WARNING - By their nature, text files cannot include scanned images and tables. The process of converting documents to text only, can cause formatting changes and misinterpretation of the contents can sometimes result. Wherever possible you should refer to the pdf version of this document. CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY Paper 3 03/11/06 CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY FOR DECISION Title: The Future Development of CNPA Grant Mechanisms Prepared by: Andrew Harper, Head of Economic and Social Development Purpose This paper seeks to examine ways in which the CNPA’s approach to providing grant funding could be changed in order to more efficiently and effectively support delivery of the Park Plan. It then goes on to consider the implications of such potential changes for both the Integrated Grants Programme (IGP) and the LEADER+ Programme. Recommendations That the Board approve the proposals for the future development of the IGP and the LEADER+ Programme grant mechanisms. Executive Summary The Cairngorms LEADER+ Programme and the IGP have been important mechanisms for delivering economic, social and environmental benefit within the Park but are both scheduled to come to an end. There is scope, however, to build upon these mechanisms whilst moving towards a more strategic approach to the provision of grant funding, aligned with the Park Plan. There is also potential to develop greater linkages with local Community Planning partnerships and to build upon our work on the Scottish Rural Development Programme as a means of identifying local priorities and of co-ordinating partner support for the delivery of specific actions. This paper sets out specific proposals for the future development of the programmes with these objectives in mind. THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF CNPA GRANT MECHANISMS - FOR INFORMATION Background 1. The provision of grants has been an important tool in delivering parts of the Authority’s Corporate Plan and is likely to play a key role in delivering elements within the Park Plan. 2. To date the main grant giving mechanisms in delivering the Corporate Plan have been the Integrated Grants Programme (IGP) and the Cairngorms LEADER+ Programme, the latter of which is administered by the CNPA on behalf of a wider group of voluntary, business and public sector interests. The IGP was introduced as a two year grant programme and is due to end this financial year (with the exception of the biodiversity grants for which funding has been committed until March 2010, as part of the LBAP project). The LEADER+ Programme has been running since 2002, can commit funds until the end of 2006, and must make final payments by the end of 2007. 3. The LEADER+ Programme and approach will be subsumed into the Scottish Rural Development Programme from January 2007. In June 2006, the Board considered the CNPA’s position on this amalgamation and agreed that we should work closely with the Scottish Executive and a wide range of partners to agree priorities, develop an effective advisory network, and a monitoring and review system. The aim of this would be to help deliver the emerging priorities in the Park Plan in an integrated way. Since then, we have been working closely with our partners to influence the Scottish Rural Development Programme to this end. 4. This paper seeks to examine ways in which the CNPA’s approach to grant giving could be changed in order to more efficiently and effectively support delivery of the Park Plan. It then goes on to consider the implications of such changes for both the IGP and the LEADER+ Programme. Identifying and Prioritising Projects 5. The LEADER+ Programme is focused upon the theme of ‘helping the communities to make the best use of natural and cultural resources’, while the IGP focuses upon the following themes: a) Investing in Communities; b) Marketing and Events; c) Biodiversity; d) Interpretation; e) Outdoor Access; f) Cultural Heritage; g) Communication (land managers). 6. Both programmes thus have clear frameworks specifying the type of projects and activities upon which grant support is focused. Within these frameworks, both grant programmes have, in the main, operated on a reactive basis with eligible organisations submitting applications for funding support which are approved or rejected (by the CNPA in respect of the IGP and for the LEADER+ Programme by a Local Action Group (LAG) comprising representatives from the public, private and community partners in the area, including the CNPA). 7. As projects apply for funding on an ongoing basis, there is little opportunity to compare and prioritise projects relative to one another. With the forthcoming changes to some sources of funding such as the European Structural Funds and the Rural Development Programme and the likely reduction in funding availability, there will almost certainly be greater competition for resources in the future so the ability to prioritise projects may become more important. This point was made in the Authority’s response to the draft Scottish Rural Development Programme earlier this year. 8. In addition, once the Park Plan is agreed, there is an argument for developing a more strategic approach to grant giving. It would be possible to be more pro-active in seeking to identify, encourage and even initiate projects or activities that helped deliver specific actions under the Priorities for Action or clearly contributed to the agreed Park Plan outcomes. By adopting such an approach, and agreeing with partners the projects and activities that are a priority, it also makes it easier to plan and secure resources. 9. That is not to say that there isn’t still a place for having mechanisms to enable reactive grant giving. Such an approach is a good way of engaging communities of interest and locality and can be more flexible in being able to address needs and opportunities as and when they are identified. 10. I would therefore argue, that to most effectively deliver the Park Plan, the Authority should pursue a shift in our approach to grant provision. Mechanisms should be developed whereby it is easier to identify and encourage key projects and prioritise them for support whilst still retaining a smaller reactive grants programme for community based activities. Links with Community Planning and Other Local Decision Making 11. As has been explained in separate papers on Community Planning and on emerging policies for land management, there is great scope build upon existing partnerships at both Park-wide and at local Community Planning levels as mechanisms to identify local needs and opportunities and to prioritise projects and activities within their respective areas. They also bring together round the table key partners who can support the funding and delivery of the prioritised actions. The LEADER+ Programme’s LAG has shown the benefits of such a partnership approach, although the emphasis within the LAG has been primarily upon facilitating informed grant decisions. Simplifying Grant Administration 12. The thinking behind the CNPA acting as a hub for grant funding through the IGP was that this enabled a ‘pooling’ of CNPA and partner resources so that grant applicants could access funding from different organisations via a single application procedure. This has the dual advantage of creating operational efficiencies for the funding partners while at the same time simplifying access to funding for applicants. Co-financing of this sort is clearly of benefit and so opportunities to lever in external resources and align them with delivery of the Park Plan should continue to be pursued. 13. In a similar vein, while the LEADER+ Programme has distributed European resources only, there is no reason why the partnership mechanism could not be used as a vehicle for accessing and distributing other sources of funding. 14. Indeed this thinking underpins the approach that the Authority has made to SEERAD to pilot a Cairngorms Regional Committee linked to the LEADER+ programme and its Local Action Group. The intention is to develop an administratively integrated approach to – a) Agreeing the priorities for delivery through the Scottish Rural Development Programme; b) Establishing and overseeing an effective advisory mechanism; c) Monitoring and reviewing the outcomes of the Programme. 15. We are currently discussing with the Scottish Executive how this may operate in the Cairngorms National Park but no decisions have yet been made. It should be made clear that we do not wish for the CNPA to administer the Scottish Rural Development Programme but rather to lead on the three bullet points listed above. 16. On the down side, the IGP has been relatively resource intensive in administrative terms. It is therefore worth reviewing the options for the administration of such grant funding in the future. The IGP projects have taken up a lot of staff time on what are essentially relatively low cost and low risk projects. It would be possible to contract out the administration of a small scale community grant programme to either a single body or organisations covering different parts of the Park. The pros and cons of contracting out would need to be fully explored. Equally there may be ways of retaining the grant administration in-house but reducing the staff input required in developing and assessing applications. Project Advice and Support 17. Grants on their own are often not enough to achieve a high quality project. It is clear that organisations value the project advice and support that they receive as much as the funding itself. Thus, if the administration of any grant programme was contracted out, it would have to be supported by adequate advice and support, as is proposed for the Scottish Rural Development Programme. 18. The development of strong links with the local Community Planning partnerships and other partners would also help in that the partner organisations could agree the support inputs needed. The IGP and the LEADER+ Programme – 2007/08 and Beyond 19. As was explained before, the IGP was initially only established to run until the end of this financial year, while the LEADER+ Programme effectively comes to a close at the end of 2007. Grant funding will continue to be an important mechanism for delivering the Park Plan and so we need to continue and further refine grant mechanisms, as appropriate. 20. Taking into account the above analysis, the following is proposed – IGP 2007/08 1. Refine grant strands in line with draft Park Plan; 2. Deliver through current arrangements, identifying operational efficiencies where possible; 3. Invite comments on applications from local community planning partnerships; 4. Commission independent evaluation of IGP (economy, efficiency and effectiveness). 2008/09 and Beyond Based on evaluation, decide – 1. Whether the focus of the IGP is appropriate to achieve Park Plan outcomes; 2. Whether the IGP should continue and, if so, in what form (administer in-house or contract out). LEADER+ Programme 2007/08 1. Complete current programme; 2. Work closely with Scottish Executive on implementation of the SRDP to ensure priorities, advice and monitoring is delivered; 3. Bid for resources from other appropriate funding programmes, e.g. Heritage Lottery; 4. Start to develop links with local community planning partnerships and other partners; 5. Commission independent evaluation of Cairngorms LEADER+ Programme. 2008/09 and Beyond 1. Administer investment programme using various funding sources. Note – it may need to be renamed as the Cairngorms National Park Investment Programme reflecting the variety of funding sources. Recommendation 21. The Board approve the above proposals set out in paragraph 19 for the future development of the IGP and the LEADER+ Programme. Consultation 22. In developing this paper consultation has taken place with relevant CNPA officers, the Management Team and the LEADER+ LAG. The LAG were supportive of the recommendations but cautioned that outsourcing the IGP could create administrative difficulties. Policy Context 23. The proposals would ensure that future grant programmes are fully aligned with delivery of the Park Plan. Delivering Sustainability 24. Projects and activities that are clearly linked to the Park Plan, should be sustainable in nature. Sustainability issues are considered on a case by case basis at the point of project appraisal. Delivering A Park for All 25. Again, some projects and activities linked to the Park Plan will be explicitly addressing barriers to inclusion. Inclusion issues are considered on a case by case basis at the point of project appraisal. Delivering Economy, Efficiency and Effectiveness 26. The bringing together of public funding into a single grant programme helps deliver economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The development of stronger links with partners, particularly through local Community Planning partnerships will also help. In considering the potential to contract out the IGP in the future, the pros and cons will be evaluated in these terms. Implications Financial Implications 27. At this stage no firm financial commitment is being sought from the Board. The detail of CNPA funding requirements for the IGP will be firmed up within the Operational Plan. At this stage it is estimated that up to £80,000 could be levered in from other funders. Funding implications beyond next year will become clearer over the course of 2007/08. 28. For the time being, it is anticipated that all actions can be progressed through existing staff within the Authority. Presentational Implications 29. This is likely to be positively received by both potential funding applicants and by external partners, as the proposals indicate a commitment to operating grant programmes in the future and to developing stronger links with Community Planning. 30. While funding levels have yet to be agreed for the IGP next year, if the Board agree to the direction set out in this paper, it will be important to start promotion of the Programme for next year so as to maintain momentum. Implications for Stakeholders 31. The main implications would relate to the local Community Planning partnerships and to the members of the Cairngorms LEADER+ LAG. Further work will be needed with these stakeholder groups to identify respective roles and responsibilities and the detail of how the linkages with the local Community Planning partnerships could best be achieved. Next Steps 32. If the Board agree to the proposed direction set out in this paper, the next steps will be to progress the actions in partnership with the LEADER+ LAG and the local Community Planning partnerships. The detail of resource requirements will be worked up through the Operational Plan for next year. Update reports on both the LEADER+ Programme and the IGP will be brought to the Board, as and when appropriate. AndrewHarper November 2006 andrewharper@cairngorms.co.uk