta have not had much impact here. On the other hand, local initiatives, network building, visibility and participation processes have all become easier as a result of intensive work with Hervanta stakeholders.
The Hervanta EU Office as an intermediary organization has actively utilised this local focus, becoming ‘a junction point’ for different kinds of stakeholders. Much liaison has taken place via an existing organisation, the Sub-regional working group of Hervanta. This cross-sectoral group, established in the 1980s, brings together local administration officials from different municipal sectors (social and health care, day care, library services, EU Programme, care of the elderly, education) and representatives of other organisations such as employment authorities and the police. It has been able to gather ‘social capital’, dealing especially with the social problems associated with suburban districts. Although not set up specifically to work with issues relating to EU funds, this group now routinely considers them, acting as a consultant for the Hervanta EU programme on the possibilities for action. The EU Office has also been able to use this group to distribute information about ongoing projects.
Further efforts to engage local stakeholders in partnership were made after the mid-term evaluation of the Objective 2 Programme in 2003 when the EU Office examined the implementation of past projects and took a fresh look at the needs of the district. Five thematic groups were established, on supporting employment; activating people, improving the attractiveness of the region and building collective identity; immigrants as a local strength; promoting business; and environment, investments and construction.
Stakeholders from these different thematic areas were invited to participate in the working groups and about 60 people responded. They represented, for example, labour unions, the city administration and Regional Council of Tampere, the Social Insurance Institution of Finland, employment authorities, the Technical University, residents’ associations, parishes, project personnel, immigrants, entrepreneurs and the Technology Centre Hermia. Each group met several times to discuss development needs and mould ideas for projects. Special attention was paid to actual needs (rather than available funding) and to complementarity with the Objective 2 Programme and local strategies. At least 6 of the 19 project ideas proposed were implemented. Other ideas were combined and developed further within the new projects.
Sub-regional organisations may make creative use of different EU budgets to support existing partnership working, in turn improving their take-up of further EU funds. Several SRN partners do this.
In the Czech Republic, both Objective 1 and INTERREG have been used to strengthen existing local partnerships and to develop new ways of collaborating so as to build capacity for further engagement in EU-funded projects from 2007.
Mikroregion Hranicko is an existing voluntary association of municipalities centred on the town of Hranice. The area covered by the Mikroregion is largely agricultural, covers over 30,000 hectares and has a population of about 34,000 inhabitants, 20,000 of them resident in Hranice and the rest in about 30 villages.
The Secretariat of Mikroregion Hranicko, which provides the executive office for the association, was set up in 2005. It has been active in building up stakeholder networks in the area, supporting delivery of the Regional Development Strategy 2007-2013, an agreement between local government and the private sector on the direction that development in the region should take. The Strategy sets out priorities on, for example, tourism development, transport infrastructure, water supply, enterprise development, employment, services, housing, education, landscape and energy resources.
The Secretariat has also been responsible for developing an information and communications strategy and preparing and implementing projects.
The Development Partnership of Region Hranicko is a forum for exchange of information and cooperation with various EU projects. The Partnership has 32 members from mainly municipalities, enterprises, NGOs and the farming community. It came into being in 2005, initially as an informal group of representatives from various development institutions in the area drawn from different sectors. The founding members were identified through consultations in villages. Since then the Partnership has expanded, and in 2006 the group became a formal civil association with the mission to fulfil the Strategy for Development of the Region. The Partnership is now an advisory body for updating the Strategy.
This work has been greatly strengthened since 2004/5 through the INTERREG IIIC Regional Framework Operation INNOREF (described in Chapter 6) which is supporting the effective management of both the secretariat of the Mikroregion and the Development Partnership. INNOREF sub-projects involving Hranicko participants cover, for example, GIS in spatial planning of sustainable development, certification of local agricultural products, effective use of water resources, development of eco-management systems, and, for the Faculty Hospital Olomouc, development of an innovative evidence-based medical information system.
Some new partnerships have been created specifically to maximise the use of available EU funds in pursuit of regional development objectives.
Details of Mesto Hranice projects
Hranice, located within Olomouc region, has been involved in several projects supported by different Priorities in the Czech Republic’s Joint Regional Operational Programme for Objective 1.
The project ‘Partnership for development of the Olomouc Region’ was funded under Priority 3.3 on ‘Strengthening the capacity of local and regional authorities in programme planning and realisation’. It focused on educational and communication aspects of partnership building. The well-targeted Communications strategy of Olomouc Region contributes to transparency.
Support for a series of Professional Service Centres is provided via the INTERREG IIIC RFO INNOREF, in which the Voluntary Association of Municipalities of the Hranicko Region (including Hranice) is a partner.
Partnership working in Hranice and its surroundings has been further strengthened since 2006 with the establishment of the Euroteam.
The Euroteam is a small team of experts set up to help prepare for Structural Funds 2007 – 2013. It is a response to lack of capacity with the region for project development and collaboration with other EU partners. The team is made up of staff from the Secretariat of the Development Partnership of Region Hranicko, representatives from local villages and external experts, all experienced in project development. It is not separately funded, and those participating do not receive additional payment. Members of the team visit villages, hold meetings, talk to individuals and gather ideas. They help community organisations and other stakeholders to write project proposals that will enable their ideas to be realised using Structural Funds. The intention is to maximise the use of Structural Funds in line with the priorities in the Regional Development Strategy for 2007-2013.
The view from the Czech Republic is that well-founded cooperation by municipalities and other stakeholders within a region brings added value. Networking helps to support synergies between projects, for example, helping project developers to flesh out their ideas, and development actors are a productive resource for implementation of the regional strategy.
Comparisons may be drawn between the arrangements in Hranice and the coordination and support provided by Barcelona province to smaller local authorities within its much more urban territory.
In Barcelona the provincial government plays an important coordinating role at the level of the city-region. As an example of how this is organised and supported, a formal quality management system has been established as a means of channelling and prioritising the needs of the 311 small municipalities within the province and aiding decisions as to how to allocate the available budget.
Details of Diputacio de Barcelona projects
XBMQ is a quality management system developed by the Diputació de Barcelona to support more effective functioning of, and cooperation with, the municipalities within the city-region. All 311 municipalities have signed up to a legal framework (also termed a protocol) for the period 2004-7 which establishes a register of the needs of each locality, the actions to be developed (negotiated by an ‘agreement committee’), the agreements and subventions needed to implement them, and ways of measuring the impacts of actions carried out. The system is used to guide the distribution of the domestic budget for spending on, for example, urban public space, accessibility, cultural activities and sport by the different municipalities. The first results demonstrate the extent of teamwork needed to deliver these actions and the increased engagement of the municipalities in a range of inter-institutional and cross-sectoral networks. More details of the system are available on www.diba.cat/xbmq.
The Diputació de Barcelona is also an advocate for the smaller urban areas within its boundaries. This role relates to day-to-day activities rather than to EU funding programmes, but the Diputació uses its European links to strengthen its coordination functions. When it come to Structural Funds, the Province has been seeking some decentralised delivery for the 2007-2013 period, using the experience of some of the SRN partners as possible models.
All sub-regional organisations involved in regeneration programmes must work with private enterprises in their localities. The three main challenges to be addressed are :
Regional or local development agencies are often key players in these tasks.
In Emilia Romagna, provinces like Modena had a key role in the programming and management of Objective 2 for 2000-2006 (see Chapter 5) and were responsible for engaging with the private sector in order to carry out these tasks. They made an effort to create synergies between public and private investments in the programme by targeting particular sectors with which to work. They gave priority to working with tourism enterprises and to public investment related to the tourist ‘offer’. A similar effort was made with the retail sector, with policies to preserve basic services in the mountain area complemented by support for similar services in towns.
The Marche Region of Italy has had a different approach. Management and delivery of Objective 2 have been undertaken entirely by the Region, with no direct involvement of the provinces in the management of ERDF, though they have had a role in the management of ESF and have gained useful experience of ERDF through INTERREG projects.
In this context, Marche Region works closely with its regional development agency SVIM. SVIM has a dual role, firstly providing technical assistance to Marche Region on ERDF and giving advice on how to attract other EU money such as INTERREG or Article 6 ESF, and secondly helping regional and sub-regional stakeholders to respond to calls for proposals for EU programmes like LIFE. SVIM mainly cooperates with trade associations, chambers of commerce, other business service centres and technological transfer organisations to support and promote competitiveness and innovation in SMEs. The agency has been active in preparation for the 2007-2013 programming period, disseminating information about likely opportunities to potential project developers.
Piedmont Region also provides examples of effective engagement of private enterprises with EU-funded projects through the efforts of the regional development agency Langhe Monferrero Roero.
LAMORO has coordinated the development of a Territorial Development Pact in this rural upland area which has problems with infrastructure and communication, a small population and high depopulation rate, and an environment significantly damaged by longstanding pollution from the chemical industry.
The Pact involves 59 municipalities and many other stakeholders, including SMEs (mainly from the handicraft and service sectors), agricultural workers, and representatives of other sectors such as tourism, commerce and culture.
The main objective of the project was to formulate a strategy for sustainable local economic development, capitalising on local resources such as local products, promoting social integration (especially by involving local women and youth) and cultural identity, and protecting the typical characteristics of the area.
Effective cooperation has resulted in a series of pilot projects to increase entrepreneurship and investment, with priority going to projects creating employment, fostering integration between different production sectors and promoting environmental and economic sustainability. Funding has come mainly from internal governmental resources, with some private sector contributions.
This initiative is based on an agreement between LAMORO and the regional group of Banca Intesa, one of Italy’s largest banking groups. The main objectives are to foster the renewal and growth of the productive system in South Piedmont, to support local entrepreneurship and to improve the competitiveness and quality of local services and products. The types of interventions supported include, for example, SME start-ups, creative clusters and consortia.
In establishing the programme, an initial analysis and SWOT led to guidelines for calls for proposals, procedures for project selection, arrangements for support for project development (including networking of applicants through a ‘South Piedmont Incubator’), methods of project evaluation and a final classification of funded projects.
Bringing the programme into effect required a signed agreement between Banca Intesa and the Association of Italian Development Agencies and establishment of an initial EURO 20m loan facility. Following this trend, some smaller local banks have expressed their appreciation of this programme and their intention to be involved as founders.
Clearly the existence and willingness of financial institutions to engage in such programmes are key factors in putting together programmes like this. Such facilities do not exist in all Member States.
Cumbria provides a rather different example of joint working with the private sector – the use of arms-length companies to deliver publicly-funded regeneration programmes.
In Cumbria local partners have established two companies to undertake regeneration tasks. Westlakes Renaissance deals with urban initiatives in coastal towns suffering from major economic restructuring. Rural Regeneration Cumbria deals with rural renaissance in the interior of the county, much of which is a National Park.
These companies work closely with the Regeneration Support Team within the local authority, which has effectively coordinated project appraisal, monitoring and financial management for the Objective 2 programme (overall management by the Regional Office of central government) and UK regeneration funds (dispersed by the Regional Development Agency). Chapter 5 gives more details.
Project example: The Machine Tachnology Centre in Turku.
Community groups, citizens and enterprises often need special help to enable them to access EU funds. Sub regional organisations have devised different ways to provide this support, depending upon their circumstances.
Support for project development is provided by all the SRN partners. It is part of the work of the Hranice Euroteam, described above, for example.
In Bristol the Objective 2 team has used several complementary mechanisms to foster the development of good quality projects coming forward for the Neighbourhood Renewal priority, in line with the Local Action Plan.
A Project Development Worker has been employed to support community groups, in particular giving advice on strategic priorities and the types of activity the programme is looking for. This has resulted in well-targeted and appropriate applications meeting the needs of the programme.
A two-stage application process for local organisations has been designed to minimise bureaucracy for good projects while being at the same time ‘comprehensive and robust’. Community groups, NGOs and other potential project delivery organisations have had to supply only basic information for the first ’outline’ stage.
Simple outline applications have been submitted to, and considered by, the Regeneration Group (mentioned in 3.2, above). Approved outline applications have proceeded to a more detailed and complex full application, including working up full business plans. Following a full technical appraisal by a panel of regeneration specialists (mainly from Bristol City Council), ERDF applications have been considered by the Regeneration Group, with those of a larger scale or of a contentious nature also being considered by the regional office of central government.
The Project Development Worker has provided assistance at both stages of the application process, but projects which ‘shortlisted’ after the first stage received targeted and more intensive support.
To make application for funds more straightforward, Bristol has developed a common application form for EU and domestic funds. Once projects are funded, networking meetings are held to allow exchange of experience and cross-referrals for beneficiaries.
Some sub-regional bodies go further and provide a centralised ‘project administration’ service for community projects so that they can get on with project delivery without worrying about the financial side. This is the case in the Finnish cities of Turku and Tampere, for example, where special arrangements have been set up to support community-based project development in the context of the Linkki and Hervanta Objective 2 activities (see Section 5.4, below).
The Objective 2 programme for East Turku covered 11 city districts, mostly outer suburbs, and a total population of about 30,000. The development operations have been coordinated by the Linkki Project of the City of Turku’s Centre for Communication (see Chapter 5).
Special arrangements were put in place to support between 8 and 12 community-based projects a year undertaken mainly by groups of local residents, schools, clubs or even by individuals. Linkki project staff have taken care of the administrative aspects of these projects within this common intermediary body, leaving the local actors free to concentrate on delivery.
Through the 67 community-based projects undertaken between 2000 and 2006, implementation of this EU programme has been brought closer to citizens. Local residents have become demonstrably more active in tackling problems in their local area. Concrete results are helping to meet the goals of a range of different bodies (funders, the City etc), and information levels have improved. Other cities – notably Helsinki and Tampere – have taken an interest in the way of working with community projects in East Turku and have set up similar arrangements.
The projects developed and implemented through Linkki include several on Lisbon themes. Special efforts have been directed towards establishing projects that will support better jobs, entrepreneurship and innovation in enterprises.
Project example: Fortuna in Turku
For sub-regional organisations that have a role in the appraisal and selection of project proposals, these tasks are an essential feature of Structural Funds delivery. One way to ensure that local projects are in line with EU policy goals is to assess all project bids against Lisbon and sustainability criteria.
Environment was a horizontal theme in the South West Objective 2 programme. There were also indicative actions for ERDF and ESF-spending targeted on environment and economic activities.
A project appraisal process designed to secure ‘greener’ projects was applied across the whole programme. Gateway criteria included the requirement to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment on all project bids. External assessors scored all capital projects using a checklist, for example allocating points for the use of environmentally efficient technology. Targets were established relating to environmental activities and processes – for example, for numbers of people trained in environmental management and measures to increase modal choice – and for environmental outputs, such as upgrading footpaths. Environmental output targets were also specified, such as requiring projects to contribute to improved air quality.
The South West programme also had a system for scoring cross-cutting horizontal theme, for example giving points for taking advantage of green technology or raising awareness of environment in tourism projects5.
Bristol’s Objective 2 Local Action Plan has placed further emphasis on ‘investing in local neighbourhoods to build a sustainable future’. The detailed objectives of the Plan are a good fit with the Lisbon and Gothenburg agendas, for example seeking to ensure ‘that environmental sustainability goes hand in hand with quality improvements to the social and economic wellbeing of the area’.
Additional published guidance reflecting these local objectives was prepared for projects coming forward for support from Objective 2 support in Bristol. Applicants have been required to demonstrate that they would meet at least some Action Plan targets by addressing, for example, reduction in energy consumption, use of renewable energy sources, decreased resource consumption, decreased travel by private car, waste minimisation, or raising environmental awareness amongst beneficiaries and staff.
Practical implementation has been supported through environmental workshops run in cooperation with the sustainable city team based in the City Council’s environment centre. Workshops have explained, for example, the need to incorporate green energy and insulation in all capital projects, and to comply with the UK Building Research Establishment’s ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ standards.
Project example: The Archimedia Centre in Bristol
In general there is a good connection between Objective 2 delivery and Bristol City Council’s city-wide strategies. For example, it is the policy of Bristol city council to reduce energy costs, increase resource efficiency and reduce waste streams. The Objective 2 projects demonstrate that it is possible to reduce business costs via environmental measures. With climate protection now high on the political agenda, the Bristol Partnership has recently launched a Green Capital initiative to make Bristol a low carbon city with a high quality of life. Structural Funds will be one of the tools to deliver this goal. Other SRN partners are already making these connections, as the following chapter shows.
Sub regional bodies are well positioned to work in partnership with a broad range of stakeholders and community interests. For most SRN partners there is evidence of strong and sustained working relationships between the public, community/social and private sectors at the local level.
Sub regional partnership can be related to the more formal management arrangements established to deliver mainstream public services. This can add value, for example by enabling a more integrated use of domestic and European funds. The partnership requirements of EU funding programmes are helping to promote the active involvement of local stakeholders in tackling problems in their local areas.
The longer the involvement in developing local stakeholder networks at the sub regional level, the more evidence there is of increased capacity and expertise to take forward programme management and integrated project delivery. Intermediary bodies and institutions at the sub regional level are particularly well equipped to undertake these tasks, especially where there is a need to bring together smaller local authorities and local stakeholders, who may have a more limited capacity to engage with European funding programmes.
Engagement between the public and private sectors in both programme management and project delivery can be secured through the establishment of different public/private partnership organisational models at the sub regional level. Innovative local development agencies and public sector sponsored companies play a major role in helping to achieve partnership delivery of Structural Fund programmes. Effective partnership at the sub regional and more local levels is also positive for the complementary delivery of the Lisbon and Gothenburg agendas.
The development of different forms of local partnership at the sub regional level has not only assisted national government and regions to deliver good quality, value for money projects meeting strategic priorities. It has also enabled programme management functions that are spatially targeted to be devolved to the sub regional level, especially in the case of major urban areas. These issues are considered in the following chapters.
