Cross Cutting Themes Research Project (Objectives 1 & 3) · 2016-10-31 · Cross Cutting Themes Research Project (Objectives 1 & 3) Final Report C3008 / April 2006 ECOTEC X 6 th Floor

Cross Cutting Themes Research Project (Objectives 1 & 3) Final Report

Cross Cutting Themes Research Project (Objectives 1 & 3) Final Report

C3008 / April 2006

ECOTEC

6th Floor

Friary House / Tŷ Friary Greyfriars Place Cardiff / Caerdydd CF10 3AE Wales/Cymru T +44 (0)29 2036 7775 F +44 (0)29 2036 7789 www.ecotec.com

ECOTEC Cross Cutting Themes Research Project (Objectives 1 & 3)

Contents PAGE

Executive Summary................................................................................. i Context ii The Integration of the Cross Cutting Themes ..........................................................................ii The Effect of the Themes on the Programmes ........................................................................iv The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Model Used for Implementation ..............................vi Recommendations for Future Implementation.......................................................................vii

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background to Study .................................................................................................1 1.2 Methodology...............................................................................................................3 1.2.1 Desk Research.............................................................................................................3 1.2.2 Consultations................................................................................................................4 1.2.2.1 Specialist Theme Interviews.........................................................................................4 1.2.2.2 Project Interviews .........................................................................................................4 1.2.2.3 Stakeholder Interviews .................................................................................................5 1.3 Report Outline ............................................................................................................6

2.0 The Programmes and their Context...................................................... 7 2.1 Introduction to the Objective 1 and 3 Programmes ................................................7 2.2 The Environmental Sustainability Theme ................................................................7 2.2.1 Context .........................................................................................................................7 2.2.2 The Environmental Sustainability Aims and Objectives of the Programmes ................8 2.2.3 Environmental Sustainability Headline Targets ..........................................................11 2.3 The ICT Theme..........................................................................................................12 2.3.1 Aims and Objectives of the Information and Communications Technology (ICT)

Theme ........................................................................................................................12 2.3.2 ICT Headline Targets .................................................................................................15 2.4 The Equal Opportunities Theme .............................................................................18 2.4.1 Context .......................................................................................................................18 2.4.2 Aims and Objectives of the Equal Opportunities Theme ............................................18 2.4.3 Equal Opportunities Headline Targets........................................................................19 2.4.3.1 Objective 1 Equal Opportunities Headline Targets.....................................................19 2.4.3.2 Objective 3 Equal Opportunities Headline Targets.....................................................20

3.0 The Integration of the Cross Cutting Themes.................................... 22


3.1 Administrative systems and guidance to support the Themes' implementation.........................................................................................................23

3.1.1 Programme Monitoring Committees...........................................................................23 3.1.2 Cross Cutting Theme Unit ..........................................................................................24 3.1.2.1 Training and awareness raising..................................................................................24 3.1.3 Local and Regional Partnerships................................................................................24 3.1.4 Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs) ............................................................................25 3.1.5 Guides........................................................................................................................26 3.2 Implementation of the Themes by projects............................................................27 3.2.1 Implementation compared to application....................................................................27 3.2.2 Opportunities taken up to address the Themes..........................................................28 3.2.3 Missed opportunities to address the Themes.............................................................29 3.3 Barriers to the Implementation of the Themes ......................................................30 3.3.1 Match funding.............................................................................................................30 3.3.2 Planning permission ...................................................................................................30 3.3.3 State Aids ...................................................................................................................30 3.3.4 Policy Framework.......................................................................................................31 3.3.5 Lack of knowledge of the Themes..............................................................................31 3.3.6 Programme Administration .........................................................................................32 3.3.7 Programme Organisation ...........................................................................................32 3.3.8 Access to Advice ........................................................................................................32 3.3.9 Engagement with the Private Sector ..........................................................................33 3.3.10 Lack of Expertise in the Selection of Projects ............................................................33 3.4 The Effects of the Themes on Core Project Activity .............................................33 3.5 Monitoring Systems in Place for the Themes........................................................34 3.5.1 Article 4 Monitoring Visits ...........................................................................................35 3.5.2 Article 10 Financial Control Visits ...............................................................................36

4.0 The Effect of the Themes on the Programmes .................................. 38 4.1 Progress towards the Achievement of Programme Output Targets (A)..............40 4.1.1 Resources Committed................................................................................................41 4.1.2 Environmental Sustainability ......................................................................................42 4.1.3 ICT .............................................................................................................................46 4.1.4 Equal Opportunities....................................................................................................48 4.1.5 Vertical Measures.......................................................................................................49 4.1.5.1 Environmental Sustainability ......................................................................................49 4.1.5.2 ICT .............................................................................................................................53 4.1.5.3 Equal Opportunities....................................................................................................54 4.1.6 Overview of the Progress towards the Achievement of Programme Output Targets..55


4.2 How have the Themes affected job creation?........................................................57 4.2.1 Job Creation ...............................................................................................................57 4.2.2 Quality of Jobs Created..............................................................................................59 4.3 The effect of the creation of childcare places on participation in the labour

market .......................................................................................................................59 4.4 Population and Labour Market Comparison ..........................................................61 4.4.1 Purpose of the Comparison........................................................................................61 4.4.2 Explanation of the Data Used for the Comparison .....................................................61 4.4.3 Gender .......................................................................................................................62 4.4.3.1 Objective 1 .................................................................................................................62 4.4.3.2 Objective 3 .................................................................................................................63 4.4.4 Black and Minority Ethnic People ...............................................................................65 4.4.4.1 Objective 1 .................................................................................................................65 4.4.4.2 Objective 3 .................................................................................................................67 4.4.5 Disabled People .........................................................................................................68 4.4.5.1 Objective 1 .................................................................................................................68 4.4.5.2 Objective 3 .................................................................................................................69 4.4.6 Welsh Speakers .........................................................................................................71 4.4.6.1 Objective 1 .................................................................................................................71 4.4.6.2 Objective 3 .................................................................................................................72 4.5 Contribution of the Themes to the Thematic Priorities.........................................74 4.5.1 Business.....................................................................................................................75 4.5.2 Rural Regeneration ....................................................................................................79 4.5.3 Infrastructure ..............................................................................................................79 4.5.4 Community and Human Resource Development .......................................................80

5.0 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Model Used for Implementation 82 5.1 The Effect of the Themes in addressing the issues identified in the

Programmes .............................................................................................................83 5.1.1 Baseline Data for Scene Setting.................................................................................83 5.1.2 Effectiveness of the Themes' objectives in addressing the baseline data's issues.....84 5.2 The Role and Effectiveness of the Cross Cutting Theme Group .........................84 5.2.1 Cross Cutting Theme Partnership ..............................................................................84 5.2.2 Cross Cutting Theme Action Plan ..............................................................................85 5.3 The Impact of Organising the Themes Vertically and Horizontally......................86 5.3.1 Vertical Implementation..............................................................................................86 5.3.2 Horizontal Implementation..........................................................................................86 5.4 The Themes' Targets................................................................................................88 5.4.1 The Appropriateness of the Targets Measuring the Cross Cutting Theme Objectives88


5.4.2 The Ability of the Targets to be Measured..................................................................88 5.4.3 Importance of the Targets as drivers of integration ....................................................89 5.5 The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Scoring / Appraisal Criteria....................89 5.5.1 The Scoring Criteria ...................................................................................................89 5.5.2 Scoring Analysis.........................................................................................................94 5.5.2.1 Vertical Measures.......................................................................................................94 5.5.3 Scores Achieved by Priority........................................................................................95 5.5.4 Analysis by Fund ........................................................................................................98 5.5.4.1 ESF Funded Projects .................................................................................................98 5.5.4.2 Non-ESF Funded Projects..........................................................................................99 5.6 The Effect of the Mid Term Evaluations on the Themes .....................................100 5.6.1 Objective 1 Mid Term Evaluation Summary Conclusions.........................................100 5.6.2 Objective 3 – Mid Term Evaluation Summary Conclusions......................................103 5.7 Examples of Good Practice from other Regions .................................................105 5.7.1 Government Office London – Equal Opportunities Guidance...................................105 5.7.2 Merseyside – Cross Cutting Themes Policy Managers ............................................106 5.7.3 West Midlands – Highlighting Events and Best Practice ..........................................106 5.7.4 The GB Equal Programme .......................................................................................107 5.7.5 Useful examples from the other regions...................................................................107

6.0 Conclusions ........................................................................................ 108 6.1 The Effects of the Themes in Achieving the Broader Social and Economic

Aims of the Programme.........................................................................................108 6.2 How Well Have Projects Integrated the Themes? ...............................................111 6.3 The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Model used to Integrate the Themes...113 6.4 Key Points for Future Implementation..................................................................115 6.4.1 Reviewing the application form.................................................................................115 6.4.2 Scoring .....................................................................................................................116 6.4.3 Targets and Monitoring and Evaluation....................................................................116 6.4.4 Network of Advice and Support ................................................................................117 6.4.5 Practical Examples...................................................................................................118 6.4.6 Vertical and Horizontal Organisation ........................................................................118 6.4.7 Terminology..............................................................................................................119 6.5 Concluding Remarks .............................................................................................119

Annex One.............................................................................................A1 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................2

Annex Two.............................................................................................A6


Phase 3 Consultees ....................................................................................................................7 Phase 5 Consultees ....................................................................................................................8

Annex Three ..........................................................................................A9

Annex Four..........................................................................................A12

Annex Five...........................................................................................A51

Annex Six ............................................................................................A54 Objective 1 Sustainability Guide..............................................................................................55 ESF sustainability guidance for completion of selection questions ....................................55 Guide to integrating environmental sustainability.................................................................55 Priority 3 Measure 3 Guidance.................................................................................................56 Objective 1 ICT Guidance .........................................................................................................56 Equal Opportunities in the Structural Funds..........................................................................57 2003 European Year of Disabled People - Good Practice Brochure.....................................57 Welsh Language Fact Sheet.....................................................................................................58 Black and Minority Ethnic People in Wales ............................................................................58

Annex Seven .......................................................................................A59

Annex Eight.........................................................................................A63

Annex Nine ..........................................................................................A78 Scoring by Priority ....................................................................................................................82 Objective 1 .................................................................................................................................82

Annex Ten ...........................................................................................A86 Table of figures Figure 4.1 Level of Targets Achieved as at 31 July 2005..........................................56 Figure 4.2 Predicted Achievement of Targets ...........................................................57 Figure 4.3 Objective 1 Gender Comparison with Labour Market Data ......................63 Figure 4.4 Objective 3 Gender Comparison with Labour Market Data – P 1 & 2.......64 Figure 4.5 Objective 3 Gender Comparison with Labour Market Data - P3, 4 & 5 ....65


Figure 4.6 Objective 1 – Ethnicity Comparison with Labour Market Data..................66 Figure 4.7 Objective 3 Comparison of Ethnicity with Labour Market Data - P1 & 2...67 Figure 4.8 Objective 3 Ethnicity Comparison - P3, 4 & 5...........................................68 Figure 4.9 Objective 1 Disabled People Comparison with Labour Market Data ........69 Figure 4.10 Objective 3 Disabled People Comparison with Labour Market Data - P1 & 2 ........................................................................................................................70 Figure 4.11 Objective 3 Disabled People Comparison with Labour Market Data P3, 4 & 5 ....................................................................................................................71 Figure 4.12 Objective 1 Welsh Speakers Comparison with Labour Market Data ......72 Figure 4.13 Objective 3 Welsh Speakers Comparison with Labour Market Data - P1 & 2 ........................................................................................................................73 Figure 4.14 Objective 3 Welsh Speakers Comparison with Labour Market Data - P 3, 4 & 5....................................................................................................................74 Figure 5.1 Objective 1 Approved Projects' Environmental Sustainability Scores ......95 Figure 5.2 Objective 3 Approved Projects Environmental Sustainability Scores .......96 Figure 5.3 Objective 1 Approved Projects ICT Scores ..............................................96 Figure 5.4 Objective 3 Approved Projects ICT Scores ..............................................97 Figure 5.5 Objective 1 Approved Projects Equal Opportunities Scores.....................97 Figure 5.6 Objective 3 Approved Projects Equal Opportunities Scores.....................98 Figure 5.7 Scores Achieved by ESF Funded Projects (Objective 1) .........................99 Figure 5.8 Scores Achieved by ESF Projects (Objective 3) ......................................99 Figure 5.9 Scores achieved by non-ESF projects (Objective 1) ..............................100 Table of tables Table 1.1 Research Questions and Methodology........................................................2 Table 2.1 Volume of Traffic by Objective 1 Unitary Authority (excluding pedal cycles) ........................................................................................................................11 Table 3.1 Article 4 Visits – Cross Cutting Themes ....................................................36 Table 3.2 Article 10 Visits - Cross Cutting Themes ...................................................37 Table 4.1 Objective 1 Programme: Committed and Reported Spend, July 2005 ......41 Table 4.2 Objective 3: Committed and Reported Spend ...........................................42 Table 4.3 Objective 1 Environmental Sustainability Outputs Analysis.......................43 Table 4.4 Objective 3 Environmental Sustainability Output Analysis.........................45 Table 4.5 Objective 1 ICT Outputs Analysis ..............................................................46 Table 4.6 Objective 1 Equal Opportunities Outputs Analysis ....................................48 Table 4.7 Objective 3 Equal Opportunities Output Analysis ......................................49 Table 4.8 Objective 1 Clean Energy Sector Developments P2M5 Output Analysis ..50 Table 4.9 Objective 1 Sustainable Countryside P5M7 Output Analysis ....................50


Table 4.10 Objective 1 Recreational Opportunities and Management of the Natural Environment P5M8 Output Analysis ..............................................................51 Table 4.11 Objective 1 Energy Infrastructure P6M2 Output Analysis........................52 Table 4.12 Objective 1 Environmental Sustainability P6M4 Output Analysis ............53 Table 4.13 Objective 1 ICT Infrastructure P2M1 Output Analysis .............................53 Table 4.14 Objective 1 To stimulate support and demand for ICT P2M2 Output Analysis ......................................................................................................................54 Table 4.15 Objective 1 Improving the participation of women in the labour market P4 M5 Output Analysis...............................................................................................55 Table 4.16 Objective 3 Promoting gender equality in the labour market P5M1 Output Analysis ..........................................................................................................55 Table 4.17 Objective 3 Promoting attitudinal change P5M2 Output Analysis ............55 Table 4.18 Objective 1 Job Creation under the Vertical Measures............................58 Table 4.19 Number of Childcare Places Created ......................................................60 Table 4.20 Thematic priorities ...................................................................................74 Table 4.21 Percentage of Projects on Brownfield / Greenfield Sites in Objective 1...78 Table 5.1 Cross Cutting Theme Action Plan..............................................................85 Table 5.2 ESF Scoring Compared to Non-ESF Appraisal .........................................91 Table 5.3 Proposed Virements involving Objective 1 Vertical Measures.................102


Executive Summary

The Cross Cutting Themes of Environmental Sustainability, Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and Equal Opportunities are built into the Structural Fund Programmes operating in Wales between 2000 and 2006. The implementation of the Themes is based around two approaches: vertical integration, where the promotion of the Themes is a specific focus of a number of individual programme measures; and, horizontal integration, which requires each project to promote the Themes, even if they are not the central focus of the project. Substantial efforts have been made to integrate the Themes into the implementation of the Programmes and therefore WEFO considered it to be important to evaluate the wider benefits of the approach which has been taken, with a particular focus on drawing out lessons for the future. To focus the evaluation the research has been confined to the Objective 1 and 3 Programmes – this provides an all-Wales coverage and the inclusion of all four of the Structural Funds (ERDF, ESF, EAGGF and FIFG). Three objectives were established for the study which were to assess: • What effect the Cross Cutting Themes have had in achieving the broader social and

economic objectives of the Programmes; • How well projects have integrated the Cross Cutting Themes; and, • The strengths and weaknesses of the model used to integrate the Themes. The study is based on a combination of desk research, analysis of programme management and secondary source data and fieldwork. This work has included: • An analysis of the scores awarded to approved projects; • An analysis of the outputs projected and achieved by approved projects as at July 2006

compared with the relevant Programme output targets; • An assessment of the extent of achievement of the Themes' wider headline targets; • A comparison of the characteristics of Programme beneficiaries with wider labour

market data; • Interviews with 18 Cross Cutting Theme specialists; • Discussion on the issues involved with 35 projects drawn from across the two

Programmes; and, • Interviews with 19 Programme stakeholders.

i ECOTEC Cross Cutting Themes Research Project (Objectives 1 & 3)

Context

Since the start of the 2000-2006 Programmes the Cross Cutting Themes have been set within an evolving policy context, as set out in Section 2. The Welsh Assembly Government has been responsible for substantial policy development, including that which relates to its legal obligations towards sustainable development and equality of opportunity, both of which link directly to the Cross Cutting Themes in the Structural Fund Programmes. The interpretation and handling of the Themes varies somewhat between the Objective 1 and 3 Programmes. This is particularly evident in relation to the Environmental Sustainability Theme, which under the Objective 3 Programme takes the wider Sustainable Development approach. The research considers the progress against the headline targets under each Programme for the Themes. In overall terms progress against targets is patchy, with some targets - such as those for labour market participation by women – comfortably exceeded but notable under-performance against others. In some cases the headline targets have to be seen as aspirational with their achievement beyond the scope of the Programme. There are also problems in measuring progress against some of the targets because data is not available and / or a baseline figure cannot be established. Nevertheless, the targets have provided an opportunity to illustrate wider aims, such as the reduction of CO2 emissions.

The Integration of the Cross Cutting Themes

The advice and guidance available to project sponsors to integrate the Themes has generally been well received. It is seen as a helpful reminder to sponsors of the Themes and helps to ensure they are addressed. Many sponsors would have welcomed more detailed examples of how to integrate the Themes for their specific projects. This reflects the need to develop further understanding of how the Themes can be applied, particularly on a horizontal basis. Whilst not all projects have specific Cross Cutting Theme output targets, they all commit to implementing the Themes within the operation of their project. The sampled projects all consider that they are implementing the Themes as intended in the approved application. However, in many instances these intentions are not very specific and it would be difficult to prove or disprove whether this is the case. This emphasises the need for more detailed guidance, particularly to assist sponsors who are willing to implement the Themes but lack the knowledge to do so. The research found some very good examples of how projects have championed at least one of the Themes. There were projects which on the surface appear to have made

ii ECOTEC Cross Cutting Themes Research Project (Objectives 1 & 3)

only a small contribution to the Themes but where further analysis demonstrates that projects have been working from a relatively low starting point - for example, focusing on a target group which does not naturally align itself with the Theme. It is important to recognise that different projects have the potential to achieve varying results. The nature of Themes means that there is nearly always more that can be done to further their implementation. However, experience demonstrates that the best approach is to encourage projects to aim towards realistic approaches to the Themes given their target groups and the costs of the available alternatives. The main missed opportunity by projects relates to the low level of integration of the Themes. In many cases it is considered that projects have 'bolted on' approaches to the Themes, probably though a lack of knowledge of how to achieve real integration. The study revealed a number of barriers to the effective implementation of the Themes, depending on the type of project and organisation involved. These included: • Difficulties in securing match funding, particularly where implementing the Themes

results in an increase in costs; • A range of processes, such as planning permission, which often lengthen the project

development phase and the start of implementation, particularly in relation to large scale capital projects under some of the Vertical Measures;

• State Aid issues, where there is private sector involvement. This was an issue in relation to a number of capital environmental schemes;

• Ensuring that the Assembly's strategic policy framework supports the Themes is essential. There were cases where it was felt that emerging policy had not been entirely complementary to the aims and objectives of the Themes, particularly at the project level;

• A belief that a lower priority was accorded to the Themes in the early stages of the Programmes when other priorities and the need to catch up on the late start took precedence. The need to meet the n+2 spend targets has also imposed pressures to push projects through in order to achieve spend;

• The overall system is felt to be overly bureaucratic and that this has led to some reluctance to impose more monitoring requirements in relation to the Themes;

• Whilst there are Advisers and other support, there is still a lack of sufficient dedicated support which can provide up front guidance and advice at the early stages of project development;

• Engaging with the private sector generally in the Programmes has proved difficult; the private sector could provide real support and advice in particular technical areas

iii ECOTEC Cross Cutting Themes Research Project (Objectives 1 & 3)

such as ICT. This has led to a lack of the commercial viewpoint in the Programmes; and,

• Many aspects of the Themes are specialised and detailed knowledge of these areas has been lacking within the project selection process.

In terms of the impact on core project activity there is a widespread view that, if projects were going to effectively address the Themes, they would have done so any way. However, there is also evidence that a number of projects have been required to enhance the approach to the Themes they would have otherwise have adopted and advice has been given to guide their approach. As a minimum, the process has at least encouraged sponsors to review their approach to the Themes. Those projects which have had specific Cross Cutting Theme output targets are obviously required to report on these through the common Programme reporting mechanisms. However, data is only collected if a project is supported under a Measure for which there is a relevant output target. In overall terms this means that Programme outputs could be underrepresented. There has been a lack of robust evaluations of the activities carried out by projects relating to the Themes. Whilst output targets are essential, achievement of progress towards integrating the Themes also needs to be judged on an assessment of soft outcomes, including attitudinal change and the distance travelled by beneficiaries. However, there is a reluctance to introduce any further reporting requirements in view of the extensive existing demands on projects. On a positive point, the two key monitoring visits carried out by WEFO – Article 4 and 10 visits – include some check on the integration of the Themes within projects, which contributes towards raising the profile of the Themes with sponsors.

The Effect of the Themes on the Programmes

Turning to the empirical evidence of the extent to which targets are being achieved by the approved projects, the research compares the projected and achieved outputs reported against the Themes by projects as at 31 July 2005 with the relevant Programme targets. The majority of these targets are likely to be achieved by the end of the Programme, although much still remains to be done; only the Environmental Sustainability output targets look likely to present extensive difficulties. However, this needs to be seen in the context that these targets were increased following the Mid Term Evaluation in order to encourage future projects to deliver more.

iv ECOTEC Cross Cutting Themes Research Project (Objectives 1 & 3)

Estimating the impact of the Themes on job creation poses difficulties; only in relation to the Vertical Measures can job creation be realistically attributed to the effect of the Themes. Under the Objective 1 Programme some 10% of the total direct jobs created have been contributed by the Vertical Measures. The Objective 3 Programme does not collect data on job creation as it is training and advice orientated. A shortcoming of the data which is collected under both Programmes is that it does not allow an assessment of the quality of the jobs created – for example, whether they are full or part time and what levels of pay they attract. In relation to of the creation of childcare places, the output targets projected and reported by projects are low relative to target under all but one Measure within the Objective 1 Programme. The reported levels are also relatively low under the Objective 3 Programme. A number of factors have been suggested as being responsible for this low take-up of the opportunities to provide childcare which does not necessarily mean that parents are being prevented from taking up services. However, the research encountered a problem in fully analysing this issue as projects are not required to collect information on whether beneficiaries are parents or whether potential beneficiaries have childcare needs. In comparing the characteristics of project beneficiaries with the overall demographic composition of the Objective 1 and 3 areas the research highlighted the following key issues: • More women have benefited under the Objective 1 Programme than would have been

anticipated based upon their representation in the labour market more generally; • Under both the Objective 1 and 3 Programmes the reported proportions of Black and

Minority Ethnic beneficiaries have been higher than the working age population comparators;

• Levels of participation amongst disabled people appear low compared to the labour market generally. However, this may be partly due to inconsistencies in the definitions used; the Labour Force Survey definition also incorporates those with a limiting long term illness whilst the beneficiaries under the Programmes classify themselves as disabled or not disabled; and,

• The representation of Welsh speakers amongst the beneficiaries also looks low when compared with the labour market as a whole. Again, however, this may be a result of inconsistencies of definition.

In carrying out these comparisons the research encountered problems as a result of the high level of 'don't knows' being recorded by projects – particularly for Black and Minority Ethnic people, disabled people and Welsh speakers. This can be partially attributed to the

v ECOTEC Cross Cutting Themes Research Project (Objectives 1 & 3)

sensitivity of such information which not all projects have felt able to collect. Nevertheless, it clearly represents a further potential source of distortions in the data. The research has considered the thematic priorities of Business, Rural Regeneration, Infrastructure and Community and Human Resource Development (HRD) and highlighted how some of the activities carried out under the Programmes are supported by the Themes. In summary the Themes have contributed the following to the thematic priorities: • Business – awareness of the need to integrate environmental sustainability appraisal to

business support programmes has been raised and large scale projects supported to increase the support available to encourage businesses to adopt environmental management systems. Vertical Measures have provided support and profile raising for all three Themes to be taken up by business;

• Rural regeneration – The Themes have provided enhancements to projects which are directed towards supporting rural areas, through both Vertical and Horizontal Measures. Environmental projects have been directly supported and schemes have been funded which seek to address the needs of individuals who live in rural areas. There have also been schemes using ICT which seeks to overcome the remoteness of rural areas;

• Infrastructure – The Objective 1 Programme has emphasised the benefits of constructing buildings to the environmental BREEAM standards, energy saving measures and constructing buildings which are accessible to all. There have also been a number of vertical schemes directly supporting environmental and ICT infrastructure; and,

• Community and Human Resource Development – Equal Opportunities has been the main influencing Theme because of its focus on people orientated activities. In many cases ICT has been used to support these activities. Environmental sustainability has been an important aspect of community schemes which have undertaken environmental projects.

The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Model Used for Implementation

Overall the research has found agreement that the baseline data used for establishing the Programmes' objectives for the Themes was generally appropriate, although there is some acceptance that time has moved on and different data would perhaps now be used to reflect changing circumstances and the new policy environment which has developed in Wales. The Cross Cutting Theme Group, comprising representatives for the three Themes, was important in establishing the profile of the Themes early on in the Programme. More recently the Group has suggested that its role should be reviewed.

vi ECOTEC Cross Cutting Themes Research Project (Objectives 1 & 3)

The research concludes that there is considerable value in the two pronged – vertical and horizontal - approach to integrating the Themes. There have been benefits from providing financial resources to achieve specific aspects of the Themes through Vertical Measures – such as those focused on the clean energy sector or ICT infrastructure. However, there is also value in encouraging all projects to address the Themes horizontally. This has raised the profile of the Themes and at the very least has encouraged organisations to consider their approach to the issues involved. The output targets established to measure the achievement of the Themes' objectives are generally suitable. However, the mechanisms for setting and collecting data from projects are constrained by the wider Programme management systems and this can inhibit the collection of relevant data, particularly in relation to ESF projects. More generally there must be a clear link from the outset between the activity which it is planned to support and the output target. Nevertheless, the targets have been essential in encouraging projects to integrate the Themes. The Programmes are monitored to a large extent on the basis of financial commitments and spend and the achievement of the Programme targets; having specific targets gives the Themes a status within the Programme management process, which they would probably not otherwise have. As is the case with the presence of the targets, the Themes' scoring and appraisal criteria were found to be crucial in profile raising and in encouraging integration. The relevant sections of the application forms have encouraged sponsors to think to some extent about the relevance of the Themes to their project, particularly where the Themes are applied horizontally. However, there is perceived to be a large element of 'cut and paste' within applications. The analysis of the scores achieved by approved projects found wide variations in scores; this was also found under the Vertical Measures where it might have been expected that projects would score highly against the relevant Theme. Because of their objectives many projects find it difficult to address all three Themes. It is therefore suggested that there should be a focus of attention on those Themes which can be achieved, with the scores awarded to projects weighted differently according to the project and the Fund involved.

Recommendations for Future Implementation

Based on the research a number of recommendations are made for future Programmes which will help to encourage the continued integration of the Themes. In outline these focus on:

vii ECOTEC Cross Cutting Themes Research Project (Objectives 1 & 3)

• A review of the application form to provide a simplified format which is flexible and is able to take account of the particular aims and objectives of the Wales Programmes;

• A simplification of the application process focused on ensuring that project design takes account of the Themes at an early stage;

• A weighting of the scores against the Themes according to the type of project, reflecting the extent of the opportunities available to contribute to different Themes;

• Ensuring that the output targets are agreed upfront and are accommodated in the design of the monitoring and evaluating procedures when the administration arrangements for the Programmes are put in place;

• Developing the current network of advice and support to increase the availability of this service. Providing dedicated support in relation to a number of Assembly programmes would be beneficial and take the pressure off those who currently provide such support as an adjunct to their other responsibilities;

• Adopting a regular programme of events and activities which are able to promote good practice in the integration of the Themes and publicising a range of practical examples of how projects have integrated the Themes;

• Continuing the approach of horizontal and vertical integration of the Themes; • Retaining the Cross Cutting Theme Group to at least establish the Themes within the

new Programmes; • Reviewing the terminology used for each of the Themes to ensure it adequately reflects

the activities of the Programmes and promotes best practice in projects; and, • Building in an ex-ante assessment of the likely future impact of the Themes to establish

more firmly based targets, as well as better baseline data against which to measure progress towards their integration.

viii ECOTEC Cross Cutting Themes Research Project (Objectives 1 & 3)

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background to Study

ECOTEC Research and Consulting Ltd was appointed by WEFO to carry out research into the Cross Cutting Themes (CCTs) of Environmental Sustainability, ICT and Equal Opportunities, in the Objective 1 and 3 Programmes in Wales, 2000-2006. The principal aim of the study is to learn from the experiences of implementing these Cross Cutting Themes in the Programmes in order to identify good practice and ensure that future Structural Fund Programmes are able to benefit from the experience of the current Programmes. There are three key areas which are addressed by the study. These are: • What effect the Cross Cutting Themes have had in achieving the broader social and

economic objectives of the Programmes; • How well projects have integrated the Cross Cutting Themes, determined primarily

through an assessment of a sample of projects across a range of Priorities and Measures; and,

• The strengths and weaknesses of the model used to integrate the Themes. The research was carried out through a number of phases which are summarised below: • Phase 1 – Inception; • Phase 2 – Desk Research; • Phase 3 – Cross Cutting Theme Specialist Interviews; • Phase 4 – Project Case Studies; • Phase 5 – Stakeholder Interviews; and, • Phase 6 – Analysis and reporting. In total, 20 research questions were investigated during the study. Each of the questions is addressed under one or more Phases of the study. Table 1.1 provides a breakdown of which Phases address the individual research questions.

1 ECOTEC Cross Cutting Themes Research Project (Objectives 1 & 3)

Table 1.1 Research Questions and Methodology Research Question Report

Section Phase 2 – Empirical Desk Research

Phase 3 – Specialist Theme Interviews

Phase 4 – Project Interviews

Phase 5 – General Stakeholder Interviews

What effect have the Cross Cutting Themes had on achieving the broader social and economic objectives of the Programmes?

A. To what extent have the Themes' targets been achieved? 4.1 X

B. Have Themes helped / hindered job creation? By what means? 4.2 X X X X

C. Has creation of childcare places had effect on participation in labour market?

4.3 X X X X

D. How many new jobs have been created for groups? How do they compare with the labour market?

4.4 X X

E. What has been the contribution of the Themes to: Business, Rural Regeneration, Infrastructure and Community & HRD?

4.5 X X X X

How well have projects integrated the Cross Cutting Themes?

F. How have the Themes been implemented compared to approved applications?

3.2.1 X X X

G. What opportunities were taken up to address The Themes? What opportunities to promote CCTs were missed?

3.2.2 & 3.2.3 X X X

H. Were there any barriers to implementation of the Themes? What were they?

3.3 X X X

I. Has Cross Cutting Theme guidance contributed to improving quality of projects?

3.1 X X X

J. What improvements would have ensured better implementation of the Themes?

6.4 X X X

K. What effects did implementing the Themes have on core project activity?

3.4 X X

L. What monitoring systems are in place for the Themes? What evidence is there that the Themes actions have been implemented?

3.5 X X


Research Question Report Section

Phase 2 – Empirical Desk Research

Phase 3 – Specialist Theme Interviews

Phase 4 – Project Interviews

Phase 5 – General Stakeholder Interviews

Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the model used to integrate the Themes

M. How accurate & comprehensive were baseline data for setting the scene?

5.1.1 X X X

N. Did the Theme's objectives effectively address issues identified from baseline data & Programmes' aims?

5.1.2 X X X

O. What was effectiveness of The Cross Cutting Theme Group in influencing implementation of Themes?

5.2 X X X

P. Was segregation of activities to vertical and horizontal Themes effective?

5.3 X X X

Q. Were the Themes' targets appropriate in relation to the Themes' objectives?

5.4.1 X X X

R. Were Theme targets measurable? 5.4.2 X X X

S. How important are Theme targets as drivers for integration of Programmes?

5.4.3 X X X

T. What are strengths and weaknesses in scoring criteria for ERDF & ESF?

5.5 X X X

1.2 Methodology

The methodological approach used by the research was based upon a series of phases involving a combination of desk based research and consultation interviews.

1.2.1 Desk Research

The desk based research phase involved an analysis of the Programme documentation, both of a general Programme nature and specific to the Cross Cutting Themes, including Programme Monitoring Committee (PMC) papers, Programme Complements and Cross Cutting Theme publications. A full bibliography is provided in Annex 1. This provided essential information to address particular research questions and also to inform the consultations.


WEFO provided data from its EFMS1 database on the outputs projected and reported by projects. This provided an important primary data source of information for measuring the Programmes’ progress towards meeting the Cross Cutting Theme targets. In addition, data was provided on the level of scores achieved by approved projects at the appraisal stage, which enabled some assessment to be made of the impact of the scoring criteria on funding decisions. The characteristics of project beneficiaries from monitoring returns were compared with the profiles of the relevant regional labour market. This acts both as a partial cross-check on the extent to which the Equal Opportunities Theme's objectives are influencing the focus of projects and also helps to set the scale of the outputs involved in context. In order to provide comparisons for the Welsh model and experience, examples of good practice in implementing the Themes elsewhere were briefly examined.

1.2.2 Consultations

The consultations were classed into three types. This provided the opportunity to explore issues from a variety of perspectives. The names of those who were interviewed are provided in Annexes 2 and 3. The three types of consultations are described below.

1.2.2.1 Specialist Theme Interviews The first Phase of interviews included those who focused on the Cross Cutting Themes, providing guidance and / or participated in the Cross Cutting Theme Group. Those involved were able to provide detailed views from the perspective of each of the Themes. These consultations found very different opinions within and between the Themes.

1.2.2.2 Project Interviews The next Phase of interviews included a random selection of 35 projects from across the two Programmes. A framework was developed to ensure the - otherwise random -selection included a broad range of projects, including those from Vertical Measures, each of the Funds, a reasonable proportion from each Programme, a geographic spread, a mixture of completed and live projects and both large and smaller projects based on their level of grant. Originally 45 projects were contacted; however, not all of these projects were able to participate for a variety of reasons. Therefore the effective sample size was reduced to 35. However, the responses tended to be characterised by recurrent themes

1 EFMS - European Funding Management System


and we consider that a sufficient range of views have been identified using the sample of 35. The results from these project consultations mostly produced rather general responses with many consultees unable to fully respond to the range of questions, even when pressed. There were wide gaps in consultees' knowledge of the full range of issues and understanding of the Themes. This appeared to be mainly because individuals typically either deal with the application process or the management of the project and therefore do not always have the full picture of the Structural Fund process. Therefore the approach we have adopted for reporting has been to produce overviews of the responses rather than formally tabulating responses. Having said this, together with the consultations the case studies have provided a comprehensive range of views and insights into how the Themes have been approached. Annex 3 provides details of the selection frameworks used. Anonymity was given to all projects to ensure that views and experiences could be discussed openly.

1.2.2.3 Stakeholder Interviews The final group of consultees included wider Programme stakeholders to secure views from those who are involved with the Structural Funds from a more general perspective, i.e. not specific to the Themes. These stakeholders can be split into two broad groups: Strategic / Programme level views – for example WEFO representatives and PMC and Thematic Advisory Groups (TAG) Members. These consultees have a strategic role in relation to the Programmes and they have a general involvement with the Cross Cutting Themes from their role in overseeing the Programmes as a whole. Local perspectives – these include representatives from the Local Partnerships (and the Regional Partnership in Objective 3). These stakeholders provide a local view and also have close contact with project applicants and sponsors and can therefore comment on the experiences of a range of organisations. The names of those interviewed are provided in Annex 2. As with the Phase 3 and 4 interviews, the range of knowledge of the Themes and the Programmes amongst those consulted was varied. The stakeholders have different roles in the Programmes and have been involved for different lengths of time. They therefore have different levels of knowledge of the various aspects of the integration of the Themes. For example, very few consultees had any in-depth knowledge or therefore opinions of the Programme baseline data.


Structured topic guides were used for all of the interviews; these are provided in Annex 4. A slightly different topic guide was used for each of the phases of interviews to take account of the aspects on which the interviewees would be likely to be able to comment.

1.3 Report Outline

The report has been structured around the objectives of the study brief, which focused on three core questions: • What effect the Cross Cutting Themes have had in achieving the broader social and

economic objectives of the Programmes; • How well projects have integrated the Cross Cutting Themes; and, • An assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the model used to integrate the

Themes. In Section 2 we briefly discuss the Programmes and set the context for the three Cross Cutting Themes. Section 3 provides an analysis of how projects have integrated the Themes, including the identification of the principal barriers to fully integrating them into projects. We also consider the guidance which is available to support projects. Section 4 provides a detailed analysis of the progress towards achieving output targets set for the three Themes. A comparison of the profile of beneficiaries and that of the labour market as a whole - in terms of women, disabled people, Black and Minority Ethnic People and Welsh Speakers - is provided here to provide an assessment of the performance of the Programmes in addressing the needs of these target groups. The role of the Themes in the creation of jobs and childcare places and in relation to four broad thematic priorities – business, rural regeneration, infrastructure and community and human resource development - is also discussed. In Section 5 we consider the model which has been established in Wales to support the implementation of the Cross Cutting Themes. In Section 6 we set out our conclusions from the research study and also provide a number of recommendations which can build on the experience of the actions carried out in the current Programmes.


2.0 The Programmes and their Context

Chapter Summary Since the start of the 2000-2006 Programmes the Cross Cutting Themes have been set within an evolving policy context, as set out in Section 2. The Welsh Assembly Government has been responsible for substantial policy development, including that which relates to its legal obligations towards sustainable development and equality of opportunity, both of which link directly to the Cross Cutting Themes in the Structural Fund Programmes. The interpretation and handling of the Themes varies somewhat between the Objective 1 and 3 Programmes. This is particularly evident in relation to the Environmental Sustainability Theme, which under the Objective 3 Programme takes the wider Sustainable Development approach. The research considers the progress against the headline targets under each Programme for the Themes. In overall terms progress against targets is patchy, with some targets - such as those for labour market participation by women – comfortably exceeded but notable under-performance against others. In some cases the headline targets have to be seen as aspirational with their achievement beyond the scope of the Programme. There are also problems in measuring progress against some of the targets because data is not available and / or a baseline figure cannot be established. Nevertheless, the targets have provided an opportunity to illustrate wider aims, such as the reduction of CO2 emissions.

2.1 Introduction to the Objective 1 and 3 Programmes

To provide the background for this research this Section provides summaries of the key aspects of the application of the three Themes in relation to the Objective 1 and 3 Programmes in Wales. This includes a short introduction to each of the Programmes focused upon the aims and objectives of the Themes as set out in the Programme Complements (PCs) and an outline of the activities undertaken to coordinate the implementation of the Themes.

2.2 The Environmental Sustainability Theme

2.2.1 Context

The National Assembly for Wales has a legal duty under Section 121 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 to make a Scheme (after consultation) setting out how it will promote


sustainable development in the exercise of its functions. The UK's Sustainable Development Strategy2 provides a framework of four broad objectives that focus on: • Effective protection of the environment; • Prudent use of natural resources; • Social progress which recognises the needs of everyone; and, • Maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and environment. Within Wales, this is adopted as follows3: • Vibrant communities; • Healthy environment; • Thriving competitive economy; and, • Society where everybody feels that they have a place. Sustainable development is one of the three key themes of the Assembly's own Corporate Plan.

2.2.2 The Environmental Sustainability Aims and Objectives of the Programmes

In the Objective 1 Programme the Environmental Sustainability Cross Cutting Theme specifies that a project supported under the Programme must pursue its objectives in ways which are environmentally sustainable – economic development coupled with reducing demands on the environment - the rationale being that promoting environmental sustainability is both important as an aim in its own right, and also because there is evidence that environmental sustainability can have major economic benefits. "Activities must be sustainable and, where possible, protect or enhance the natural environment, heritage and culture of the region, using these features to add value. Incentives to promote environmental management will, where appropriate, be built into assistance packages4." In summary, the principal objectives and emphasis of the Environmental Sustainability Theme under the Objective 1 Programme are5: • Save energy by development of a sustainable energy strategy; • Promote integrated transport; • Promote efficient use of natural resources;

2 Source: A Better Quality of Life: a Strategy for Sustainable Development for the UK. May 1999 3 Source: A Sustainable Wales – Learning to Live Differently, Consultation Paper, November 2000, pp.7 4 Source: West Wales and the Valleys Objective 1 Programme Complement 2000-2006 (Revised September 2004) pp6. 5 Source: Ibid pp6.


• Support sustainable land use; • Protect and enhance bio-diversity; • Promote environmental education, community involvement and partnership schemes; • Develop monitoring programmes to establish links between community health and

environmental quality; and, • Improve the quality of the environment to support sustainable development and protect

vulnerable communities. It was intended that Environmental Sustainability would be implemented in a number of ways6: • Measures that might have a net negative effect should be counterbalanced and

outweighed by others that will be beneficial; • Mechanisms would be put in place to influence every plan and project to take the most

environmentally sustainable options available, within the constraints of the proposal; • Projects should be pursued which replace existing out-of-date equipment and

techniques by modern state-of-the-art equivalents, which will be inherently better from an environmental sustainability perspective;

• Project selection criteria to be designed to favour projects having a positive environmental impact; and,

• The implementation processes should incorporate mechanisms that enable informed decisions to be made at each level of plan and project development.

In contrast to the Environmental Sustainability Theme under Objective 1, Sustainable Development in the Objective 3 Programme is not confined to environmental sustainability. The Objective 3 Programme takes the Bruntland Commission7 definition of sustainable development as "development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." This notion cuts across economic, social and environmental spheres. The principal objectives of the Theme under the Objective 3 Programme8 are as follows: • Work towards ensuring recognition of the finite nature of the Earth's resources; • Promote reduction in waste pollution and negative environmental effects; • Take account of the needs of wildlife and their habitats; • Promote the use of sustainable resources and practices;

6 Source: West Wales and the Valleys Objective 1 Programme Complement 2000-2006 (1st version) pp.162 7 The Bruntland Report (1987), World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future; OUP 8 Source: East Wales Objective 3 Programme Complement (Version 2) October 2001 pp.92


• Taking account of the impact on the environment of current working practices and lifestyles; and,

• Promote recognition of the need for personal and collective action. The PC stresses the importance of providing guidance and best practice examples for project developers, encouraging projects to demonstrate they can lead to sustainable employment and/or the formation of more sustainable communities. The different definitions used between the two Programmes and the opportunity for many projects to directly understand their own relationship with environmental sustainability, does lead to confusion in the understanding of environmental sustainability and sustainable development. It became apparent during many of the project and stakeholder interviews that understanding of the two definitions was intermixed; it was also particularly highlighted by those who were involved in scoring and appraising applications for funding, including partnership representatives. Even though the Programmes cover separate areas, many organisations work across the boundaries and some of the guidance produced9 can also cover the two regions. As a generality across Wales, outside of the remit of the Structural Funds, individuals and organisations are still learning about environmental sustainability and sustainable development. Project and stakeholder interviews in particular highlighted this issue and it was claimed during the majority of these interviews that whatever understanding applicants have is used to help respond to the Structural Fund process. The two terms therefore tend to be interchanged as appropriate to suit a project or scheme. This is especially true depending whether a project is predominately capital or revenue - with capital schemes tending towards Environmental Sustainability and revenue projects, especially training schemes, leaning towards the Sustainable Development term. This was found across both Programmes. In addition to horizontal implementation, the Objective 1 Programme addresses Environmental Sustainability through a number of Vertical Measures. Priority 2 Measure 5 and Priority 6 Measure 2 provide support for clean energy and energy infrastructure. Under Priority 5 – rural development and the sustainable use of natural resources – there are 3 Vertical Measures – Measure 7 focusing on the enhancement and protection of natural environment and countryside management, Measure 8 providing support for recreational opportunities and Measure 9 targeting support for coastal fisheries and aquaculture. Priority 6 Measure 4 provides support for strategic environmental infrastructure.

9 The Guidance produced for the Themes is discussed in more detail later in the report.


2.2.3 Environmental Sustainability Headline Targets

The Environmental Sustainability Cross Cutting Theme under Objective 1 has the following headline targets: • Reduction in CO2 emissions by 20% by 2010; and, • 0% annual growth in traffic in the final year of the Programme. Data available on the emission of greenhouse gases in Wales suggest a drop in emissions of CO2 since 2000 from just over 12 million tonnes carbon equivalent to approximately 10.8 million tonnes.10 It is not possible to distinguish between the Objective 1 area and East Wales for this data or to identify precisely the causes - which seem more likely to relate to changes within the power generation sector than to any developments associated with the Programme. Indicators available suggest a year on year increase in the volume of traffic for the Objective 1 area so far, as illustrated in Table 2.1. It is our presumption that this reflects the general buoyancy of the economy over this period. Breaking the historic link between GVA/GDP growth and increases in the volume of road traffic represents a major challenge and could probably not be realistically achieved by actions within the scope of the Programme.

Table 2.1 Volume of Traffic by Objective 1 Unitary Authority (excluding pedal cycles)

1999 200011 200112 2002 2003 2004

Isle of Anglesey 0.48 0.50 0.56 0.56 0.58 0.60

Gwynedd 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.18 1.22 1.23

Conwy 0.99 0.98 0.99 1.06 1.08 1.10

Denbighshire 0.79 0.76 0.77 0.79 0.82 0.85

Ceredigion 0.66 0.65 0.66 0.69 0.71 0.72

Pembrokeshire 0.95 0.97 0.96 1.00 1.02 1.03

Carmarthenshire 1.64 1.64 1.63 1.72 1.75 1.76

Swansea 1.51 1.51 1.54 1.62 1.64 1.69

Neath Port Talbot 1.10 1.11 1.14 1.18 1.21 1.26

Bridgend 1.14 1.14 1.16 1.22 1.21 1.27

Rhondda Cynon Taf 1.85 1.85 1.88 1.95 1.94 2.01

10 Source: National Environmental Technology Centre (NETCEN), quoted in Sustainable Development Indicators for Wales, 2005, National Assembly for Wales, 22 March 2005. 11 The decline of use of cars and taxis in 2000 was due to the fuel dispute 12 Figures affected by the impact of Foot and Mouth disease during 2001


200011 200112 1999 2002 2003 2004

Merthyr Tydfil 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.36 0.36 0.37

Caerphilly 1.04 1.05 1.05 1.09 1.10 1.13

Blaenau Gwent 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.38

Torfaen 0.54 0.55 0.56 0.58 0.60 0.60

Objective 1 Region Total: 14.49 14.51 14.76 15.36 15.59 15.99

Wales Total: 24.91 24.87 25.25 26.20 26.59 27.31 Source: Department of Transport (Wales Transport Statistics 2005)

Whilst these headline targets could not realistically be delivered by the Programme, they arguably reflect aspirations which the Programme could at least help towards. In particular they provide projects with the opportunity to align themselves with key headline environmental sustainability targets. Whilst there are some individual projects which have committed to measure contributions to these targets, there is generally no requirement for individual projects to make any estimates of their CO2 or traffic impacts. The Programme Complement does not disaggregate these headline targets, presumably because no link has been established between the headline target and the individual Measures. The specific Environmental Sustainability Theme targets which are set at the Measure level are discussed in Section 4. The Objective 3 Operational Programme (OP) does not contain any Programme headline targets for the Sustainable Development Theme.

2.3 The ICT Theme

2.3.1 Aims and Objectives of the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Theme

Incorporating information technology as a Cross Cutting Theme, the Objective 1 Programme aims to develop an Information Society (IS) in a number of ways. In business, information technologies are seen as having potential to increase productivity and make businesses (IT based or otherwise) more competitive. In the labour market, IT skills can play a vital part in making individuals more employable. In the community, IT facilities can enable flows of information and provide a useful resource.


The Information Society strategy is based on skills and access to all. There are five key objectives13 underlying the strategy for both the Objective 1 and 3 Programmes: • To increase awareness of the potentials offered by ICT; • To increase the number of people receiving high quality ICT related skills training; • To increase business competitiveness in the region by supporting increased use of ICT

applications; • To reduce the negative effects of peripherality by increasing the use of ICTs by those

living in more isolated areas; and, • To increase the range of public services provided through ICTs for the benefit of

business competitiveness and the quality of life of citizens. (Supported by quantified targets to demonstrate the benefits to businesses and/or citizens/communities).

Underpinning all of this is the need for access to affordable high-speed telecoms infrastructure. To maximise the available benefits to any (vertical) project and to highlight the importance of ICT projects (concerning both infrastructure and use) to economic growth, jobs, education and skills etc. a distinction needs to be made between the supply and demand sides – this runs through the discussion as a fundamental difference. A point made during the consultations was that the inter-dependency between these two sides of the equation was not always recognised and efforts may not have been fully integrated at times as a result. The Information Society strategy is implemented across the entirety of both Programmes. More specifically, initiatives to promote the use of IT among business were planned to be driven through a number of Priorities of the Objective 1 Programme. These include Priority 1 (Expanding and Developing the SME Base) and Priority 2 (Developing Innovation and the Knowledge Based Economy). Measures to increase SME competitiveness will of necessity include elements of the use of ICT. There are specific Measures in Priority 2 aimed at increasing the take up rates of ICTs among businesses in the region and for improving access to infrastructure: Measure 2.1 - ICT infrastructure (ERDF); and, Measure 2.2 – to stimulate and support demand for ICT applications (ERDF). Taking advantage of the potential of the Information Society to tackle peripherality is a feature of both Priority 3 (Community Economic Regeneration) and Priority 5 (Rural

13 Source: East Wales Objective 3 Programme Complement (Version 2) October 2001, pp.86 and West Wales and the Valleys Objective 1 Programme 2000-2006 Programme Complement (1st Version) pp151


Development and the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources). Isolation is not just a feature of typically rural communities but also of some Valleys communities too which are located at some distance from urban centres and have limited public transport services. ICT can do much to increase the capacity of community organisations and increase their access to services and information such as labour market opportunities and training. The presence of adequate telecommunications infrastructure is an essential prerequisite to such applications and Priority 2 aims to help fill some of the infrastructure gaps present in rural areas for the benefit of businesses, learning institutions and communities alike. Developing skills in the use of ICT is encouraged as a feature of most of the training interventions throughout the Programme. This will be true for both the general training and the full range of skill development offered in Priority 4 (Developing People), which includes the objective of taking full advantage of ICT developments to extend access to learning. More specialised business linked skills are developed in Priority 1 and higher level skills are supported through Priority 2. Training in ICT skills as part of community capacity building forms part of the support offered through Priority 3 and is intended as an important step in developing a community's ability to develop. A measure in Priority 5 provides an opportunity for training in ICT skills as a means of adaptation and diversification for farmers. The ICT Theme strategy is implemented in a number of ways14: • Ensuring that new facilities have suitable ICT infrastructure; • Providing ICT delivered information on all advice and marketing initiatives; • Providing flexible ICT training accessible to as wide an audience as possible; • Ensuring business development activities take advantage of ICT wherever possible;

and, • Ensuring peripheral areas have the opportunity to reduce the negative effects caused

by isolation. The Objective 3 Programme only supports training and HRD activities through the ESF. A number of Measures in the Programme highlight specific activities to be carried out in relation to encouraging ICT training. This includes P4M1 which provides support for management development, and P4M3 which aims to encourage Innovation, R&D and the Information Society for growth.

14 Source: West Wales and the Valleys Objective 1 Programme 2000-2006 Programme Complement (1st Version) pp152


2.3.2 ICT Headline Targets

The following Information Society Objective 1 Programme-wide targets were set at the outset of the Programme. It should be noted that, unless otherwise stated, much of the data to measure these targets is available only on an all-Wales basis. • For 50% of SMEs in the region to have Internet access by the end of the Programme. In

1999, it was estimated that 47% of Welsh business had Internet access15 The DTI's follow-on study – Business in the Information Age: The International Benchmarking Study, 2004 – estimates that there are now 88% of Welsh businesses with access to the Internet (the UK level is approximately 95%). The study has found that there has been a dramatic increase in Internet access between 1999 and 2000 in all developed countries but that this had reached a plateau by the time of the study. • To increase by 40 % the number of people with ICT qualifications at NVQ level 4 Student enrolments by subject in 2002/03 in Maths and Computer Science, amounted to 6,964 in HEIs16 in Wales (full and part time studies), compared to 5,556 in 1999/2000. This represents an increase of 23.5% in participation levels.17

In 2002/03 the numbers of qualifications at postgraduate / first degree level (NVQ Level 4 and above) was 1,084, compared to 917 in 1999/2000, representing an increase of 18.2%. • To increase by 30% the number of trainees receiving training using ICT as the delivery

mechanism There is no data source which measures whether trainees receive training through ICT. However, the field research did highlight that a number of schemes have been implemented to increase the use of ICT in learning. Objective 1 supported examples include the Welsh Learning Network, which provided funding for the installation of video conferencing facilities in Colleges, the upgrading of ICT infrastructure in a number of training delivery organisations, and a number of community projects providing ICT training facilities, including mobile resources. The Objective 1 Programme also set as a target for every project in the Programme to aim to maximise its influence on the accelerated take-up of Information Society applications and related skills development.

15 Source: Objective 1 SPD, quoted from Moving into the Information Age, Regional Benchmarking Study (DTI Information Society Initiative). 16 Higher Education Institutions 17 Source: Higher Education, Further Education and Training Statistics in Wales: 2002/03 and 1999/2000, National Council for Education and Training for Wales & Higher Education Funding Council for Wales


However, following the Mid Term Review (MTR) the Programme-wide ICT targets were removed from the Programme (September 2004 version). The MTR Report found that: "The strategy for ICT is hampered by the lack of clear baselines within the SPD for the three overarching targets which are set (SMEs with access to the internet; the number of people with ICT qualifications at NVQ level 4, and the number of trainees receiving training using ICT as a delivery mechanism)." The following Objective 3 Programme-wide targets have been set: • For 50% of SMEs in the region to be able to access the Internet via broadband

technologies by the end of the Programme This target was originally set at 90%, which was considerably higher than that established for the Objective 1 Programme. However, the target was amended as part of the Mid Term Review to 50%18. It is also true that, as the Objective 3 Programme is focused on training, improved access to the Internet via broadband is likely only to be a much less direct outcome of project activities. The level of Internet access by business in Wales has already been outlined against the Objective 1 headline targets, at 88%. However, the Objective 3 headline target specifies the access to be via broadband. Broadband is defined as more than 2Mbps19. The DTI Study estimates that 33% of Internet connected Welsh businesses are connected via broadband. This suggests that 33% of the 88% of companies i.e. approximately 29% of Welsh businesses are now connected to the Internet by broadband. As a comparison, approximately two-thirds of UK businesses are estimated to be connected to the Internet via broadband. • To increase by 40 % the number of people with ICT qualifications at NVQ level 4 Only all Wales figures are available and these were set out against the Objective 1 headline target. The participation level at NVQ level 4 has risen by 23.5% since 1999/2000 and the numbers of qualifications achieved has increased by 18.2%.20

18 As amended in the Objective 3 Operational Programme Version 2, updated in December 2003, document dated 19 July 2004. 19 Mbps – Megabytes per second 20 Source: Higher Education, Further Education and Training Statistics in Wales: 2002/03 and 1999/2000, National Council for Education and Training for Wales & Higher Education Funding Council for Wales


• To increase by 30% the number of trainees receiving training using ICT as the delivery mechanism

Again, no data is available to measure progress against this target, which questions its value as a headline target for the Programme. Whilst the Objective 3 Programme could not fund capital investment to provide ICT equipment, a number of schemes were implemented in the region; these were funded partly through the Objective 2 ERDF East Wales Programme and other domestic resources. A number of ESF projects were also funded to provide training in ICT skills and related e-learning and e-business activities. • To increase the range of public services provided through ICTs for the benefit of

business competitiveness and the quality of life of citizens A small number of projects supported under the Objective 3 Programme have developed services using ICTs and on-line services. These are outlined below:

► Careers Wales On-Line, Careers Wales, is an interactive web site providing virtual careers guidance, advice and information. Beneficiaries across Wales are able to access Careers Wales services at any time and in any location. It is the only on-line service in the UK offering 'virtual' careers guidance, advice, information and support.

► Gateways to Learning, University of Wales, Newport - The project improves the

library system, offering integrated on-line access to the resources of the public and academic libraries across the Five Counties of South East Wales. Beneficiaries are provided with a 'Learning Passport' and are able to access advice on learning and employment and achieve accreditation in 'Information Literacy'.

• Underpinning all of this is the need for access to affordable high-speed telecoms

infrastructure This last target was recommended for inclusion by the Mid Term Review and the Programme Complement was amended in December 2003, although in the absence of greater specificity it is really only a fairly general aim. It is interesting to note that the headline targets were removed from the Objective 1 Programme but not from the Objective 3 Programme as part of the Mid Term Review. However, the Objective 1 Programme is in a better position to address many of these targets through the activities it can support, whilst the Objective 3 Programme is restricted to revenue based training and HRD activities.


ICT Theme targets have not been set at the Measure level in the Objective 3 Programme.

2.4 The Equal Opportunities Theme

2.4.1 Context

As in the case of Environmental Sustainability, the Assembly has a duty to promote equality of opportunity, as stipulated under Section 120 of the Government of Wales Act, 1998, which states:

"The Assembly shall make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that its functions are exercised with due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people."

2.4.2 Aims and Objectives of the Equal Opportunities Theme

The Objective 1 SPD states that gender is a major cause of inequality of opportunity in the West Wales and the Valleys region and that the labour market is characterised by horizontal, vertical and contractual segregation. A key to addressing this issue is to pursue gender mainstreaming in projects. The Objective 1 SPD states:

"Gender mainstreaming involves ensuring that all general measures and operations openly and actively take into account – during planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation – their effects on the respective situations of women and men. It also involves the complementary design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of specific measures and operations to promote equality and to assist women to participate and benefit equally.”

In addition, the SPD points out that it will be necessary to target those facing multiple disadvantage, for example: black, minority or ethnic groups, disabled people and lone parents. The Programme also takes into account the needs of Welsh language speakers. The aims of the Theme are the same under both Programmes and are to: • "Increase and secure access to education, training and employment opportunities for

women, disabled people and ethnic minorities who suffer from exclusion; • Increase the number of women, disabled people and members of ethnic minorities

securing training and employment in higher paid and higher skilled sectors and self employment; and,


• Increase the number of employers and training organisations adopting equal opportunity policies and working practices to reconcile work and family issues." 21

It was intended that the Equal Opportunity objectives would be implemented through the activities supported. This is to be done by examining how project sponsors plan and implement activities including: • Gender balance and representation from other targeted groups on planning and

monitoring committees; • Equal Opportunities assessment at development stage; • Report on steps taken to remove specific barriers; • Targets set at project level; • Monitoring of progress against these targets; and, • Development of data. Both Programmes have vertical Measures which are targeted at addressing gender equality. In the Objective 1 Programme this comprises P4M5 (Improving the Participation of Women in the Labour Market) whilst the Objective 3 Programme has two Vertical Measures under Priority 5 (Promoting Gender Equality in the Labour Market).

2.4.3 Equal Opportunities Headline Targets

2.4.3.1 Objective 1 Equal Opportunities Headline Targets This Theme has the following Objective 1 Programme wide headline targets: • 30% of start up SMEs assisted to be owned by women Data is not readily available to measure performance in relation to this target. In addition, information from projects supported by the Programme only report data on new SMEs receiving financial support or given advice / information which are owned by women, people from ethnic minorities or people with disabilities. Some indication of progress in this area can be obtained from wider labour market data. For the Objective 1 region in 1999/2000 32.7% of the self employed were female; this had risen to 34.4% in 2003/04. As a comparator, the all-Wales measure had a larger increase from 32.3% in 1999/2000 to 36% in 2003/04.

21 Source: West Wales and the Valleys Objective 1 Programme Complement, and East Wales Objective 3 Programme Complement.


• 50% of higher level training places to be taken up by women Enrolments22 in HEIs in Wales (undergraduates and postgraduates) in 1998/99 included 51,890 women (52.8%) which in 2002/03 had risen to 65,576 women (56.1%). This represents an increase of 26.4% of women across Wales. • To increase female participation rates in the labour market to 70% The Economic Activity Rate of the Working Age Population of women in the Objective 1 area in 1999/2000 was 67.1%; in 2004/05 this had risen to 71.1%.

2.4.3.2 Objective 3 Equal Opportunities Headline Targets The following headline targets for East Wales under the Objective 3 Programme were set under the Equal Opportunities Theme: • Increase in Labour Market Participation Rate - Currently 68.8% of women in East Wales

are active in the labour market. By 2006, this level will have increased to 72% The Economic Activity Rate of the Working Age Population of women in the Objective 3 area in 2004/05 had risen to 73.6%. • Higher Level Qualifications - 20% of women in East Wales are currently educated to

NVQ level 4 or above. By the end of 2006, this figure will have increased to 25% The Labour Force Survey reports that the proportion of working age females with qualifications at NVQ level 4 and above in the Objective 3 region was 26.2% in 2003/04. • Career Progression - 12% of women in East Wales are currently employed in

managerial/intermediate level administrative occupations (excludes clerical and secretarial). By the end of the Programme, 20% of women in the region will be employed in these occupations

The percentage of females in employment who are classified as 'Managerial and Senior Officials' in the Labour Force Survey 2003/04 in the Objective 3 Region was 13.2%. This represents a slight improvement on the baseline figure, but still some way from the target figure of 20%. • Entrepreneurship - Women currently comprise around 23% of the total self-employed in

Wales. The Entrepreneurship Action Plan aims to increase this proportion to 37% by 2006

The percentage of the working age self-employed population who are women in the Objective 3 area was 27.6% in 2003/04 (Labour Force Survey); as a percentage of the

22 Trends in Higher Education (ELWa / HEFCW)


16+ self-employed population the figure was 28.4%. Both bases demonstrate an increase in the proportion of self-employed women over time. However, neither figure is yet close to the ambitious Entrepreneurship Action Plan target. In 2004 female Total Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA) in Wales was measured at 4.5%, representing a slight increase on 2003. This was in contrast to a decline in the male TEA from 9.1% to 6.5% over the same period.

"With the female TEA now at three quarters that of the male TEA, Wales has one of the best gender balances in entrepreneurship in the whole World."23

23 GEM – Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2004 Wales Executive Report, National Entrepreneurship Observatory


3.0 The Integration of the Cross Cutting Themes

Chapter Summary The advice and guidance available to project sponsors to integrate the Themes has generally been well received. It is seen as a helpful reminder to sponsors of the Themes and helps to ensure they are addressed. However, many sponsors would have welcomed more detailed examples of how to integrate the Themes for their specific projects. This reflects the need to develop further understanding of how the Themes can be applied, particularly on a horizontal basis. Whilst not all projects have specific Cross Cutting Theme output targets, they all commit to implementing the Themes within the operation of their project. The sampled projects all consider that they are implementing the Themes as intended in the approved application. However, in many instances these intentions are not very specific and it would be difficult to prove or disprove whether this is the case. This emphasises the need for more detailed guidance, particularly to assist sponsors who are willing to implement the Themes but lack the knowledge to do so. The research found some very good examples of how projects have championed at least one of the Themes. There were projects which on the surface appear to have made only a small contribution to the Themes but where further analysis demonstrates that projects have been working from a relatively low starting point - for example, focusing on a target group which does not naturally align itself with the Theme. It is important to recognise that different projects have the potential to achieve varying results. The nature of the Themes means that there is nearly always more that can be done to further their implementation. However, experience demonstrates that the best approach is to encourage projects to aim towards realistic approaches to the Themes given their target groups and the costs of the available alternatives. The main missed opportunity overall relates to the low level of integration of the Themes by many projects. In many cases it is considered that projects have 'bolted on' approaches to the Themes, probably though a lack of knowledge of how to achieve real integration. The study revealed a number of barriers to the effective implementation of the Themes, depending on the type of project and organisation involved. In terms of the impact on core project activity there is a widespread view that, if projects were going to effectively address the Themes, they would have done so any way.


However, there is also evidence that a number of projects have been required to enhance the approach to the Themes they would have otherwise have adopted and advice has been given to guide their approach. As a minimum, the process has at least encouraged sponsors to review their approach to the Themes. Those projects which have had specific Cross Cutting Theme output targets are obviously required to report on these through the common Programme reporting mechanisms. However, data is only collected if a project is supported under a Measure for which there is a relevant output target. In overall terms this means that Programme outputs are probably being underrepresented. There has been a lack of robust evaluation of the activities carried out by projects relating to the Themes. Whilst output targets are essential, achievement of progress towards integrating the Themes also needs to be judged on an assessment of soft outcomes, including attitudinal change and the distance travelled by beneficiaries. However, there is a reluctance to introduce any further reporting requirements in view of the extensive existing demands on projects. On a positive point, the two key monitoring visits carried out by WEFO – Article 4 and 10 visits – include some check on the integration of the Themes within projects, which contributes towards raising the profile of the Themes with sponsors. This Section considers the approach taken to integrate the Themes into the Programmes. This includes the support systems and controls which have been put in place to encourage the implementation of the Themes at the project level, including the appraisal process, how the results from this have impacted on the Programmes as a whole, the systems used for measuring the results, the organisation of the Programmes in terms of vertical and horizontal Priorities, and the monitoring and review systems in place for evaluating the impacts on the Themes.

3.1 Administrative systems and guidance to support the Themes' implementation

3.1.1 Programme Monitoring Committees

There is a Programme Monitoring Committee (PMC) for each of the Programmes and they comprise stakeholders from the Programme's regional partnership, based on the thirds principle (public, voluntary and social / private sector). In addition gender balance on a minimum 40:60 ratio has been established and encouraged for all partnerships, including the PMC. The PMCs have a number of Theme Advisers and these include: the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Disability Rights Commission, the Commission for Racial


Equality, Bwrdd yr laith Gymraeg, Environment Agency Wales, and the Countryside Council for Wales. Annual reports on the progress of each of the Themes are submitted to each PMC. These provide updates against targets and raise particular issues which emerge. The PMCs are the overarching groups which provide the strategic steer for the Programmes, guided by WEFO. Their remit also includes consideration of the Themes.

3.1.2 Cross Cutting Theme Unit

This Unit is part of the Planning and Strategy Division within WEFO, and provides specialist training and advice on the Themes, contributing to the review of Programme documents and producing guidance documents. The Unit provides the support for two of the Themes i.e. Equal Opportunities and Environmental Sustainability. Originally the Welsh Development Agency (WDA) provided the support for the ICT Theme. However, with the aim of providing added resources for the ICT Theme following the MTR it was also moved into the Cross Cutting Theme Unit in WEFO. However, in 2005 the ICT Adviser Post was lost.

3.1.2.1 Training and awareness raising The Cross Cutting Theme Advisers – employed in the Theme' Unit - have carried out a number of presentations and workshops, to raise awareness of the importance of the Themes. Events have been held for WEFO staff, Partnerships, Local Authorities and potential applicants. WEFO also delivered a joint presentation with Chwarae Teg at the Gender Mainstreaming Partnership in Practice Conference, held in Dublin Castle in April 2004. The Advisers have also coordinated the development of guidance material, which is discussed under 3.1.5.

3.1.3 Local and Regional Partnerships

In both the Objective 1 and 3 Programmes a series of Local and Regional Partnerships were established to assist in implementation. Local Partnerships operate at the Unitary Authority level, with a total of 22 Local Partnerships across Wales. Whilst there is a variation between their responsibilities between the two Programmes, they all offer to some degree, support and guidance to project applicants.


For most24 of the life of the Programme the Objective 3 Partnerships had financial indicative allowances, so they had a greater say as to which projects would be supported. It was suggested during the stakeholder interviews that this possibly gave them more ownership of the funding and therefore more inclination to consider projects more closely, including an assessment of Theme related aspects. The interviews also suggested that many of the Objective 1 Local and (former) Regional Partnerships also scrutinised the applications, although without the formal appraisal process used by the Objective 3 Partnerships. Objective 3 also had a Programme-wide Regional Partnership which provided a similar role to that of the Local Partnerships for schemes that covered more than two Unitary Authority Areas. The Secretariat for this Partnership is provided by ELWa25. Up until 2003, the Objective 1 Programme also had a series of Regional Partnerships which focused on a particular theme of projects, such as Business Support, HRD, Rural and so on. However, these were disbanded in 2003 and a series of Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs) set up.

3.1.4 Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs)

The TAGs were established in 2003 by WEFO "to provide advice at an early stage in WEFO's appraisal of a project"26. The previous system involved consideration of each project by a Partnership (either Local or Regional, depending on the focus of the project) and by a Strategy Partnership at the end of the appraisal process. The TAGs, of which there are seven – one for each Priority - were intended to provide advice at the start of the project appraisal to inform the development of the project. The TAGs are also required to advise on strategic priorities for funding within each Measure and monitor and evaluate the overall delivery of the Priority. During the specialist and stakeholder interviews it emerged that individuals serving on the TAGs do not typically know whether their advice has been taken on board, particularly with regard to the Cross Cutting Themes. This was particularly relevant, although not exclusively, to those that provide environmental sustainability advice on the TAGs. There is also too little information for them to comment on with regard to the projects, as they are only provided with an outline of the proposal. This was considered to leave too many gaps

24 In 2004, the indicative financial allowances were suspended, as the Programme's funding had been largely committed and it was proving more difficult to manage the remaining Funds at the local level. 25 ELWa - Education and Learning Wales - is an Assembly Sponsored Public Body (ASPB) established by the Learning and Skills Act 2000. Its remit covers further education, government-supported training, adult community learning and school sixth forms. 26 http://www.wefo.wales.gov.uk/resource/Obj1_Tags3882.pdf


in the information on a project's design and intentions and what the appropriate advice would be for an individual project.

3.1.5 Guides

There are a number of published guides and papers which have been produced to provide support to project applicants in the design and implementation of their projects. A brief description of these is provided in Annex 6. Overall the guidance tools are found to be useful by the project applicants and the stakeholders who provide support for applicants, supplying the necessary information on what is expected under the Themes. They also provide a useful checklist and ideas on the ways in which sponsors can address the Themes in their project. This can be particularly important for those who have little or no experience of a particular Theme. However, some project sponsors still find it difficult to see the full potential which their project can achieve with respect to the Themes. This is evidenced in the responses given in many application forms – this is discussed further in Section 3.2. Many sponsors have been on a learning curve in addressing at least one of the Themes in a project and the guidance can be an important tool for supporting them. Despite the general view that the guidance tools are important and helpful, there are mixed views about their design and content and this also varied between the three main guides that were produced. The ICT and Environmental Sustainability Guidance provide more direct tangible examples of how projects could address the Themes under a particular Measure, and this is found to be helpful. Many consulted indicated that they would have found it more useful if the Equal Opportunities Guidance could also have taken on this style. Gaps were identified in the current guidance, particularly in relation to training and other HRD schemes. More generally, the current guidance is regarded by many as voluminous, and this was potentially off-putting at the start. However, as users become accustomed to it, especially when they work out that they only need to reference small parts of the documents, they are considered to become more useful. However, the documents, combined with the range of other material including the Programme Complement etc. that project sponsors need to consider during the application process, are perceived to make the whole process extremely cumbersome. It was suggested by one project sponsor that a single tailored 'pack' of information could be provided for applicants to reduce the volume of information which sponsors need to review. This is illustrated by the following quote from the consultations:


"A range of shorter more concise guidance tools aimed specifically either at various sectors, situations or types of projects would be more likely to be utilised by project managers addressing them as horizontal Themes."

There was widespread knowledge of the documents on WEFO's web site which are useful for many. However, some consultees stated that they prefer to have hard copies of documents. It was also noted that when updates or new documents are uploaded onto the website there is no publicity or alert service, making developments difficult to track. There appears to be little knowledge of the targeted guidance produced by the Equal Opportunities Unit (detailed in Annex 6), for example, the 2003 European Year of the Disabled People – Good Practice Brochure. The need for this type of targeted guidance was identified during the interviews, which confirms that awareness about its existence is low.

3.2 Implementation of the Themes by projects

3.2.1 Implementation compared to application

All the projects interviewed consider they have implemented the Cross Cutting Themes as they had intended according to the approved application form. However, during our assessment of the case study projects it was found that many of these initial statements were very broad and in many cases nebulous and it would be difficult to prove that they had not been implemented by a project. One stakeholder consultee stated:

"There is a lot of 'lip service' and very little measurement of aspirations. The [approved] projects focus on delivery of outputs post-contract award rather than the Themes."

Not all projects have specific Theme targets on which they need to report. This depends on the targets listed against the particular Measure under which projects were approved. However, all those projects in the sample which have Cross Cutting Themes targets had either met them (completed projects) or expect to meet them (live projects). The level of targets actually met across the two Programmes is discussed in detail in Section 4 of this report. An issue relating to this area is that of monitoring and evaluation. The lack of follow-up on the actions specifically regarding the Themes was widely brought out during the interviews, although – as Section 3.5 highlights – the issues involved are covered to some extent in the 'Article 4' and 'Article 10' monitoring visits. However, as project sponsors do not believe they are effectively monitored on the Themes, it is not necessarily a priority for


them, especially given the high level of general monitoring and auditing which projects undergo in any case. Also the low level of precise activities against the Themes to which many projects are committed means that they can do as little or as much as they are inclined. Nevertheless, there are a considerable number of targets which are required to be measured by projects supported under relevant Measures. We return to the issues involved here in Section 3.5 which considers monitoring systems. A considerable level of impact could potentially be achieved by the Themes in raising their profile and developing an understanding of the importance and benefits of incorporating the issues involved within a project's activities. This is very difficult to measure, except through surveys which monitor 'attitude-change', which is not practical for the majority of the projects supported. However, the potential value of this impact should not be underestimated. The main problem which projects have had in terms of accessing beneficiaries and / or companies to address a particular aspect of a Theme – for example in ensuring female owned businesses are advised, or that companies take up environmental advice - is that the companies and individual beneficiaries participating are self-selecting. The project can only do so much to encourage them to engage with the project, but after that if they are not interested in the service being offered, then they cannot be made to take it up. Many of the other impacts from the pursuit of these Themes, particularly but not exclusively, Equal Opportunities, are the soft outcomes or the distance travelled by beneficiaries. The official reporting for the Programmes finds it difficult to capture this information, and because of this many projects do not seek to measure or record it. Guidance27 has been produced to measure soft outcomes from ESF projects and there would be a benefit in seeking to formalise this in the future. This is an issue also relating to other aspects of the Programmes and is considered by the East Wales Objective 3 Mid Term Evaluation Update (December 2005).

3.2.2 Opportunities taken up to address the Themes

Three categories of projects were identified: • Those whose principal aim linked directly with a Theme – for example, an

environmental sustainability project which had clear links to the Theme's priorities and its targets;

27 A Practical Guide to Measuring Soft Outcomes and Distance Travelled: Guidance Document, June 2003, GHK Consulting for DWP and WEFO.


• A project with a major impact on a Theme, where influence could be exerted at the planning phase; or

• A project with lesser impact but which had the scope for the Themes to be enhanced so that delivery was more sympathetic to the Themes.

There have been some very good projects which have championed at least one of the Themes; the research found that it is normally a single Theme which is championed, for example a building project which has integrated environmental sustainability aspects. Projects should arguably not be judged equally on their approach to the Themes. Instead they might more appropriately be judged from where they started, for example small grass roots organisations which have taken the first steps to incorporate the Themes should not necessarily be expected to have achieved the same as a large public body. Account might also be taken of the nature of the project's target group – for example where the project is trying to raise the profile of one of the Themes with a group which does not naturally align itself with the Theme, then small amounts of progress should be regarded as more important than for those projects dealing with the 'already converted.' A case put to us by a number of the consultees from all three groups (i.e. specialist, stakeholders and project sponsors) is that the key point is not to alienate a target group but to make at least some progress which can be built upon. Even small steps towards the integration of a Theme are beneficial - for example, including conditions attached to grants or services provided by a project which ensure that the beneficiaries take up a particular point. An example of this was the Wales Tourist Board grant schemes which require all beneficiary companies to achieve Level 2 of The Green Dragon Environmental Standard as a condition of grant. Other schemes encourage beneficiary organisations to develop their own policies, particularly environmental and / or equal opportunities policies. In some cases these may result in lip service; but on a positive note, it is at least raising the profile of the issues within an organisation and if these issues are frequently raised then they may start to gather momentum and their incorporation starts to increase.

3.2.3 Missed opportunities to address the Themes

A key point to note here is that there is probably always room to do more with regard to the Cross Cutting Themes. However, it is important that projects are encouraged to do what is appropriate for their project, so that its original aims and objectives are not diluted or even lost. A constructive quote from the interviews which, although made during the specialist Theme interviews in relation to Equal Opportunities, can apply to all of the Themes, was that:


"A point that is overlooked is not to try and create opportunities to integrate Equal Opportunities which don't exist but to maximise the opportunities which are there. All projects have the scope to integrate the Themes to a degree and should be encouraged to do so. The emphasis should be on making the best of the opportunities the project presents." A key opportunity which is often missed by projects is the integration of the Themes' activities into the project. Instead activities supporting the Themes are often treated as a bolt on activity which is reactive to the externally imposed requirements. This was demonstrated during many of the project interviews, and also from the stakeholder interviews. It was also felt by some of the Theme specialists to be the case. A more proactive approach could probably often enhance the Themes in a much more positive way.

3.3 Barriers to the Implementation of the Themes

3.3.1 Match funding

In some cases integrating the Themes can lead to higher project costs, although it is noted that this is sometimes more a perceived than a real issue, depending on the type of activity proposed. However, if there is a higher cost, it will require additional match funding. Match funding was highlighted by project sponsors and stakeholders as an issue for many projects and finding additional resources can be difficult.

3.3.2 Planning permission

Some projects, particularly the larger scale capital schemes, require planning permission and other statutory permissions. This requires a longer project development time. Some of these issues are directly related to the Themes. It was suggested, particularly during the specialist interviews, that this is a reason for many of the environmental projects, for example clean energy schemes, to be slow to get off the ground.

3.3.3 State Aids

Issues arise where there is a need to engage with the private sector. The State Aid rules are considered complex by many project sponsors in the sample and those involved with advising on projects in our sample, and vary according to the sector involved, reflecting the intention to ensure that competition within the Single Market is not affected. Particular issues arise, for example, in relation to the energy generation sector. More generally the rules create a range of complications in some environmental schemes – for example,


waste management and the clean energy sector and ICT infrastructure schemes - which require the private sector to lead.

3.3.4 Policy Framework

It is important that the Programmes are able to work alongside the policy framework operating in Wales. This ensures that activities complement each other and do not conflict or duplicate actions or impact. It also means that other resources are available to support activity, directly and indirectly, including staff resources and match funding support. Operating within a strategic framework provides the opportunity to channel resources and action in a particular direction and so maximise impact. The Programmes' documents and strategies were originally written early in the life of the Welsh Assembly Government. The strategy base at that stage was therefore limited. Delays were experienced in strategy development in certain areas, e.g. waste strategy and Cymru Ar-Lein (ICT). This led to a strategic vacuum in some key areas directly relating to the Themes. This has inevitably meant a slow start in the encouragement of certain types of projects. It was argued to us during a small number of the stakeholder interviews that in particular areas of the Programmes' appraisal process Assembly / Government policy or practice is not always supportive of Themes. For example, capital schemes are assessed by the Assembly's Estates Department which carries out a value for money assessment of the construction costs. This works to guide prices for particular building uses and consequently which is not always compatible with the extra capital costs which are frequently required for environmentally sustainable buildings. There also appeared to be a lack of support for the BREEAM28 standards in this value for money assessment in the early days of the Programme, although we have been advised by WEFO that this is no longer the case.

3.3.5 Lack of knowledge of the Themes

We found some lack of knowledge and also, importantly, poor understanding of the Themes and how to mainstream them into a project's design and implementation. Awareness of the importance and value of the Themes has risen, but many sponsors find it difficult to know how to practically implement the Themes within their projects, despite the availability of the guidance. A stakeholder consultee stated:

28 BREEAM: Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (UK)


"Project sponsors seem to recognise that they have to integrate the Themes into their project, but they often fail to understand how to do this or what it might mean for the project."

3.3.6 Programme Administration

It was considered by many of the specialist Theme and stakeholder consultees that the Themes were not a priority at the start of either Programme. The focus was on getting projects approved to catch up following the delays in the approval and start of both Programmes. There has also been a focus on meeting the n+2 targets and ensuring spend and this can take priority over other issues. It was also argued to us that occasionally there is pressure to get particular favoured projects approved and the Themes can be of a low priority. No specific examples were given; we felt that the lack of examples in general was because interviewees did not want to identify specific projects.

3.3.7 Programme Organisation

There is a consensus amongst most consultees of this study that bureaucracy and reporting requirements for projects overall are complex and frequent. To ask projects to do more record keeping and / or reporting may be a step too far in the current system. Improving reporting arrangements in relation to the Themes may therefore involve trade-offs with other reporting priorities. A quote from the specialist consultations stated:

"An over emphasis on process as a result of the growth of an overly-complicated system at WEFO may have reduced the resources and capacity available to make the selection of [ICT] projects more strategic and to identify synergies."

3.3.8 Access to Advice

The availability of a network of advisers who are able to support the development of projects is a key factor in being able to secure advice early in the project design / thinking stages, helping to incorporate the Themes, as opposed to them being 'bolt on' components or after-thoughts. It was found through the specialist and stakeholder consultations that there are pressures on those who are currently able to offer this support. Frequently these individuals also have a main job function and this is an added duty. The Advisers in the WEFO Unit are not


able to provide sufficient support on their own. The task involves supporting some 22 local areas, the Programmes' formal Partnership structures29, plus a variety of other groupings which discuss potential projects.

3.3.9 Engagement with the Private Sector

Engagement with the private sector in the administration of the Themes has been difficult, as it has been across the two Programmes. This was highlighted during many of the specialist Theme and stakeholder interviews; a particular case was the difficulty found in encouraging private sector representatives to serve on the various Programme Partnerships. This means that there has been a lack of a commercial viewpoint. This has been a particular issue for the ICT Theme, although BT has been actively involved in the Objective 1 Programme.

3.3.10 Lack of Expertise in the Selection of Projects

Approximately half of the specialist Theme and Stakeholder consultees believed there to be a lack of expertise in the appraisal and selection of projects. This has been highlighted as a particular issue in relation to ICT. A problem experienced here is that assessing applications involves many interrelated aspects. To assess whether a project's approach to the Themes is appropriate requires the assessor to know the whole project and its context. For a 'specialist' to consider a project therefore requires them to familiarise them-self with the detail of the whole project. This is obviously labour intensive and is not practical given the volume of projects which are submitted. Instead, the approach which is taken is to provide training to the assessors on the Themes. The normal practice is for the assessors to request additional input from the 'specialist' advisers when required. A careful balance is therefore required in ensuring the overall approach the project is taking is appropriate and realistic. It was however acknowledged by the WEFO Programme Managers that training has been provided for the scoring teams on the three Themes.

3.4 The Effects of the Themes on Core Project Activity

There was a general view from some of the Specialist Theme and Stakeholder interviews and the majority of the project case study interviews that in the main if the project was going to address the Themes effectively, it would have done so anyway. Only a small number of the project case studies claimed that they had been asked to revise their approach to the Themes. However, WEFO has advised that advice has been provided to a

29 Two Programme Monitoring Committees (PMCs), and currently six Objective 1 Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs), 22 Local Partnerships and the Objective 3 Regional Partnership.


large number of projects; for example 565 Objective 1 projects (37% of total projects) were appraised for environmental sustainability, during which many issues were raised and addressed by sponsors. Whilst it is acknowledged that the sample size for this study is small and projects may not have been captured which received this advice, it is also a possibility that projects may have been defensive over this issue. It is also certainly true that some of the interviewees were not involved in the application process and therefore may not have been aware of this advice. However, the research did find examples where the Programme's emphasis on the Themes did enhance activity or provided support for pursuing it. In one case, the project manager used the Environmental Sustainability requirements of the Programme to convince the sponsor organisation that a higher level of environmental standards needed to be incorporated into their project by the ERDF process, which was to result in a higher project cost. It is also widely thought by stakeholders that having the Themes and the related questions encourages projects to review what they are doing in relation to the Themes. This has sometimes led to amendments to a project's design. The views of the majority of the specialist Theme and stakeholder consultations were that a particular result from implementing the Themes in the Programmes has been to raise their profile and awareness about what can be done and what benefits can accrue. Our discussions with the majority of project sponsors also found that the Themes profile had been increased; those who did not feel that it had been raised particularly were already fairly aware themselves of the Themes. However, it is recognised that this is a long process and whilst major steps forward have been taken by the Programmes since 2000, there is still more to be done.

3.5 Monitoring Systems in Place for the Themes

The arrangements for monitoring the implementation the Themes fall in with the general monitoring arrangements for the two Programmes. This means that monitoring data is only collected where it relates to a target for the Measure concerned. An issue related to this is that a project may contribute to a target against a different Measure, in which case the contribution towards this target will not be recorded. Consultees from across the research considered that projects often face major problems in estimating their likely contribution to targets at the application stage. This is particularly relevant to training and business support projects, where beneficiaries are ultimately 'self-


selecting'. A project may design itself to attract target groups, but - as noted above - there is no guarantee that these beneficiaries will be forthcoming. The system collects quantitative data only. As indicated, activities which support the Themes, particularly the Equal Opportunities Theme, result in qualitative outputs, sometimes referred to as 'soft outcomes'. This also includes raising awareness about aspects of the Themes. When measuring quantitative outputs only, two projects may appear to have achieved similar results. However, it may be that one project was starting from a lower base level than the other and the distance it, or its beneficiaries, have travelled is considerably further. It will therefore have had a greater impact but this would not be captured. Evaluation of individual projects is not a requirement of the grant support. Some projects build in evaluation; however, this is dependent on the applicant and its partners. Evaluation is a useful method for assessing a project's impact on the Themes, as long as it is built into the brief for the evaluation. It moves beyond the targets and considers the approach taken and experiences of the project's implementation. It also provides the opportunity to investigate why a project has done well in a particular aspect or not as well in another and can contribute to improving future project development.

3.5.1 Article 4 Monitoring Visits

Article 4 of Commission Regulations (EC) 438/2001 requires Member States to carry out 'on the spot' visits to projects. The role of these monitoring visits is to check that projects are being implemented in accordance with the approved application and with the claims submitted. They are regarded by WEFO as an opportunity to provide support to projects and address problems which may arise early on in a project. As part of its project review Article 4 visits look at the implementation of the Cross Cutting Themes. The objectives for the visit for each Theme and the evidence which is sought to support a project's activities are set out in Table 3.1.


Table 3.1 Article 4 Visits – Cross Cutting Themes Objective Evidence Description

Is the sponsor implementing the environmental sustainability commitments made in the approved project? How are these monitored?

• Environmental Policy • Photographic evidence (before /after photographs) • Leaflets promoting environmental issues • Documentation advising grant recipients of

environmental requirements (Grant Schemes only) • Copies of Environmental Impact Studies (where

applicable)

Is the applicant ensuring equality of opportunities in the operation of this project?

• Equal Opportunities Policy • Welsh Language Policy • Disability Policies • Documentation to support jobs created by gender,

disability, ethnicity & Welsh speakers • Documentation advising grant recipients of equal

opportunities requirements (Grant Schemes only)

Has the applicant involved the IS and ICT in the operation of this project?

• IT Policy • Leaflets / posters • Documentation advising grant recipients of ICT

requirements (Grant Schemes only) Source: WEFO

3.5.2 Article 10 Financial Control Visits

Article 10 of Commission Regulation EC 438/2001 requires Member States to carry out sample checks to ensure that management and control systems are in place for Structural Fund supported projects. As with the Article 4 Visits, these visits also consider the Cross Cutting Themes. Table 3.2 illustrates the objective of the questions asked during a visit and the evidence required. The objectives and evidence sought between ESF and non-ESF projects vary slightly in Article 10 visits. The Article 10 visiting teams focus on finance and related issues and ensure that audit trails are in place to support the project. By considering the Cross Cutting Themes alongside the financial aspects our view, based on discussions throughout all of the interviews, is that a positive message is given out, contributing towards raising their profile and status in the Programmes' management and therefore also in the eyes of project sponsors.


However, the evidence which is sought by the visits concentrates on verifying the existence of relevant policies and confirming the Themes are applied in the project. The visiting team does not have the expertise which would enable them to look at the detail of the project's approach to the Themes. Nevertheless, there is still value in the Themes being included within the visit.

Table 3.2 Article 10 Visits - Cross Cutting Themes ERDF / EAGGF / FIFG Projects ESF Projects

Objective Evidence Description Objective Evidence Description

Obtain a copy of the sponsor's Equal Opportunities Policy and review. Is it adequate?

To ensure the sponsor promotes equal access for all to the opportunities offered by the Programme.

Obtain a copy of the sponsor's Equal Opportunities Policy and review to ensure compliance with the objectives of the Programme.

To ensure that the applicant operates an effective Equal Opportunities Policy.

Obtain a copy of the sponsor's Welsh Language Policy. Is it adequate?

To ensure the sponsor considers the maintenance and enhancement of the environmental assets of the regions.

Obtain a copy of the sponsor's strategy / statement for Environmental Sustainability and review to ensure compliance with the overall aim of the Programme.

To ensure that the applicant has an effective strategy for Environmental Sustainability.

Obtain a copy of the applicant's strategy for Environmental Sustainability and review. Is it adequate?

To ensure the sponsor contributes to an increase in the use of ICT in the region.

Obtain a copy of the sponsor's ICT Strategy and confirm that it complies with the aim of the Programme.

To ensure that the applicant has an effective strategy for ICT.

Obtain a copy of the applicant's ICT strategy and review. Is it adequate?

<Table Source: WEFO, Article 10 Lead Schedule (ERDF) Version 4 June 05 and Article 10 ESF Lead Schedule V4 Sept 04>


4.0 The Effect of the Themes on the Programmes

Chapter Summary Turning to the empirical evidence of the extent to which targets are being achieved by the approved projects, the research compares the projected and achieved outputs reported against the Themes by projects as at 31 July 2005 with the relevant Programme targets. The majority of these targets are likely to be achieved by the end of the Programme, although much still remains to be done; only the Environmental Sustainability output targets look likely to present extensive difficulties. However, this needs to be seen in the context that these targets were increased following the Mid Term Evaluation in order to encourage future projects to deliver more. Estimating the impact of the Themes on job creation poses difficulties; only in relation to the Vertical Measures can job creation be realistically attributed to the effect of the Themes. Under the Objective 1 Programme some 10% of the total direct jobs created have been contributed by the Vertical Measures. The Objective 3 Programme does not collect data on job creation as it is training and advice orientated. A shortcoming of the data which is collected under both Programmes is that it does not allow an assessment of the quality of the jobs created – for example, whether they are full or part time and what levels of pay they attract. In relation to of the creation of childcare places, the output targets projected and reported by projects are low relative to target under all but one Measure within the Objective 1 Programme. The reported levels are also relatively low under the Objective 3 Programme. A number of factors have been suggested as being responsible for this low take-up of the opportunities to provide childcare which does not necessarily mean that parents are being prevented from taking up services. However, the research encountered a problem in fully analysing this issue as projects are not required to collect information on whether beneficiaries are parents or whether potential beneficiaries have childcare needs. In comparing the characteristics of project beneficiaries with the overall demographic composition of the Objective 1 and 3 areas the research highlighted the following key issues: • More women have benefited under the Objective 1 Programme than would have been

anticipated based upon their representation in the labour market more generally; • Under both the Objective 1 and 3 Programmes the reported proportions of Black and

Minority Ethnic beneficiaries have been higher than the working age population comparators;


• Levels of participation amongst disabled people appear low compared to the labour market generally. However, this may be partly due to inconsistencies in the definitions used; the Labour Force Survey definition also incorporates those with a limiting long term illness whilst the beneficiaries under the Programmes classify themselves as disabled or not disabled; and,

• The representation of Welsh speakers amongst the beneficiaries also looks low when compared with the labour market as a whole. Again, however, this may be a result of inconsistencies of definition.

In carrying out these comparisons the research encountered problems as a result of the high level of 'don't knows' being recorded by projects – particularly for Black and Minority Ethnic people, disabled people and Welsh speakers. This can be partially attributed to the sensitivity of such information which not all projects have felt able to collect. Nevertheless, it clearly represents a further potential source of distortions in the data. The research has considered the thematic priorities of Business, Rural Regeneration, Infrastructure and Community and Human Resource Development (HRD) and highlighted how some of the activities carried out under the Programmes are supported by the Themes. In summary the Themes have contributed the following to the thematic priorities: • Business – awareness of the need to integrate environmental sustainability appraisal to

business support programmes has been raised and large scale projects supported to increase the support available to encourage businesses to adopt environmental management systems. Vertical Measures have provided support and profile raising for all three Themes to be taken up by business;

• Rural regeneration – The Themes have provided enhancements to projects which are directed towards supporting rural areas, through both Vertical and Horizontal Measures. Environmental projects have been directly supported and schemes have been funded which seek to address the needs of individuals who live in rural areas. There have also been schemes using ICT to overcome the remoteness of rural areas;

• Infrastructure – The Objective 1 Programme has emphasised the benefits of constructing buildings to the environmental BREEAM standards, energy saving measures and constructing buildings which are accessible to all, in capital build projects. There have also been a number of vertical schemes directly supporting environmental and ICT infrastructure; and,

• Community and Human Resource Development – Equal Opportunities has been the main influencing Theme contributing to this thematic priority, as it covers people orientated activities. In many cases ICT has been used to support these activities. Environmental sustainability has also provided support for these projects, particularly community schemes which have undertaken environmental projects.


4.1 Progress towards the Achievement of Programme Output Targets (A)

Output data is measured in three ways – the target output level as set out in the SPD, the level predicted to be achieved by the end of the Programmes on the basis of the projects approved and the reported level achieved by projects. 30 There are a number of different types of output, each of which has a unique reference as shown in the table below. Please note that the full list of target references can be found in Annex 6. Here we analyse the outputs in three ways: firstly, the outputs predicted to be achieved by the approved projects are compared to the relevant Programmes' target levels (measured by the predicted level as a percentage of the SPD target). This provides an indication of what should be achieved by the end of each Programme by the currently approved projects, assuming they achieve their predicted spend and targets – which the project case studies suggest will generally be the case. There are clearly issues about what may be achieved by projects which are yet to be approved in areas where resources remain uncommitted so this is not a complete measure of the likely level of achievement. It does however highlight how far the Programmes are on course to achieve their targets and potential problem areas where action may be needed. Secondly, the outputs reported as achieved by the approved projects are compared to the Programmes' targets (measured by the reported output level as a percentage of the target). In essence this measures the outputs and targets actually achieved and 'in the bank'. Finally, the analysis expresses the reported outputs so far as a percentage of the predicted outputs. This demonstrates the current shortfall between the level that projects have predicted they will achieve and what they have reported as actually achieved so far. However, it must be noted here that outputs may be below their predicted level for a number of reasons. It could be because projects are not delivering on their projections, but it may just reflect the inevitable lag between the start of the project and the commitment to achieve - and actual achievement. There may also be delays in recording and reporting outputs. In overall terms the analysis thus provides us with an assessment of the likely achievement of project outputs at the end of the Programme based upon spending to date,

30 An assessment of the progress against all targets against the Objective 1 and 3 Programmes has been undertaken in the Objective 1 and 3 Mid Term Evaluation Updates (MTEUs). However, it should be noted that figures reported for the MTEUs were as of end of June 2005 and are therefore not comparable with our analysis.


the degree to which output targets have already been achieved, and the progress towards the achievement of predicted levels. The outputs as set out here relate to the specifically identified targets for the three Themes. There are formal processes established for collecting this data from projects. However, the data do not capture outputs which are achieved by a project unless they relate to a target for the Measure under which it is funded. Neither do they capture potentially relevant outputs for which no targets have been set at the Programme level. Details of the output references used in this section can be found in Annex 7. The data analysed in this section are as reported to WEFO by 31 July 2005.

4.1.1 Resources Committed

To put the following discussion of the progress towards achieving the targets in context, the following tables provide a summary of the Programmes' financial position. It shows what level of the Programmes' resources has been committed to projects and how much of this has been reported as spent in claims. This provides an indication of what proportion of the targets should be expected to be achieved based upon the spend profile.

Table 4.1 Objective 1 Programme: Committed and Reported Spend, July 2005 Total Available

(£) Committed (£)

Grant to July 05 %

Committed Certified Spend

to July 05 % Spend of

Total Available

Priority 1 319,877,000 290,253,640 91% 158,503,536 50%

Priority 2 239,922,000 170,292,068 71% 79,643,186 33%

Priority 3 115,887,000 98,101,294 85% 47,960,177 41%

Priority 4 349,280,000 309,220,459 89% 154,714,754 44%

Priority 5 152,241,000 133,869,706 88% 64,310,814 42%

Priority 6 151,718,000 122,541,224 81% 40,531,381 27%

Total: 1,328,925,000 1,124,278,391 85% 545,663,848 41%Source: WEFO

The data in Table 4.1 therefore suggest that as 85% of the financial resources have been committed under the Objective 1 Programme, it would be expected that approved projects should be estimating that they will deliver something like 85% of the outputs required to meet the targets. Similarly, as 41% of the resources have been expended, then around 41% of the target outputs could be expected to be delivered.


As with Objective 1, Table 4.2 provides the financial position of the Objective 3 Programme, at 31 July 2005. Overall, the level of commitment overall is very similar to the Objective 1 Programme at 84%, with 40% of the financial resources declared as spent.

Table 4.2 Objective 3: Committed and Reported Spend Total Available

(£) Committed (£)

Grant to July 05 % Committed Certified Spend

to July 05 % Spend of

Total Available

Priority 1 20,300,235 20,244,202 100% 7,663,671 38%

Priority 2 23,364,377 18,877,322 81% 10,242,952 44%

Priority 3 17,546,000 14,005,443 80% 6,248,830 36%

Priority 4 23,197,299 17,504,599 75% 10,457,352 45%

Priority 5 7,314,765 6,382,977 87% 1,834,981 25%

Total: 91,722,676 77,014,543 84% 36,447,786 40%Source: WEFO

However, this is just a guide, and caution needs to be exercised - particularly in directly linking the timing of spend and the reporting of actual outputs, as in practice there is often a time lag involved. For example, a training course may run between September and June but the qualifications gained may not be known until August. Delays are also inevitable in between the timing of the achievement of outputs and their reporting and entering onto the WEFO database, i.e. a target could be achieved at the beginning of a reporting period and may not be required to be reported for five months (quarterly reporting periods and a month to submit a return); the output would then take a period of time to be checked and entered onto the database.

4.1.2 Environmental Sustainability

Under the Objective 1 Programme's Environmental Sustainability Theme there are 46 categories of output reported across 13 Measures. See Annex 7 for the full descriptions of the outputs; only summaries and reference numbers are provided in the following Tables. Output targets which have already been met by projects are emboldened. Performance in relation to the Theme in the Objective 1 Programme is mixed with a reasonable overall picture but some areas such as "the number of kilometres of managed access" (1091), and "the number of kilometres of traditional boundary created or renovated" (1094), require a strong push if targets are to be met fully. Whilst just three of the targets have so far been met, the approved projects are projected to deliver twenty of the forty-two associated targets, in some cases with a substantial level of over achievement. However, the Mid Term Evaluation (MTE) increased many of the Theme's targets in order to encourage projects to continue to contribute to them and improve the


achievements of the Programme. This means that prior to this increase in the targets many of them would have been in a more favourable position. Further details of the MTE amendments are discussed in Section 5.6. In seven cases the projected outputs of projects are less than 50% of the target and in a similar number of - mostly the same cases - no outputs are so far reported. The Priority and Measure under which these targets are attributed are given, although in some cases the data is an amalgam from more than one Measure. The full title of the Priorities and Measures are provided in Annex 5.

Table 4.3 Objective 1 Environmental Sustainability Outputs Analysis Priority & Measure

Target Output & Reference Predicted as % of Target

Reported as % of Target

Reported as % of

Predicted

P5M7,P5M8,P6M2,P6M4 No of gross new jobs (1001) 132% 10% 8%

P5M7,P5M8 No of gross new indirect jobs (1002) Na Na 35%

P5M7,P5M8 No of gross jobs safeguarded (1006) 84% 16% 19%

P5M7,P5M8,P6M4 No of temporary jobs (1011) Na Na 72%

P2M5 £k increase turnover of companies (1028) 4% 0% 0%

P1M3 No new SMEs adopting EMS (1033) 104% 32% 31%

P2M3 No of companies with environmental technology transfer (1039) 135% 70% 52%

P2M5 No of research initiatives (1043) 83% 100% 120%

P2M5 No of exemplar models developed for clean energy (1044) 333% 117% 35%

P3M3 No of community environmental appraisals (1049) 125% 32% 26%

P3M3 No of community environmental enhancement projects (1050) 153% 54% 35%

P3M3 Hectares of derelict / contaminated land improved (1056) 89% 82% 92%

P5M1 Projects promoting environmental sustainability in production & marketing of agricultural produce (1072)

73% 47% 64%

P5M3 No of new sustainable woodland management schemes (1074) 123% 27% 22%

P5M3 Hectares of woodland brought into sustainable management (1075) 108% 99% 92%

P5M7 No of access management projects (1090) 94% 40% 42%


Priority & Target Output & Reference Predicted Reported Reported Measure as % of

Target as % of as % of Target Predicted

P5M7 Kilometres of managed access (1091) 55% 24% 44%

P5M7 No of land management projects (1092) 106% 56% 52%

P5M7 Hectares brought under sustainable management (1093) 134% 80% 60%

P5M7 Kilometres of traditional boundary created / renovated (1094) 39% 43% 110%

P5M7 No of resource management projects (1095) 270% 70% 26%

P5M7 No of land managers adopting comprehensive pollution & waste management systems (1096)

Na Na 0%

P5M7 No of land managers adopting energy efficiency & conservation measures (1097) 88% 23% 26%

P5M7 Hectares of buffer zones along farm water courses managed (1098) 110% 28% 25%

P5M8 No of coastal management schemes (1099) 88% 60% 68%

P5M8 Kilometres of riverine habitats improved (1100) 82% 61% 75%

P5M8 No of visitor management initiatives (1101) 103% 48% 46%

P5M8 No of inland angling fishery projects (1102) 100% 159% 159%

P6M1 Public transport schemes improved (1113) 1025% 50% 5%

P6M1 No of multi-modal centres supported (1114) 260% 60% 23%

P6M2 No of new plants assisted (1115) 133% 33% 25%

P6M2 No of new users connected to network (1116) 66% 40% 60%

P6M4 Hectares of contaminated land rehabilitated (1118) 20% 18% 89%

P6M4 No of minewater treatment schemes (1119) 10% 10% 100%

P6M4 No of water efficiency schemes (1120) 13% 0% 0%

P6M4 No of major flood defence schemes (1121) 92% 17% 18%

P6M4 Tonnes of municipal waste recycled / composted / energy recovered (1123) 64% 0% 0%

P6M4 No of properties with reduced flood risk (1124) 183% 21% 12%

P6M4 Tonnes of industrial & commercial waste diverted from landfill (1125) 276% 0% 0%

P5M7 No of feasibility studies (1132) Na Na 0%


Priority & Target Output & Reference Predicted Reported Reported Measure as % of


P6M4 Re-use, recycling, composting or energy recovery initiatives (1133) 67% 0% 0%

P2M5 Supported projects rolled out into private sector-supported production (1135) 300% 14% 5%

P3M1 Beneficiaries involved in local economic, social & environmental development activity (1154)

56% 24% 43%

P3M1 Community groups involved in local economic, social & environmental development activity (1162)

75% 54% 72%

P4M3 No of environmental learning initiatives (1197) 5% 5% 100%

P5M7 No of land managers adopting agricultural water resource management (1427) 30% 0% 0%

Source: WEFO

There are 13 output measures under the Objective 3 Environmental Sustainability Theme across seven Measures. Of the 13 outputs, four have so far reported achievement of the target level, within all cases substantial overachievement. Of those that have not reached their target, 6 are yet to achieve 50% of the target and 2 of these are yet to register any outputs. The main areas of success concern the numbers of beneficiary individuals or communities. Among the outputs lagging behind, there appears to be a strong 'business' theme. This position is summarised in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 Objective 3 Environmental Sustainability Output Analysis Priority and Measure



Reported as % of

Predicted

P2M2 Beneficiaries involved in local economic, social & environmental development activity (1154)

145% 213% 147%

P2M2 Community groups involved in local economic, social & environmental development activity (1162)

2943% 1759% 60%

P3M1 No of environmental material initiatives (1198) 71% 69% 96%

P4M3 Business start-ups specialising in environmental goods & services (1191) 17% 0% 0%

P4M2 Businesses assisted to integrate environmental sustainable systems (1192)

519% 321% 62%

P4M1 Businesses assisted with business-environment management training (1193) 36% 84% 236%


Priority and Target Output & Reference Predicted Reported Reported Measure as % of


P4M1 Businesses receiving support to introduce environmentally sustainable systems (1194)

29% 34% 120%

P4M3 Companies involved in disseminating environmental sustainability R&D to other businesses (1195)

13% 13% 100%

P3M1 No of environmental learning initiatives (1197) 210% 80% 38%

P4M1 Businesses with environmental systems action plans (1189) 10% 0% 0%

P4M1 Managers gaining qualifications in business-environment management (1201) 57% 0% 0%

P4M3 Projects supported linked to environmental sustainability (1206) 13% 13% 100%

P4M2 Trainers trained in environmental systems & sustainable approaches to business (1209)

960% 191% 20%

Source: WEFO

4.1.3 ICT

Only four Objective 1 Measures have output targets for ICT: Priority 2 Measure 1, Priority 2 Measure 2, Priority 4 Measure 4 and Priority 5 Measure 2. There are 18 related reported outputs, although four of these have not been set targets. Of the fourteen with targets, all but three are predicted to be achieved by the approved projects (Table 4.5). The targets of most concern with respect to low predicted outputs – 1360 and 1361 – are related to broadband initiatives. Half of the targets have already been met. However the outputs against nine of the eighteen indicators reported represent only half or less of the projected levels. The differences are greater under Priority 2 Measure 1 – ICT Infrastructure.

Table 4.5 Objective 1 ICT Outputs Analysis Priority and Measure



Reported as % of

Predicted

P2M2 Gross new jobs (1001) 121% 107% 88%

P2M2 Gross new indirect jobs (1002) Na Na 150%

P2M2 Gross new jobs in high technology (1003) Na Na 14%

P2M2 Gross jobs safeguarded (1006) 253% 60% 24%


Priority and Target Output & Reference Predicted Reported Reported Measure as % of


P2M2 £k increase turnover of supported companies (1028) 152% 41% 27%

P2M2 No of regional audits of existing provision (1036) Na Na 100%

P2M2 Exemplar e-commerce users created & publicised (1037) 403% 509% 126%

P4M4 ICT training facilities created / upgraded (1064) 131% 109% 83%

P5M2 Participants trained in business development & IT (1126) Na Na 55%

P2M2 Firms benefiting from e-commerce & ICT support (1131) 143% 101% 71%

P2M2 Communities benefiting from ICT projects (1134) 155% 45% 29%

P2M1 No of local initiatives supported (1357) 142% 15% 11%

P2M1 Public sector sites broadband enabled (1358) 138% 143% 104%

P2M1 Public sector access points broadband enabled (1359) 89% 120% 135%

P2M1 Broadband points of presence broadband enabled (1360) 7% 3% 50%

P2M1 Increased no of businesses with broadband access (1361) 46% 10% 21%

P2M1 Increased no of communities with access to broadband (1362) 174% 26% 15%

P2M1 Population with access to broadband enabled public access (1363) 221% 111% 50%

Source: WEFO

No Measure level ICT targets have been set for the Objective 3 Programme and no recording of relevant outputs – such as numbers of beneficiaries undertaking ICT training etc - takes place. This lack of evidence on project achievements in this area sits uneasily with the detailed headline targets which have been set for the Programme since these are an indication of how the Programme is contributing to the delivery of its objectives. The same problem arises in relation to the ESF projects supported under the Objective 1 Programme. This issue is partially linked to the design of the ESF application form, which does not provide the opportunity to collect relevant data.


4.1.4 Equal Opportunities

In most cases the predicted level of outputs for Equal Opportunities under the Objective 1 Programme are well above the Programme Complement targets. There are only three outputs where it is currently predicted that the approved projects will not meet the overall target. Of these, one (1058, no. of enterprises receiving financial support led by women, disabled, ethnic minorities) is considerably short of the target at 10%. In general, the reported outputs are – predictably, given the point of the Programme at which the analysis is undertaken - behind the levels which have been projected by the approved projects. Even so, seven of the eleven targets have already been reached and in a number of cases substantially overachieved. Table 4.6 summarises these results.

Table 4.6 Objective 1 Equal Opportunities Outputs Analysis Priority and Measure



Reported as % of

Predicted

P1M1 New SMEs receiving financial support owned by women, people from ethnic minorities or disabled people (1018)

88% 43% 48%

P1M2 New SMEs given advice owned by women, ethnic minorities or disabled people (1019)

171% 342% 200%

P3M4 Enterprises receiving support led by women, disabled, ethnic minorities (1058) 10% 3% 29%

P4M4 Additional childcare places created (1060) 131% 552% 422%

P5M4 No of initiatives addressing issues for disabled people, women & ethnic groups (1084)

460% 950% 207%

P5M2 No of women receiving training (1127) 77% 33% 43%

P1M4,P2M4,P3M1,P4M2,P4M5

No of beneficiaries (1143) 257% 117% 45%

P4M3 Beneficiaries accessing advice, guidance, lifelong learning opportunities (1144)

323% 268% 83%

P4M1,P4M5 Beneficiaries gaining a positive outcome on leaving (1148) 315% 110% 35%


Childcare places provided (1160) 122% 55% 45%

P4M1 No participating in active measures (1183) Na Na 53% Source: WEFO


There are six outputs and associated targets relating to the Equal Opportunities Theme under the Objective 3 Programme. All but one of these are projected to be substantially overachieved with the number of employees helped (1168) the only apparent problem area. However, only one target 'Beneficiaries accessing advice / guidance / information services (1144) has so far been achieved and in all cases achievement is substantially lagging behind predictions – although the significance of this is unclear.

Table 4.7 Objective 3 Equal Opportunities Output Analysis Priority and Measure



Reported as % of

Predicted

P1M1,P2M1,P2M2,P2M3,P2M4,P4M4,P5M1,P5M2


P3M1,P3M2 Beneficiaries accessing advice / guidance / information services (1144) 332% 418% 126%

P1M2,P1M3 No of beneficiaries gaining a positive outcome on leaving (1148) 188% 40% 21%


Childcare places provided (1160) 214% 77% 36%

P4M2,P4M3 No of employees helped (1168) 50% 5% 10%

P1M1,P1M2,P1M3 No participating in active measures (1183) 182% 55% 30%

Source: WEFO

4.1.5 Vertical Measures

This section provides a closer analysis of the achievements against the targets by projects supported under the vertical Measures, i.e. Measures which have a particular Theme as a central focus. The Objective 1 Programme has vertical Measures for all three Themes, whereas there are just two Vertical Measures in the Objective 3 Programme, both focused on the Equal Opportunities Theme.

4.1.5.1 Environmental Sustainability Objective 1 Priority 2, Measure 5 – Clean energy sector developments P2M5 is yet to report any progress in increasing the turnover of supported firms (1028). Targets in relation to initiatives supported and exemplar models have already been achieved and the target for private sector-supported production (1135) is predicted to be comfortably achieved – although there has apparently been only limited progress so far, as shown in Table 4.8. It is noteworthy that at July 2005, 43% of the budget available had


been committed to projects under this Measure, of which only 6% had been reported as spent.

Table 4.8 Objective 1 Clean Energy Sector Developments P2M5 Output Analysis Target Output & Reference Predicted as

% of Target Reported as % of Target

Reported as % of Predicted

£k increase turnover of supported companies (1028) 4% 0% 0%

No of research initiatives supported (1043) 83% 100% 120%

Exemplar models developed for clean energy (1044) 333% 117% 35%

Supported projects rolled out into private sector-supported production (1135) 300% 14% 5%

Source: WEFO

Initially there were problems in attracting projects under this Measure. This has been attributed to a lack of knowledge by potential project sponsors in this new and emerging sector of the availability of funding, as well as a reluctance by the large energy companies to submit applications. There were also issues regarding State Aid rules and the distortion this sector could have on the energy industry e.g. electric supplies. A specialist consultee said that it had been hoped that more 'risky futuristic' applications would have come forward, but this has not so far happened. Objective 1 Priority 5 Measure 7 – A sustainable countryside – enhancement & protection of the natural environment & countryside management Table 4.9 illustrates that none of the targets have been achieved at this stage in the Programme and there are clearly questions about how far some are likely to be hit. Of the 11 output measures with defined targets, eight have yet to achieve 50% of the target. At July 2005, 90% of the budget available had been committed to projects under this Measure, of which 39% had been reported as spent.

Table 4.9 Objective 1 Sustainable Countryside P5M7 Output Analysis Target Output & Reference Predicted as



Gross new direct jobs (1001) 88% 46% 53%

Gross new indirect jobs (1002) Na Na 65%

Gross jobs safeguarded (1006) 36% 13% 37%

Temporary jobs (1011) Na Na 64%

No of access management projects (1090) 94% 40% 42%

Kilometres of managed access (1091) 55% 24% 44%

No of land management projects (1092) 106% 56% 52%


Target Output & Reference Predicted as Reported as Reported as % % of Target % of Target of Predicted

Hectares brought under sustainable management (1093) 134% 80% 60%

Kilometres of traditional boundary created / renovated (1094) 39% 43% 110%

No of resource management projects (1095) 270% 70% 26%

Land managers adopting comprehensive pollution & waste management systems (1096) Na Na 0%

Land managers adopting energy efficiency & conservation measures (1097) 88% 23% 26%

Hectares of buffer zones alongside farm water courses managed (1098) 110% 28% 25%

No of feasibility studies (1132) Na Na 0%

Land managers adopting agricultural water resource management (1427) 30% 0% 0%

Source: WEFO

Objective 1 Priority 5 Measure 8 – Support for recreational opportunities and the management of the natural environment This Measure's entire budget has been committed and at July 2005, just over 50% of the budget was reported by projects as spent. However, the approved projects are not predicting to meet all of the targets. A particular shortfall is projected in relation to the job creation target (1001), where only 43% of the target is projected to be met.

Table 4.10 Objective 1 Recreational Opportunities and Management of the Natural Environment P5M8 Output Analysis






Gross jobs safeguarded (1006) 101% 17% 17%


Coastal management schemes supported (1099) 88% 60% 68%

Kilometres of riverine habitats improved (1100) 82% 61% 75%

Visitor management initiatives supported (1101) 103% 48% 46%

Inland angling fishery projects (1102) 100% 159% 159% Source: WEFO


Objective 1 Priority 6 – Strategic Infrastructure Development Measure 2 – Energy Infrastructure At July 2005, 25% of the Measure's budget had been committed to projects, with just 9% reported as actually spent. Despite only a quarter of the budget being committed, two of the three targets (job creation - 1101 and number of plants assisted - 1115) are already predicted to be met and exceeded.

Table 4.11 Objective 1 Energy Infrastructure P6M2 Output Analysis Target Output & Reference Predicted as



Gross new jobs created (1001) 3340% 3% 0%

New plants assisted (1115) 133% 33% 25%

New users connected to the network (1116) 66% 40% 60% Source: WEFO

Objective 1 Priority 6 – Strategic Infrastructure Development Measure 4 – Environmental infrastructure At July 2005, 56% of the budget available had been committed to projects under this Measure, of which only 8% had been reported as spent. It is therefore not surprising that none of the output measures for P6M4 have yet achieved the targets, as shown in Table 4.12. However, the number of properties with reduced flood risk (1124) and tonnes of industrial and commercial waste diverted from landfill are predicted to be over-achieved. This Measure was cited during the specialist interviews as having particular problems in attracting schemes. Barriers were felt to include a lack of clarity over State Aid rules for the private sector participants and the large scale of the projects which meant a considerable lead in and development time involving planning permission etc. However, a targeted campaign did lead to a rise in the level of interest and the submission of applications. Efforts are needed to attract projects which could generate outputs for the following three targets currently predicting low outputs: contaminated land rehabilitated (1118); minewater treatment schemes (1119); and water efficiency schemes (1120). A particular issue relating to contaminated land schemes was raised during the specialist interviews. Originally there was a requirement to fund only orphan sites31, but the main interest was from sites where owners were known, so the criteria have been changed to

31 Orphan relates to those sites with no known owner.


allow such applicants if they could demonstrate appropriate economic and social benefits. It was felt by the interviewees that this should encourage and enable projects to come forward.

Table 4.12 Objective 1 Environmental Sustainability P6M4 Output Analysis Target Output & Reference Predicted as



Gross new jobs created (1001) 79% 3% 4%


Hectares of contaminated land rehabilitated (1118) 20% 18% 89%

Minewater treatment schemes (1119) 10% 10% 100%

Water efficiency schemes (1120) 13% 0% 0%

Major flood defence schemes (1121) 92% 17% 18%

Tonnes of municipal waste recycled / composted / energy recovered (1123) 64% 0% 0%

Properties with reduced flood risk (1124) 183% 21% 12%

Tonnes of industrial & commercial waste diverted from landfill (1125) 276% 0% 0%

Re-use, recycling, composting or energy recovery initiatives (1133) 67% 0% 0%

Source: WEFO

4.1.5.2 ICT Objective 1 Priority 2 Measure 1 – ICT Infrastructure Table 4.13 shows that predicted outputs are higher than the target in the majority of cases and three of the seven targets have already been achieved. The actual reported achievements are still fairly low in the remaining cases. Three of the outputs which are yet to achieve a substantial proportion of the target refer to access to broadband. At July 2005, 47% of the total budget available had been committed to projects under this Measure, of which - notably - only 13% had been reported as spent.

Table 4.13 Objective 1 ICT Infrastructure P2M1 Output Analysis Target Output & Reference Predicted as



Local initiatives supported (1357) 142% 15% 11%

Public sector sites broadband enabled (1358) 138% 143% 104%

Public sector access points broadband enabled (1359) 89% 120% 135%

Broadband points presence broadband enabled (1360) 7% 3% 50%


Target Output & Reference Predicted as Reported as Reported as % % of Target % of Target of Predicted

Increased no of businesses with access to broadband (1361) 46% 10% 21%

Increased no of communities with access to broadband (1362) 174% 26% 15%

Population gaining access to broadband enabled public access (1363) 221% 111% 50%

Source: WEFO

Objective 1 Priority 2 Measure 2 – To stimulate and support demand for ICT The six targets are all projected to be achieved, although only three have so far been met. At July 2005, 65% of the budget available had been committed to projects under this Measure, of which 35% had been reported as spent.

Table 4.14 Objective 1 To stimulate support and demand for ICT P2M2 Output Analysis Target Output & Reference Predicted as





Gross new jobs in high technology (1003) Na Na 14%

Gross jobs safeguarded(1006) 253% 60% 24%

£k increase turnover of supported companies (1028) 152% 41% 27%

No of regional audit of existing provision (1036) Na Na 100%

Exemplar e-commerce users created (1037) 403% 509% 126%

Firms benefiting from e-commerce & ICT support (1131) 143% 101% 71%

Communities benefiting from ICT based projects (1134) 155% 45% 29%

Source: WEFO

4.1.5.3 Equal Opportunities Objective 1 P4M5 – Improving the participation of women in the labour market At July 2005, almost the entire budget available (99%) had been committed to projects under this Measure, of which 34% had been reported as spent. Both of the targets are projected to be substantially overachieved, although in relation to all three indicators reported outputs are – predictably given that the majority of projects are not yet completed - still well short of projected levels. Despite this the target for childcare provision (1160) has already been overachieved.


Table 4.15 Objective 1 Improving the participation of women in the labour market P4 M5 Output Analysis Target Output & Reference Predicted as




No of beneficiaries gaining a positive outcome (1148) Na Na 21%

Childcare places provided (1160) 927% 500% 54% Source: WEFO

Objective 3 Priority 5 – Promoting Gender equality in the labour market; Measure 1 – Pathways to participation There are two output measures under P5M1 concerning beneficiaries (1143) and childcare places (1160). In both cases the predicted output is much higher than the target output (Table 4.16). Both of the targets have already been met with only 21% of the budget reported as spent (83% of the budget committed).

Table 4.16 Objective 3 Promoting gender equality in the labour market P5M1 Output Analysis Target Output & Reference Predicted as




Childcare places provided (1160) 1070% 538% 50% Source: WEFO

Objective 3 P5M2 – Promoting attitudinal change There is only one output of relevance here – no. of beneficiaries (1143). Table 4.17 shows that the Measure has already achieved its target and projects are well on the way to achieving their predicted output despite the fact that only 38% of the budget has so far been spent.

Table 4.17 Objective 3 Promoting attitudinal change P5M2 Output Analysis Target Output & Reference Predicted as



No of beneficiaries (1143) 160% 148% 92% Source: WEFO

4.1.6 Overview of the Progress towards the Achievement of Programme Output Targets

Under the Objective 1 Programme half of the ICT (50%) and Equal Opportunities (60%) targets had already been achieved by 31 July 2005 (Figure 4.1). 31% of the Objective 3


Environmental Sustainability targets had also been achieved. The levels of achievement for Equal Opportunities under the Objective 3 Programme (17%) and Environmental Sustainability under the Objective 1 Programme (10%) were lower.

Figure 4.1 Level of Targets Achieved as at 31 July 2005

38

9 7 4 5

4

4 76 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

ES,Objective

1

ES,Objective

3

ICT,Objective

1

EO,Objective

1

EO,Objective

3

Num

ber o

f Tar

gets

AchievedNot Achieved

Source: WEFO

However, in terms of likely achievement of the targets by the end of the Programmes, it is only the Objective 3 Environmental Sustainability targets which suggest major difficulties (Figure 4.1). Only 38% of the relevant targets under the Objective 3 Programme are currently predicted to be achieved, with the majority of the Programme's budget committed to projects. Projects approved under the Objective 1 Programme are predicted to deliver almost 70% of its targets, compared to only 7% actually achieved by 31 July 2005. As already noted the MTE increased many of the Theme's targets to encourage projects to deliver further environmental targets. The ICT targets under the Objective 1 Programme appear likely to largely be achieved. 80% of the Equal Opportunities Theme targets under the Objective 1 Programme are predicted to be achieved by approved projects. In addition 55% of the targets had already been achieved by 31 July 2005. Projects under the Objective 3 Programme are predicting to achieve 83% of the targets, with only one target – number of employees helped - not yet predicted to be achieved.


Figure 4.2 Predicted Achievement of Targets

0

10

20

30

40

50

ES, Obje

ctive

1

ES, Obje

ctive

3

ICT, O

bjecti

ve 1

EO, Obje

ctive

1

EO, Obje

ctive

3

Num

ber o

f Tar

gets

No of targets withlow achievement(<20%)

No of targets withintermediateachievement(20% - 80%)

No of targetsachieved / largelyachieved (>80%)

Source: WEFO

4.2 How have the Themes affected job creation?

There are two aspects to this: firstly to what extent have the Themes been responsible for job creation directly and, secondly, have they contributed towards the creation and / or affected the quality of the jobs created. There is a particular issue of how far employment has been created for the Programmes' target groups such as disabled people or women. The field research has also considered whether the implementation of the Themes may have produced barriers to the creation of jobs.

4.2.1 Job Creation

The Themes contributed to job creation under the Vertical Measures which focused on the Themes but the research could find no evidence that the Themes were directly responsible for job creation through horizontal integration. Examples of this include schemes under the clean energy sector or strategic environmental infrastructure, such as waste schemes. Outside the Vertical Measures projects were reluctant to make – far less substantiate - estimates that the Themes themselves had led them directly to create jobs; however, this is not to say that the Themes did not have an effect. Likewise, no evidence was found to suggest that the Themes had been a barrier to the creation of jobs.


Table 4.19 details the jobs reported as created or safeguarded at July 2005, under the Vertical Measures of the Objective 1 Programme. Only projects supported under those Measures listed in the Table monitored job creation; the other Vertical Measures did not record any form of job creation. Table 4.19 also shows jobs created under the Vertical Measures as a percentage of the total job creation.32

Table 4.18 Objective 1 Job Creation under the Vertical Measures Priority & Measure Theme Gross New

Direct Jobs Temporary Jobs Created

Gross New Indirect Jobs Created

Jobs Safeguarded

P2M2 – Stimulate & support demand for ICT

ICT 4,264 0 947 1,530

P5M7 – Sustainable Countryside

Env Sus 46 29 18 67

P5M8 – Recreational opportunities & management of natural environment

Env Sus

79 1 57 233

P6M2 – Energy Infrastructure

Env Sus 1 0 0 0

P6M4 – Environmental infrastructure

Env Sus 11 14 0 0

Vertical Measure Totals: 4,401 44 1,022 1,830

Programmes' Totals 43,288 1,499 2,685 58,256

% of Jobs Created under Vertical Measures 10% 3% 38% 3%

Source: WEFO

There is no evidence to prove or disprove that individuals from the Programmes' target groups are being supported at the expense of the workforce more generally. In some cases there were projects which provided direct support to the target groups but this was normally to complement an existing service which provided support to others – for example business support services focusing on equal opportunities complemented existing mainstream provision. Clearly this may have some adverse indirect impacts on the employment of other groups, although this is not necessarily the case. More generally, the jobs figures quoted above are gross ones. They are likely to involve elements of deadweight and there will typically be some adverse impacts on employment in the Programme areas, and elsewhere, as a result of displacement – probably arising mainly through the drawing of sales from competing local suppliers.33

32 This is intended to illustrate both the Objective 1 Programme and the Objective 3 Programme; however the Objective 3 Programme does not record job creation as it is principally training and advice orientated. 33 The Objective 1 and 3 Mid Term Evaluation Updates (MTEUs) have attempted to convert gross outputs to net outputs.


4.2.2 Quality of Jobs Created

The main influence here is the Equal Opportunities Themes as this relates to the employment opportunities available to support individuals, including the Programmes' target groups. All project sponsors are required to have an Equal Opportunities Policy and also all activity must adhere to employment law - which many projects regard as sufficient to meet the requirements of the Theme. This was cited during the field research as an important factor in opportunities being missed in implementing this Theme. The research identified that this was likely to be as a result of a lack of understanding of the potential benefits and the ways in which diversity policies and activities can be implemented through projects. A shortcoming of the data which is collected in the current context is that it is not possible to analyse how far target groups are represented within the job creation figures. Clearly a balance needs to be struck between ensuring useful data is collected to demonstrate the impact and progress of the Programmes without burdening project schemes with complex data collection mechanisms, but this is a notable omission.

4.3 The effect of the creation of childcare places on participation in the labour market

Specialist consultees expressed the view during the field research that there had been insufficient infrastructure development projects for childcare, particularly under the Objective 1 Programme which is able to support capital schemes. The majority of funding has been spent on temporary crèche provision to support other activities such as training. It was claimed by a small number of Equal Opportunities Specialist Theme interviewees that those projects, normally training or advice schemes, which had included costs for providing childcare, appear generally to be underspending on this provision. It was not possible to quantify this in terms of actual underspend as these costs are not identified separately until final claims. However, a small number of project and stakeholder interviews with experience in this activity did support this claim. Table 4.20 illustrates the position of the Programmes with regard to achieving the childcare targets. At July 2005, just one Measure under each Programme had achieved its childcare targets. Five of the nine Measures were not projecting they would meet their targets at this point on the basis of the projects approved.


Table 4.19 Number of Childcare Places Created Priority/ Measure Predicted as %

of Target Reported as % of Target


Objective 1 Programme

P1M4 – Promoting Adaptability & Entrepreneurship

38% 0% 0%

P4M1 – Preventative & Active Employment Measures

41% 25% 61%

P4M2 – Social Inclusion 25% 38% 153%

P4M5 – Improving the Participation of Women in the Labour Market

927% 500% 54%

Programme Total: 91% 51% 56%

Objective 3 Programme

P1M1 – Preventing Long Term Unemployment

265% 15% 5%

P1M2 – Re-Integration of the Long-Term Unemployed

44% 9% 21%

P2M1 – Pathways to Employment 110% 50% 45%

P3M1 – Developing New or Improved Guidance and Learning

60% 1% 1%

P5M1 – Pathways to Participation 1070% 538% 50%

Programme Total: 214% 77% 36% Source: WEFO, Reference Number: 1160

A variety of causes were cited as possible reasons for this low take up of child care; in reality it is likely to be a combination of factors. A reason given by one specialist Theme interview was that not enough parents were being attracted to projects. Whilst this may be a factor, parents were not a target group of the Programmes. What could be of more importance is that a project's design, e.g. course timing and location, was not a barrier to the participation of parents. In some cases the short-term childcare available through projects may not have been attractive to individual parent's needs. Some project sponsors have found that many parents preferred to make their own arrangements, for example with friends and family or that they already had a regular placement. This might lead to a conclusion that it would be better to invest in longer term childcare placements through infrastructure development etc. rather than temporary placements available for the duration of a short term scheme. It was also found that some projects provided childcare support through alternative means outside the remit of the European funded project, - sometimes arguing, perhaps plausibly, that the associated data collection requirements were considered too burdensome.


A problem in fully analysing this issue is that projects are not expected to collect information on whether beneficiaries are parents or if they have childcare needs catered for outside the project. It is therefore difficult to assess whether parents were attracted to the support and training available under ESF projects. In mid 2005, the Genesis project was supported through both Programmes. This multi-million pound all-Wales scheme aims to provide support and guidance, including childcare provision to women to support them into employment. This scheme, although in its early days, is hoped to address issues in childcare support.

4.4 Population and Labour Market Comparison

4.4.1 Purpose of the Comparison

This section draws comparisons between the characteristics of project beneficiaries and the overall demographic composition of the Objective 1 and 3 areas in order to highlight the extent to which the Programmes are delivering their objectives in relation to equal opportunities and social inclusion more generally.

4.4.2 Explanation of the Data Used for the Comparison

The analysis uses publicly available statistical information to provide the benchmarks of the composition of the employed population and the workforce of the two Programme areas. It needs to be stressed that the comparisons are subject to a range of important limitations which need to be borne in mind in interpreting the findings. The outputs measure a number of different things – for example population, employed persons, working age, unemployed, 13-18 population – and in not all cases is accurate comparable data available to provide benchmarks. Where this is the case 'best-fit' comparator indicators have been selected which provide a rough guide with which to draw comparisons; more accurate comparisons are available for the gender breakdown in relation to other characteristics. We have tried to use data from the specific Programme area – West Wales and the Valleys or East Wales – where possible, as there are occasions where data from the two areas differs quite significantly. Even so, it must be noted that in some cases outputs may be based on projects which operate in a specific geographic sub-region within the relevant NUTS 2 area of the wider Programme. This may cause an issue in circumstances where there are local differences in the make up of the population or labour market – for example


there is generally a higher proportion of Black and Ethnic Minority people (BME) in urban compared to rural areas. The data is sourced from the Census and the Labour Force Survey (LFS). A final issue to bear in mind is that there may be some issues of statistical reliability with the latter as the area and sample size considered becomes smaller and indicators should be treated only as a guide. Rates of participation of target and other significant groups at the sub-regional level - women, disabled people, BME people and Welsh Speakers - within the Programme areas are set out below and compared to their proportion within the labour market as a whole. The following section provides comparisons for gender, BME people, disabled people and Welsh speakers. A graph – or in the case of Objective 3, two graphs – show(s) the proportions for each Objective 1 Programme Measure against levels in the labour market generally; owing to the number of relevant Priorities in the Objective 3 Programme, there are two graphs. The more detailed tables and information regarding the source of the comparator information can be found in Annex 8.

4.4.3 Gender

4.4.3.1 Objective 1 Figure 4.2 compares the proportion of beneficiaries34 who are supported under each Measure with the relevant proportion within the labour market. Annex 8 provides supporting details of the Measures concerned and the comparators used. In most cases, the Programme has benefited more women than would have been anticipated based upon their representation within the labour market generally. Only one of the Measures shows performance in terms of gender split which is well below the comparator – Measure 2.4 which concerns beneficiaries of provision of skills for innovation and technology. Measure 3.1 – community action for social exclusion- shows a particularly high level of women beneficiaries.

34 The reported percentage figures are calculated not including the 'don't knows'. 'don't knows' is a category used for recording beneficiary data e.g. for gender sponsors record data as either 'male', 'female' or 'don't know'. It is also used for 'disabled people', 'ethnicity' and 'Welsh Speakers'.


Figure 4.3 Objective 1 Gender Comparison with Labour Market Data

48%

30%

69%

43%46%

58%

47% 47%49%

40%

49% 49%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

P1M

4 Pr

omot

ing

Adap

tabi

lity:

No

ofbe

nefic

iarie

s

P2M

4 S

kills

for

Inno

vatio

n: N

o of

bene

ficia

ries

P3M

1 S

ocia

l Inc

lusi

on:

No

of b

enef

icia

ries

P4M

1 E

mpl

oym

ent

Mea

sure

s: N

opa

rtici

patin

g

P4M

2 S

ocia

l Inc

lusi

on:

No

of b

enef

icia

ries

P4M

3 Li

felo

ng L

earn

ing:

No

acce

ssin

g gu

idan

ce

Measure and Output

Reported %femaleComparator %female

Source: WEFO, LFS: P4M1 uses all-Wales comparator data as this requires a comparison with all unemployed which is only available at the all-Wales level, whereas the other Measures use West Wales & the Valleys data as they require comparison with working age population. Annex 8 provides more detail.

4.4.3.2 Objective 3 It is more difficult to identify clear patterns across the Objective 3 Priorities or target groups. Other than Priority 5, which is a vertical Measure targeting gender equality, about half of the outputs are below the comparator in terms of the proportion of women participants, and a quarter notably exceed the comparator (see Figures 4.3 and 4.4). P3M1 (Developing guidance & learning systems) stands out with only 5.9% beneficiaries reported to be female.


Figure 4.4 Objective 3 Gender Comparison with Labour Market Data – P 1 & 2

32%

41% 42% 41%45%

69%

40% 40%

49% 49% 49% 49%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

P1M

1 P

reve

ntin

glo

ngte

rmun

empl

oym

ent:

No

parti

cipa

ting

P1M

2 R

eint

egra

tion

ofun

empl

oyed

: No

parti

cipa

ting

P1M

3 Tr

ansi

tion

from

educ

atio

n: N

opa

rtici

patin

g

P2M

1 Pa

thw

ays

toem

ploy

men

t: N

obe

nefic

iarie

s

P2M

2 C

omm

unity

Grp

s:N

o be

nefic

iarie

s

P2M

3 S

ocia

l Eco

nom

y:N

o be

nefic

iarie

s

Measure and Output


Source: WEFO, LFS Note: P1M1 & P1M2 uses all-Wales comparator data as this requires a comparison with all unemployed which is only available at the all-Wales level, whereas the other Measures use East Wales data as they require comparison with working age population. Annex 8 provides more detail.


Figure 4.5 Objective 3 Gender Comparison with Labour Market Data - P3, 4 & 5

6%

43%

31%

37%

53%

70% 69%

49% 49% 47% 47% 47% 49% 49%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

P3M

1 G

uida

nce

syst

ems:

No

acce

ssin

ggu

idan

ce

P3M

2 Li

felo

ng L

earn

ing:

No

acce

ssin

g gu

idan

ce

P4M

2 S

kills

for S

ME

wor

kfor

ce: N

oem

ploy

ees

help

ed

P4M

3 E

ncou

ragi

ng IS

:N

o em

ploy

ees

help

ed

P4M

4 Su

ppor

t for

entre

pren

eurs

hip:

no

bene

ficia

ries

P5M

1 P

athw

ays

topa

rtici

patio

n: n

obe

nefic

iarie

s

P5M

2 A

ttitu

dina

lC

hang

e: N

obe

nefic

iarie

s

Measure and Output


Source: WEFO, LFS Note: All the Measures in Figure 4.3 use East Wales comparator data. Annex 8 provides more detail.

4.4.4 Black and Minority Ethnic People

4.4.4.1 Objective 1 It is interesting to note that there are a high proportion of 'don't knows' against ethnicity under many of the Measures. For example, 25% of beneficiaries under P4M2 are recorded as 'don't knows'. This may be due to the sensitivity of collection of this information. In such cases no assumption can be made as to the status of these individuals. The comparison with the labour market made here is net of the 'don't know' numbers. The distortion this involves is clearly a matter of speculation, although it might be surmised that projects with low proportions of BME beneficiaries are more likely to provide 'don't know' returns. It should also be noted that all the comparisons use working age population data, however some of the targets relate to other categories, such as all employed or all unemployed.


Figure 4.6 Objective 1 – Ethnicity Comparison with Labour Market Data

9%

16%

3%

5%4%

8%

9%

2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

P1M

4 Pr

omot

ing

Adap

tabi

lity:

No

ofbe

nefic

iarie

s

P2M

4 S

kills

for

Inno

vatio

n: N

o of

bene

ficia

ries

P3M

1 S

ocia

l Inc

lusi

on:

No

of b

enef

icia

ries

P4M

1 E

mpl

oym

ent

Mea

sure

s: N

opa

rtici

patin

g

P4M

2 S

ocia

l Inc

lusi

on:

No

of b

enef

icia

ries

P4M

3 Li

felo

ng L

earn

ing:

No

acce

ssin

g gu

idan

ce

P4M

5 P

artic

ipat

ion

ofw

omen

: No

bene

ficia

ries

Measure and Output


Source: WEFO, LFS

BME refers to Black Minority Ethnic People

Note: All of the comparator data uses working age population data for West Wales & the Valleys; however some targets relate to other categories such as all employed or all unemployed. Annex 8 provides more detail.

Under all Measures above, the reported percentage of BME people is well above the working age population comparator (Figure 4.5). One reason for this may be that the beneficiaries are concentrated in urban areas (where the BME population is much greater), whilst the actual BME percentage for the region as a whole is quite low. Also, P4M1 is concerned with unemployed people and a higher proportion of the unemployed population is BME in comparison to the working age population. Even considering the above, the outputs appear to show a relatively high proportion of BME beneficiaries. This is particularly so under P4M5 which deals with women only. The reported percentage for P2M4 (skills for innovation and technology) is also very high, as is that for P1M4 (promoting adaptability and entrepreneurship). Perhaps surprisingly, P3M1 (dealing with social exclusion) shows a lower percentage of BME beneficiaries than the other Objective 1 Measures but it also shows the lowest number of recorded 'don't knows'.


4.4.4.2 Objective 3 Under 14 of the 18 Measures considered the proportion of BME participants is again – at least apparently - higher than with the relevant population. East Wales, of course, is characterised by a larger urban population and a greater proportion of Black and Minority Ethnic people than the Objective 1 area. This is reflected in the comparator values (Objective 3 at 4.5% and Objective 1 1.6% of the population). Also in most cases, reported outputs exceed the comparator level, as illustrated in Figures 4.6 and 4.7. Two Measures recorded high levels of 'don't know' returns – P1M1 with 83% and P3M2 recorded 40%.

Figure 4.7 Objective 3 Comparison of Ethnicity with Labour Market Data - P1 & 2

15%17%

5%

20%

59%

9%5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

P1M

1 P

reve

ntin

glo

ngte

rmun

empl

oym

ent:

No

parti

cipa

ting

P1M

2 R

eint

egra

tion

ofun

empl

oyed

: No

parti

cipa

ting

P1M

3 Tr

ansi

tion

from

educ

atio

n: N

opa

rtici

patin

g

P2M

1 P

athw

ays

toem

ploy

men

t: N

obe

nefic

iarie

s

P2M

2 C

omm

unity

Grp

s:N

o be

nefic

iarie

s

P2M

3 S

ocia

l Eco

nom

y:N

o be

nefic

iarie

s

Measure and Output


Source: WEFO, LFS

Note: All of the comparator data uses working age population data for East Wales; whereas some targets relate to all employed or all unemployed. Annex 8 provides more detail.


Figure 4.8 Objective 3 Ethnicity Comparison - P3, 4 & 5

8%8%

2%

6%

10%

9%

2%

5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

P3M

1 G

uida

nce

syst

ems:

No

acce

ssin

ggu

idan

ce

P3M

2 Li

felo

ng L

earn

ing:

No

acce

ssin

g gu

idan

ce

P4M

2 S

kills

for S

ME

wor

kfor

ce: N

oem

ploy

ees

help

ed

P4M

3 E

ncou

ragi

ng IS

:N

o em

ploy

ees

help

ed

P4M

4 Su

ppor

t for

entre

pren

eurs

hip:

no

bene

ficia

ries

P5M

1 Pa

thw

ays

topa

rtici

patio

n: n

obe

nefic

iarie

s

P5M

2 A

ttitu

dina

lC

hang

e: N

obe

nefic

iarie

s

Measure and Output


Source: WEFO, LFS

Note: All of the comparator data uses working age population data for East Wales; whereas some targets relate to all employed or all unemployed. Annex 8 provides more detail.

4.4.5 Disabled People

One major issue to note in this comparison is the definition of the term 'disabled person'. The comparator LFS indicator defines 'disabled people' as those fitting the definition under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) in addition to those considering themselves to have a long term limiting illness. This could be considered to be a very broad definition. The Programmes rely on the individual beneficiary to classify themselves as a disabled person. Therefore caution should be applied in relation to the comparisons.

4.4.5.1 Objective 1 Levels of participation by disabled people generally appear to be relatively low. Only in relation to Measure 4.2 – social exclusion – is the proportion broadly in line with the LFS comparator. At the other end of the scale Measures 1.4 and 2.4 (3.5% and 3.8% respectively) – concerned with entrepreneurship and innovation – have very low proportions of beneficiaries classed as a 'disabled person'. Once again, the exclusion of


'don't knows' is an important potential distortion, with for example 25% of P4M2 recorded as 'don't knows'.

Figure 4.9 Objective 1 Disabled People Comparison with Labour Market Data

4% 4%

10%11%

24%

13%

6%

24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 24%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

P1M

4 Pr

omot

ing

Adap

tabi

lity:

No

ofbe

nefic

iarie

s

P2M

4 S

kills

for

Inno

vatio

n: N

o of

bene

ficia

ries

P3M

1 So

cial

Incl

usio

n:N

o of

ben

efic

iarie

s

P4M

1 E

mpl

oym

ent

Mea

sure

s: N

opa

rtici

patin

g

P4M

2 So

cial

Incl

usio

n:N

o of

ben

efic

iarie

s

P4M

3 Li

felo

ng L

earn

ing:

No

acce

ssin

g gu

idan

ce

P4M

5 P

artic

ipat

ion

ofw

omen

: No

bene

ficia

ries

Measure and Output


Source: WEFO, LFS

Note: All of the comparator data uses working age population data for West Wales & the Valleys; some targets relate to all employed and others to all unemployed. Annex 8 provides more detail.

4.4.5.2 Objective 3 Only one of the Measures - Measure 2.1 relating to the promotion of social inclusion - has achieved the comparator proportion for disabled beneficiaries (Figures 4.9 and 4.10) where such a result might be expected. There is a high variation in the reported results even across groups – i.e. the unemployed, the employed and total population. The Measures under Priority 4 – promoting business competitiveness - have been the least effective in engaging disabled people. The level of 'don't knows' recorded also features in P1M1 with 80% levels and P3M2 recording 40%.


Figure 4.10 Objective 3 Disabled People Comparison with Labour Market Data - P1 & 2

6%

18%

29%

9%11%

24% 24% 24% 24% 24%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

P1M

1 Pr

even

ting

long

term

unem

ploy

men

t: N

opa

rtici

patin

g

P1M

2 R

eint

egra

tion

ofun

empl

oyed

: No

parti

cipa

ting

P2M

1 P

athw

ays

toem

ploy

men

t: N

obe

nefic

iarie

s

P2M

2 C

omm

unity

Grp

s:N

o be

nefic

iarie

s

P2M

3 S

ocia

l Eco

nom

y:N

o be

nefic

iarie

s

Measure and Output


Source: WEFO, LFS

Note: All of the comparator data uses working age population data for East Wales; ; some targets relate to all employed and others to all unemployed. Annex 8 provides more detail.


Figure 4.11 Objective 3 Disabled People Comparison with Labour Market Data P3, 4 & 5

8% 8%

1%3%

4% 4%

9%

24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 24%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

P3M

1 G

uida

nce

syst

ems:

No

acce

ssin

ggu

idan

ce

P3M

2 Li

felo

ng L

earn

ing:

No

acce

ssin

g gu

idan

ce

P4M

2 S

kills

for S

ME

wor

kfor

ce: N

oem

ploy

ees

help

ed

P4M

3 E

ncou

ragi

ng IS

:N

o em

ploy

ees

help

ed

P4M

4 S

uppo

rt fo

ren

trepr

eneu

rshi

p: n

obe

nefic

iarie

s

P5M

1 P

athw

ays

topa

rtici

patio

n: n

obe

nefic

iarie

s

P5M

2 At

titud

inal

Cha

nge:

No

bene

ficia

ries

Measure and Output


Source: WEFO, LFS

Note: All of the comparator data uses working age population data for East Wales; ; some targets relate to all employed and others to all unemployed. Annex 8 provides more detail.

4.4.6 Welsh Speakers

Again there is an issue in making comparisons with the LFS proportion of Welsh speakers. The definitions being applied by projects and how they relate to those applied by the LFS are unclear. There may be cases, for example, where individuals do not consider themselves to be fluent Welsh speakers but are counted as such under the LFS as they have some ability to speak or write in Welsh. A further issue is that all the comparisons use working age population, however, some of the targets relate to other categories such as all employed or all unemployed. There are also a great number of 'don't knows' recorded by projects and again this is an important potential distortion.

4.4.6.1 Objective 1 The proportions of Welsh speakers recorded as benefiting from the Programme appear to be substantially underrepresented compared to the overall labour market data, as


illustrated in Figure 4.11. The level of 'don't knows' recorded for these Measures ranged from 36% in P3M1 to 68% in P4M3, with most around the 50% level.

Figure 4.12 Objective 1 Welsh Speakers Comparison with Labour Market Data

24%

6%

20%

9%

19%

8% 7%

32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32% 32%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

P1M

4 Pr

omot

ing

Adap

tabi

lity:

No

ofbe

nefic

iarie

s

P2M

4 S

kills

for

Inno

vatio

n: N

o of

bene

ficia

ries

P3M

1 S

ocia

l Inc

lusi

on:

No

of b

enef

icia

ries

P4M

1 E

mpl

oym

ent

Mea

sure

s: N

opa

rtici

patin

g

P4M

2 S

ocia

l Inc

lusi

on:

No

of b

enef

icia

ries

P4M

3 Li

felo

ng L

earn

ing:

No

acce

ssin

g gu

idan

ce

P4M

5 Pa

rtici

patio

n of

wom

en: N

obe

nefic

iarie

sMeasure and Output


Source: WEFO, LFS

Note: All of the comparator data uses working age population data for West Wales and the Valleys; some categories use employed data and others use unemployed. Annex 8 provides more detail.

4.4.6.2 Objective 3 The reported proportion of Welsh speakers under the Objective 3 Measures is again well below the comparator in all cases (Figures 4.12 and 4.13). Again the significance of this is far from clear. The majority of Measures recorded levels of more than 50% as 'don't knows', with some with 100% returns. The comparator proportion of 22.1% is much lower in East Wales than West Wales and the Valleys, matching most people's perceptions of the distribution of the language.


Figure 4.13 Objective 3 Welsh Speakers Comparison with Labour Market Data - P1 & 2

4%

15%

2% 2%

6%

22% 22% 22% 22% 22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

P1M

1 Pr

even

ting

long

term

unem

ploy

men

t: N

opa

rtici

patin

g

P1M

2 R

eint

egra

tion

ofun

empl

oyed

: No

parti

cipa

ting

P2M

1 P

athw

ays

toem

ploy

men

t: N

obe

nefic

iarie

s

P2M

2 C

omm

unity

Grp

s:N

o be

nefic

iarie

s

P2M

3 S

ocia

l Eco

nom

y:N

o be

nefic

iarie

s

Measure and Output


Source: WEFO, LFS

Note: All of the comparator data uses working age population data for East Wales; some categories use employed data and others use unemployed. Annex 8 provides more detail.


Figure 4.14 Objective 3 Welsh Speakers Comparison with Labour Market Data - P 3, 4 & 5

2%

18%

37%

54%

3%1%

22% 22% 22% 22% 22% 22%

0%

20%

40%

60%

P3M

1 G

uida

nce

syst

ems:

No

acce

ssin

ggu

idan

ce

P3M

2 Li

felo

ng L

earn

ing:

No

acce

ssin

g gu

idan

ce

P4M

3 En

cour

agin

g IS

:N

o em

ploy

ees

help

ed

P4M

4 S

uppo

rt fo

ren

trepr

eneu

rshi

p: n

obe

nefic

iarie

s

P5M

1 P

athw

ays

topa

rtici

patio

n: n

obe

nefic

iarie

s

P5M

2 A

ttitu

dina

lC

hang

e: N

obe

nefic

iarie

s

Measure and Output


Source: WEFO, LFS

Note: All of the comparator data uses working age population data for East Wales; some categories use employed data and others use unemployed. Annex 8 provides more detail.

4.5 Contribution of the Themes to the Thematic Priorities

Four overarching thematic priorities are used here to organise the discussion of the Programmes' activities35. These thematic priorities are: business, rural regeneration, infrastructure and community and human resource development (HRD). The Programmes' Priorities have been classified under the thematic priorities in the following way:

Table 4.20 Thematic priorities Thematic Priority Objective 1 Objective 3

Business Priorities 1 & 2 Priority 4

Rural regeneration Priority 5 -

Infrastructure Priority 6 -

Community & HRD Priorities 3 & 4 Priorities 1,2,3 & 5

35 All four of these priorities relate to the Objective 1 Programme, but only business and community and HRD are applicable to the Objective 3 Programme, due to the activities supported.


The way in which the three Cross Cutting Themes have contributed to each of these thematic priorities are discussed in general below. Examples of how projects have approached these are included to highlight particular experiences.

4.5.1 Business

Many of the stakeholder and project sponsor consultees pointed out that the majority of business orientated activities have not traditionally been focused on either promoting environmental sustainability or equal opportunities. The importance has been largely restricted to compliance with statutory requirements e.g. employment law. The field research from the stakeholder and project interviews found this to be partly the result of a lack of awareness of the issues by the individuals and / or organisations involved in delivering mainstream business support, as their specialisms tended to focus on mainstream business issues such as financial and business planning. Environmental advice has traditionally therefore tended to be provided by specialist providers rather than mainstream deliverers. Project sponsors interviewed who were involved with business support stated that they used separate specialist advisers for environmental and equalities advice to the mainstream business advice provided. However, WEFO advises that this has been consistently raised as an integration issue for business support projects and have been referred for environmental sustainability appraisal. To address this, Arena Network has been set substantial targets for establishing Environmental Management Systems (EMS) with business, which are being met through their approved Objective 1 projects. The Green Dragon Environmental Support ERDF project provides support to businesses within the Objective 1 region to improve their competitiveness and potential for growth as a result of implementing Green Dragon Environmental Management Systems36 (EMS) or other recognised EMSs. To complement the specialist work underway by organisations such as Arena Network, and to mainstream the approach to environmental sustainability amongst business support providers, more awareness raising training needs to be done with mainstream deliverers of business support and their understanding of the benefits for business from incorporating equal opportunities and environmental sustainability into their operations. This was raised as an issue during the interviews with both project sponsors and stakeholders. Demonstration of how this can be delivered directly to business as an integral element of

36 Green Dragon is a five-stage environmental management system relevant to the specific needs of your business. Participating organisations gain recognition for effective environmental management without necessarily adopting a formal management system.


support activities is also imperative, so that this advice is not 'bolted on' - i.e. advisers provide it as an integral component of the strategy developed for business and is given a high profile, as opposed to a by-thought added at the end. One of the project sample built conditions into its scheme as a way of integrating the Themes into delivery. Such approaches provide the opportunity to raise the profile of environmental sustainability and equal opportunities with business but risks them being seen as further unwelcome bureaucratic hurdles which – in extremis – may deter applications. It is important that addressing these issues with business is encouraged through small changes which are of a manageable size for business to adapt to each time. Trying to take too large a step with a company could lead to alienation and disenchantment and create barriers to future take up. There are some projects supported under the Programmes which have been designed to provide specific advice on the Themes. Delivery through these vertically designed schemes is an important method of targeting resources at encouraging companies to adopt the Themes. However, discussions with project sponsors highlighted that such schemes can face problems in attracting what are principally 'self-selecting' businesses to take part, as they do not offer other mainstream services to encourage participation.

Project Activity Example A:

This all- Objective 1 project is aimed at encouraging people from under-represented groups to start new businesses by providing additional support services to encourage participation and reduce the barriers to business start-up. The particular groups supported include young people, the over 50s, ethnic minorities, Welsh speakers, disabled people, and lone parents. The project also linked with a specific service to provide support for women. As well as providing specific business support services, the project also included a research phase on which to base the detailed implementation of the project and its evaluation.


Project Activity Example B:

This local networking project provided support to local businesses to promote trading between businesses in the area. The project found that women were less likely to participate, partly because they found it more difficult to actively participate in meetings and also because of practical issues such as the timing of meetings. The project therefore also established a separate women's network, which has been designed to accommodate the needs of women.

Demonstrating the direct benefits of taking up ICT by business tends to be more straightforward than environmental sustainability or equal opportunities. At the start of the Programme knowledge about the benefits to business was lower, but actions both under the Programmes and beyond - for example through high profile private advertisements for example by IBM - awareness has been improved.

Project Activity Example C:

This project provided a network of micro craft businesses with the support and advice to develop e-commerce capabilities, including web sites, to increase their marketing options and widen their markets. The project also involved other mechanisms to support craft businesses in e-commerce activities, such as bulletin boards, links to learning opportunities and fact sheets on ethical purchasing, e-trading, legislation etc.

In terms of capital build projects which provide business premises, data is available on the number of projects committing to BREEAM standards, although the implementation would only be established for those projects subject to Article 4 and 10 visits. However, these are issues which are considered during the appraisal process. For example, to achieve a High or Medium score under P1M5 and P6M3, projects must have committed themselves to BREEAM37. The Environmental Sustainability Unit has collected data on the proportion of brownfield sites which are used38. The level of brownfield sites in approved projects as at 9/8/05 is shown in Table 4.22 below; this demonstrates a preference in the use of brownfield sites. Data is also routinely collected on the hectares of derelict / contaminated land which is improved and this is used for employment / business uses.

37 Or previously BRESCU standards – Building Research Establishment. 38 This relates to the Objective 1 Measures: Priority 1:5 (sites and premises for SMEs) and Priority 6:3 (strategic employment sites).


Table 4.21 Percentage of Projects on Brownfield / Greenfield Sites in Objective 1 % of Projects

P1M5 – Sites and Premises for SMEs

Brownfield 83

Greenfield site with no brownfield alternative 12

Greenfield site 5

P6M3 – Strategic Employment Sites

Brownfield 77

Greenfield site 23 Source: WEFO

The research found a number of capital build schemes which have taken up environmental sustainability and have attempted to be exemplar projects.

Project Activity Example D:

This project involved the construction of a rural business unit complex and the sponsor worked closely with the local community to develop strong linkages with the site. Its construction also complied with the BREEAM standards and incorporated best practice in terms of energy and environmental efficiency in both its design and management.

One project interviewed during the fieldwork developed a sustainable procurement process, which aimed to encourage local producers and suppliers and hence minimise shipping distances whilst at the same time encouraging sustainable employment opportunities for local business. Through the project's experience issues have been flagged up relating to the capacity of local, often micro, business to respond to such a process. Some public bodies have developed elements of sustainable development into their procurement policies, for example, the Welsh Assembly Government sets out issues relating to sustainability in its document Winning Our Business. The Sell2Wales initiative (funded by the Objective 1 Programme) has produced a Guide2Tendering which is a guide aimed at small businesses to win work from the public sector. This guide makes reference to the new EU Procurement Directive, which must be implemented by January 31st 2006, which gives "limited recognition" to social and environmental criteria in procurement. The procurement process is one way in which the public sector can directly encourage business to incorporate environmental sustainability.


The incorporation of equal opportunities within capital build projects, has tended to be restricted to the requirements of the Disability and Discrimination Act (DDA), such as ramps for wheelchair access. The field research was unable to identify any examples which went beyond these requirements.

4.5.2 Rural Regeneration

Priority 5 under the Objective 1 Programme targets rural regeneration activities. Consequently the focus of the majority of Priority 5 projects falls naturally under the Environmental Sustainability Theme.

Project Activity Example E:

This project supported community organisations through grants. Its main aim was to promote the sustainable management and enhancement of the natural environment in the coastal and riverine habitats. The project focused on the Environmental Sustainability Theme. However, individual schemes supported under the project were also given support to develop their equality practices through new constitutions etc. thus providing Equal Opportunities support and capacity building.

Many of these projects also support the Equal Opportunities and ICT Themes, principally through reducing the peripherality of living and working in rural areas. The example below provides an example of one way that ICT has been able to address rural peripherality from services which have previously been mainly focused on urban areas.

Project Activity Example F:

This private sector scheme is to provide broadband infrastructure through wireless technology to rural areas. This technology is particularly suited to peripheral areas as it does not require subterranean cabling and can be designed to accommodate difficult topography. This is a case of how new ICT can support communities in rural areas, helping break down the 'digital divide'.

4.5.3 Infrastructure

Priority 6 provides support for strategic infrastructure, including support for transport, energy, environmental and employment sites. For two of the Measures (Measure 2 and 4) therefore, direct support is provided for the Environmental Sustainability Theme. This Measure has provided targeted resources for supporting environmental sustainability actions.


Project Activity Example G:

This employment site incorporated a number of different issues relating to all three Themes. The employment sectors to be supported at the completed site are energy, power and fisheries / aquaculture. These are themselves important for promoting environmental sustainability. An adjacent lake will be used for supporting local biodiversity and also as a sustainable cooling system for the building. In addition, the project specification includes the use of ICT to enable a 'smart' building and hence maximise environmental efficiency. This includes ICT controlled ventilation, lighting, heating etc. in addition to integrated broadband. Access to bus routes will also be easy from the site.

In addition to the example of private sector ICT investment cited under rural regeneration above, BT has also embarked on an investment plan to upgrade the majority of exchanges across Wales to enable broadband access.

4.5.4 Community and Human Resource Development

European Social Fund (ESF) projects under both Programmes and the Objective 1 Priority 3 supported schemes make up the Programmes' contributions to Community and HRD. Due to the nature of these projects in that they focus on people, in the main they support the Equal Opportunities Theme. From the field research it is difficult to ascertain the level of activity that has taken place in terms of raising awareness of Environmental Sustainability through training and community development schemes. Unless a specific focus of the training, the field research did not identify any training projects which had integrated environmental sustainability issues.

Project Activity Example H:

This Objective 3 project provided environmental training to increase the sustainability of targeted business sectors. The project provided tailored support to companies and practical advice on taking up environmental sustainability measures. It was particularly aimed at raising awareness about the small practical actions companies could implement, which would also provide benefits to the company in terms of cost savings etc.

Whilst Priority 3 (Community Economic Regeneration) of the Objective 1 Programme and P2M2 (Social Inclusion) of the Objective 3 Programme, have recorded high levels of output targets of beneficiaries involved in local economic, social and environmental development activities, it is not possible to determine the focus of this.


Project Activity Example I:

This project involved a partnership between Higher Education (HE) institutions and the voluntary sector and aimed to develop appropriate community based lifelong learning opportunities. The project has developed a number of tools to support voluntary groups operating in small communities. A number of equal opportunities training courses were run, for example Dyslexia Awareness and Promoting Diversity. A training guide was developed to provide advice to learning providers for ensuring they consider equality of access. The guide starts with: "From your car park take the journey as a potential learner arriving at your establishment", it continues to provide the practical issues to consider.

ICT is increasingly used as a medium for delivering training both through virtual learning schemes and direct contact. Increasingly the Internet is also promoted as a research and learning tool to support beneficiaries. However, there is still some reluctance to rely entirely on these methods as not all beneficiaries find it accessible and it can create barriers to the take up of learning.


5.0 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Model Used for Implementation

Chapter Summary Overall the research has found agreement that the baseline data used for establishing the Programmes' objectives for the Themes was generally appropriate, although there is some acceptance that time has moved on and different data would perhaps now be used to reflect changing circumstances and the new policy environment which has developed in Wales. The Cross Cutting Theme Group, comprising representatives for the three Themes, was important in establishing the profile of the Themes early on in the Programme. More recently the Group has suggested that its role should be reviewed. The research concludes that there is considerable value in the two pronged – vertical and horizontal - approach to integrating the Themes. There have been benefits from providing financial resources to achieve specific aspects of the Themes through Vertical Measures – such as those focused on the clean energy sector or ICT infrastructure. However, there is also value in encouraging all projects to address the Themes horizontally. This has raised the profile of the Themes and at the very least has encouraged organisations to consider their approach to the issues involved. The output targets established to measure the achievement of the Themes' objectives are generally suitable. However, the mechanisms for setting and collecting data from projects are constrained by the wider Programme management systems and this can inhibit the collection of relevant data, particularly in relation to ESF projects. More generally there must be a clear link from the outset between the activity which it is planned to support and the output target. Nevertheless, the targets have been essential in encouraging projects to integrate the Themes. The Programmes are monitored to a large extent on the basis of financial commitments and spend and the achievement of the Programme targets; having specific targets gives the Themes a status within the Programme management process, which they would probably not otherwise have. As is the case with the presence of the targets, the Themes' scoring and appraisal criteria were found to be crucial in profile raising and in encouraging integration. The relevant sections of the application forms have encouraged sponsors to think to some extent about the relevance of the Themes to their project, particularly where the Themes are applied


horizontally. However, there is perceived to be a large element of 'cut and paste' within applications. The analysis of the scores achieved by approved projects found wide variations in scores; this was also found under the Vertical Measures where it might have been expected that projects would score highly against the relevant Theme. Because of their objectives many projects find it difficult to address all three Themes. It is therefore suggested that there should be a focus of attention on those Themes which can be achieved, with the scores awarded to projects weighted differently according to the project and the Fund involved.

5.1 The Effect of the Themes in addressing the issues identified in the Programmes

5.1.1 Baseline Data for Scene Setting

There was limited familiarity with the baseline data in the interviews conducted; this is partly because of the time which has lapsed since it was developed and because much of the work was done by a relatively small number of individuals, including Assembly officials, and external agencies including environmental agencies, Chwarae Teg and the Wales Council for Voluntary Action (WCVA). The stakeholders, including the WEFO staff interviewed involved at the time, were focused on the policy and Programme implementation issues and not on the development of baseline data. However, the consensus amongst the specialist and stakeholders is that the data was the best which was available at the time and provided the best fit for the Programme's remit. Circumstances have changed and different data is now available, and therefore hindsight would suggest a different set of baseline data for setting the scene for the Programmes, particularly focusing on data which is regularly collected and which is available to cover the individual Programme area. As discussed in Section 2, there are clearly questions about the appropriateness of setting targets for indicators such as CO2 emissions for which data is not available at Programme area level and on which the Programme has, at most, only a marginal influence. As one consultee claimed:

"Overall the baseline data is useful in setting the scene and targeting resources, but we need to find ways of collecting data, and bringing together different data so we have a clearer picture overall."


5.1.2 Effectiveness of the Themes' objectives in addressing the baseline data's issues

The majority of the specialist Theme interviews felt that at the time of their development the objectives did reflect the baseline data. However, it was also suggested that since that time there have been developments in external factors and in the strategic background of Wales. For example, with regard to the ICT Theme, no one could envisage the 'dot.com' crash experienced globally post-2001. This created an uncertainty in the market and changed the likelihood of the market providing broadband connectivity as quickly as initially envisaged. As noted too, for some areas – for example, traffic growth in the Objective 1 region – objectives were set which the Programme could never hope to deliver. Conversely, it is clear that wider economic changes have driven improvements in the position of women in the labour market which in some areas go well beyond the Programmes' aspirations. More generally, there is clearly a question about the basis of the analysis from which some of the targets - for example, in relation to female entrepreneurship where the targets look substantially over optimistic - were set. Whilst the study did not include a comparison of activities to promote the Themes in Wales with other regions, one of the specialist Theme intervieews raised that WEFO included Cross Cutting Theme data on targets and scores on the WEFO website at the outset and this was not replicated in other regions. This also included ensuring there were links between the activities which were to be supported and addressing the Themes' objectives. This was considered to be an important stage in the establishment of the importance of the Themes in implementing the Programmes.

5.2 The Role and Effectiveness of the Cross Cutting Theme Group

5.2.1 Cross Cutting Theme Partnership

The Cross Cutting Theme Partnership comprises a number of individuals from stakeholder organisations across Wales. This is also referred to as the Cross Cutting Theme Group. Originally, the Group came together informally, in response to a perceived lack of attention being paid to the Themes in the Programmes' implementation. In the early stages of the Programmes it carried out an important lobbying and profile raising exercise which has helped to ensure the Themes have a stronger profile. A particular example of this was the representation it made to the Programme Monitoring Committees during the early stages and this resulted in an enhanced recognition of the Themes in the implementation of the Programme, including during the project selection process and in the formation of Partnerships. One interviewee stated:


"The effective lobbying of key structures like the Programme Monitoring Committee, to obtain their support to the proposals detailed in the [Cross Cutting Theme] Action Plan has ensured that to date most of the recommendations detailed in the Plan have been achieved."

5.2.2 Cross Cutting Theme Action Plan

The Cross Cutting Theme Action Plan was drafted by the Cross Cutting Theme Partnership and was published in 200139. It is focused on the Objective 1 Programme only. The Plan identified a number of key recommendations which have now been acted on - effectively becoming a work plan for WEFO and the Group. Figure 5.1 provides a summary of the Recommendations from the Action Plan. Progress on the Action Plan was reported to the Objective 1 PMC in 2004 and an update of the Plan was approved. The PMCs also receive Annual Reports on each of the Themes.

Table 5.1 Cross Cutting Theme Action Plan Recommendations

Recommendation 1: The Objective 1 Policy Group should include an additional member to represent the Cross Cutting Theme partnership if it is to advise the PMC on the implementation of the Themes effectively. The work of the partnership in taking forward the Themes should be recognised by the PMC and the Objective 1 Policy Group. The PMC and the Policy Group should work collaboratively with the Cross Cutting Theme partnership to ensure their deliberations include full consideration of the Themes.

Recommendation 2: The PMC is invited to endorse the guidance produced by the Cross Cutting Theme partnership as the basis on which those elements of the Themes should be integrated into LAPS, RAPs and projects, and as the basis for assessing LAPs, RAPs and projects.

Recommendation 3: Covering papers to full PMC papers will include a statement indicating how they have taken into account the Themes.

Recommendation 4: LAPs and RAPs should be actively encouraged to use Technical Assistance to help them mainstream the Themes into their own plans and projects.

Recommendation 5: WEFO should urgently establish the Equality Unit, as part of a broader Cross Cutting Theme unit.

Recommendation 6: ESF scoring criteria should be revised as a priority, to reflect more appropriately the content and the weighting to be afforded to Theme issues.

Recommendation 7: All monitoring and reporting of the Objective 1 Programme should include progress against the Themes' objectives and targets.

Recommendation 8: The PMC is invited to endorse the Action Plan to help ensure the mainstreaming of the Themes within the Objective 1 Programme.

Source: Objective 1 Programme Monitoring Committee PMC(01)43A 22 June 2001

39 Objective 1 Programme Monitoring Committee 22 June 2001. PMC(01)43A - Cross Cutting Themes Action Plan.


5.3 The Impact of Organising the Themes Vertically and Horizontally

5.3.1 Vertical Implementation

As indicated, there are a number of Vertical Measures across both Programmes, which target a specific Theme. These provide the opportunity to tackle a particular issue related to that Theme - for example, developments in the clean energy sector, promoting gender balance in the workforce, encouraging ICT infrastructure. These have provided a useful mechanism for tackling these specific issues or sectors. The specialist and stakeholder consultees considered the Vertical Measures to have generally been positive in terms of their impact on the relevant Theme because of their explicit focus. Some projects are not supported under a defined vertical Measure, but are vertical in their nature because their main aim is to address a particular Theme - for example, the WDA's project – Support Programmes for under–represented groups, funded under P1M2 (Promoting Entrepreneurship and Increasing the SME birth rate) – which is not a Vertical Measure. This project aimed to increase the number of people from under-represented groups considering and starting new businesses by providing additional services to encourage participation and to reduce barriers to business start-up. When a project is supported under a Vertical Measure, or is vertical in its nature, this does not automatically mean that it is supportive of the other two Themes, i.e. such projects do not necessarily implement the other Themes horizontally and there is often no evidence of a strong or automatic understanding of the other Themes. This is also true of schemes which focus on a particular aspect of a Theme, principally under the Equal Opportunities Theme; they do not automatically consider other aspects of the Theme. For example, a project which is addressing gender equality tends to focus purely on gender and does not always consider other aspects, such as support for disabled people or issues relating to BME people. The Vertical Measures have enabled resources to be targeted at specific issues and this has therefore provided a boost to them. The actual success of these Measures in meeting the Programmes' targets has already been discussed in Section 4.

5.3.2 Horizontal Implementation

Implementing the Themes horizontally means in principle that every project, irrespective of its aims and objectives, must address each of the three Themes in its design and implementation. This has had a mixed level of success.


The field research has found that many project sponsors still find it difficult to see how the Themes can be implemented in a practical way. Where sponsors or their partners are knowledgeable or experienced in an aspect of a Theme they are more likely to take it forward. Many interviewees, principally the specialist Theme and stakeholder interviewees, felt that the commitment to the integration of the Themes lacks conviction on the part of some projects. This was principally attributed to the lack of knowledge about the Themes. Many projects also bring together a variety of disciplines and needs and 'adding in' other issues can complicate already long and complex project development processes. This points to the fact that it will be a long process to change understanding towards the Themes, particularly Equal Opportunities and Environmental Sustainability. In terms of ICT, if it will support a project it is generally used if the budget allows. Although there are still examples where projects would have benefited from a different ICT application, this tends to be attributable to a lack of knowledge of what can be done. However, implementing the Themes horizontally has raised their profile and encouraged a learning process within a wide range of organisations and individuals; this was borne out through the majority of the project interviews. It was the view of the majority of specialist Theme and stakeholder interviewees that only by continually raising their profile will they start to be mainstreamed. Examples were found during the interview process of organisations which have taken up the Themes in their own management processes. For example, the Welsh Development Agency (WDA) now requires all projects being submitted for inclusion in future WDA Business Plans to consider the Equal Opportunities and Environmental Sustainability implications – irrespective of the involvement of European funding - and how the scheme will address these. This horizontal approach is therefore contributing to raising their profile further. A number of organisations - including Blaenau Gwent, Torfaen and Carmarthenshire County Councils - have developed Sustainability Matrices, which are used to assess schemes for support by the Authorities, outside the Structural Fund process. These examples were partially taken up by the sponsor organisations as a result of the horizontal implementation of the Themes, which were given added support by other activities and a willingness on the part of the organisations. There are undoubtedly other organisations which are also introducing mechanisms for encouraging the direct application of the Themes.


5.4 The Themes' Targets

5.4.1 The Appropriateness of the Targets Measuring the Cross Cutting Theme Objectives

Some comments on the issues involved are included in 5.1 above. The targets which are set need to be clear from the outset and link with the activity which can be supported. ESF Measures do not have as much flexibility in setting targets resulting from the interactive application form which was inherited by WEFO.40 Whilst the form is useful in many ways, it does mean that there are restrictions in its flexibility in capturing the outputs which could be achieved by projects.

5.4.2 The Ability of the Targets to be Measured

The targets, by their nature, are relatively easy to measure by the individual projects supported under ERDF, EAGGF and FIFG as they mainly refer to physical and easily measurable outputs. However, ESF projects have had some difficulties in collecting and / or reporting sensitive beneficiary data. Some have reported that beneficiaries refuse to provide the personal data requested, such as ethnicity. There is also a mismatch between the data which is required to report on the targets and the detail which is requested from projects. A particular issue relates to age; projects are required to report on beneficiary ages and their outcomes; however, the targets do not require this. However, it is acknowledged that some projects are targeting a particular age group and therefore age is an issue for the project, but not for the target and needs to be monitored. During the stakeholder and project sponsor interviews it was indicated that ESF projects face a great deal of confusion on the data which is required to be collected. Example forms provided at the start of the Programme gave bland examples of 'best practice', which included sensitive questions relating to issues such as basic skill needs, ex-offenders etc which were not appropriate for many projects, and were not accompanied by any guidance on completion. This has contributed to the confusion and complexity of the ESF monitoring data required to be collected. Some projects have devised their own forms which are tailored to the target groups of their specific project.

40 The form was compiled by the former Department for Education and Employment, DfEE, and is used across the UK for ESF projects.


A geographical monitoring system was set up in 2003 and this requires quarterly reports from projects on their progress against targets. This is specifically tailored to the Welsh Programmes' output targets. However, the ESF Project Closure Reports (PCRs), which were developed on a UK basis, and which are audited, do not include the Wales specific targets, such as Welsh speakers. This can lead to confusion with project sponsors on the information required to be collected. More recently, WEFO has started to distribute a form to guide projects with beneficiaries on the monitoring data which is required. WEFO advised us that this was instigated when it was discovered that many projects were not collecting data on beneficiaries that they were recording as benefiting from the project.

5.4.3 Importance of the Targets as drivers of integration

The targets provide a way of measuring the implementation of the Themes. Without some form of target, the Themes' status would be reduced considerably. The Structural Fund Programmes are required to be managed in such a way that places an emphasis on achieving spend and targets; other issues tend to attract less consideration and carry a lower priority. Therefore whilst the Themes' targets themselves do not generate projects, they do encourage the Programmes' management systems to encourage and support projects which generate these targets.

5.5 The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Scoring / Appraisal Criteria

5.5.1 The Scoring Criteria

A method for assessing applications for funding has been developed and involves an appraisal / scoring process in order to achieve a minimum standard in the quality of projects supported. How projects have approached the three Cross Cutting Themes forms part of this process. An overview of the appraisal process is provided below. In ESF projects, both under Objective 1 and Objective 3, 12 points (out of a total of 15041) are awarded towards each Theme's component of an application. The allocation of a score is intended to encourage a greater focus of attention on the importance of each of the Themes. The Themes are not gateway questions42, and therefore even if a project does not score well, it can still be supported.

41 Thus each Theme amounts to 8% of total the total score, with all three Themes together accounting for almost 25% of the scores. 42 Gateway questions are used to filter projects – projects have to address the Themes before they can progress for further assessment.


Section 4.7 (Environmental Sustainability) of the ESF form (Objective 1 and 3) asks:

How will your project support national regional and local approaches to sustainable development (development that can be maintained)? (total of 12 pts)

To answer this question you should refer to one or more of the following aims (component scores are indicated):

- Protecting the environment (3pts)

- Careful use of natural resources (4pts)

- Progress which recognises the needs of everyone (2pts)

- Maintenance of high and steady levels of economic growth and employment (3pts)

(Component scores are indicated against each sub-question)

For this Theme it was recognised that although many ESF supported projects may not have a direct impact on the environment, they can make a contribution by increasing awareness of environmental and social sustainability issues; this is built into the assessment. One specialist interviewee stated:

"People with the right attitudes to the environment and with the appropriate skills for whatever job they are doing, are more likely to respect their environment and do their work in a resource efficient way with the associated economic benefits. In some ways there is more potential with ESF than ERDF in achieving sustained benefits."

Section 4.8 (ICT) of the ESF form (Objective 1 and 3) asks:

How will you involve the Information Society and Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) when you carry out your project? (total of 12pts)

You should explain (component scores are indicated):

- What ICT you will use (3pts)

- How you will use ICT (3pts)

- What you expect the benefits and results of using the proposed ICT will be (6pts)



Section 4.6 (Equal Opportunities) of the ESF form asks:

How will your project support and promote equal opportunities? This is not limited to just sex, but includes promoting equal opportunities for all groups. (total of 12pts)

How do you expect your project to affect:

- Men and Women

- Ethnic Minorities

- Disabled people

- Any other excluded groups? (4pts)

What will the project do to promote equal opportunities? (4pts)

What actions will the project be taking to encourage equal opportunities? (4pts)


Projects submitted under ERDF, EAGGF or FIFG under the Objective 1 Programme go through an appraisal as opposed to a scoring process. Each appraisal question is graded as either High, Medium or Low. The numerical scores used in ESF are converted as follows for comparison with the non-ESF projects.

Table 5.2 ESF Scoring Compared to Non-ESF Appraisal ESF Score H / M / L Appraisal

9 – 12 points High

5 – 8 points Medium

0 – 4 points Low

The current application form 43 asks projects to:

Describe the positive and negative Environmental impacts of the project, or refer to the relevant section of the Project Plan. Remember that if there will be no adverse effects, or the effects will be positive, you must justify your view.

43 The current application form was introduced in 2003, and is much shorter. Sponsors are now required to submit an accompanying Project plan setting out the detail of their projects to support the application form.


The form also requests information regarding detailed aspects relating to compliance with environmental regulations which will only be relevant to some projects, for example, whether it involves National Nature Reserve etc. It also asks projects to give details of the consideration to using brownfield alternatives if the project is located on a greenfield site. With reference to the ICT Theme, the application form asks:

All grant-aided projects should make a positive contribution to ICT. Outline how ICT opportunities have been integrated into the project design and implementation, mentioning any specific components that show this.

The Equal Opportunities Theme question on the form asks:

All grant-aided projects should make a positive contribution to equality of opportunity for all. Outline how equal opportunities have been integrated into the project design and implementation, mentioning any specific components that show this.

The former application form broke Equal Opportunities down into a series of four questions which explored how the project was addressing the Theme in more detail. Overall the questions for both ESF and non-ESF projects are considered by consultees from all the groups to be appropriate, although in some cases there has been confusion over what is being looked for by the scorers. There are obviously areas where the questions are not always wholly suitable or may be too general, but without tailoring questions specifically to types of project, the common questions are likely to be the best method. It was felt by consultees that the questions have played an important role in reminding project applicants to review their approach to each of the Themes in the individual project, even if they planned to do it in any case. However, it is accepted that the questions and the scoring / appraisal process are unlikely to improve a project's approach to the Themes directly in most cases. There is a widespread view held by the specialist Theme and stakeholder interviewees that, across many projects, a general approach has been taken of cutting and pasting between project application forms and responses have not been tailored to an individual project, or even updated for a follow-on project. The points system used to assess ESF projects is not considered to be particularly useful in supporting the Themes by many of the consultees from all of the groups, although it is


recognised that each Theme's score was increased from 3 points to 12 points in 2001 giving them a higher profile. The requirement for a project to meet a quality threshold level of 65%, means that projects tend to focus on particular questions which they are able to address more easily; i.e. there is no need to seek to meet a minimum score for each individual question. However, WEFO does request projects that score particularly poorly on the Themes to readdress their answers. Many consultees across all of the groups favour the 'High/Medium/Low' appraisal system as opposed to the points system used in relation to ESF. This is mainly because of the issue raised above that points can encourage applicants to raise their scores in areas which are easier for a particular project, but where it may not be most appropriate for the overall success of the project. However, the appraisal system, as with the points system, is still a subjective analysis which can make it difficult for the scorer and applicant alike. A concern which was expressed by some specialist and stakeholder consultees was the knowledge and experience of the scorers in assessing projects' approaches to the Themes. The scorers are obviously required to assess a wide range of issues during the appraisal / scoring process, and to be experts on each of the Themes as well may not be possible. However, it was claimed that standards vary widely between scorers. It is not possible for the Theme Advisers to assess every project submitted, as these amount to several thousand applications, although they do comment on a selection. The volume of ESF applications submitted was attributed to the reason why many ESF applications are not forwarded to Advisers. A strong view was expressed by stakeholders and project sponsors in relation to the present equal emphasis of the three Themes in ESF projects. It was proposed that as ESF projects are people focused, Equal Opportunities could carry a greater weighting than Environmental Sustainability and ICT, although projects would still need to address the other Themes. This might also overcome to some degree the lip service which is often paid when projects do not see how to appropriately introduce the non Equal Opportunities Themes into many of the ESF projects. However, it is recognised that in some ESF projects, the Environmental Sustainability and ICT Themes could carry at least equal weighting to Equal Opportunities, for example environmental management training. This approach is also potentially relevant to the other Themes, where the weighting of each Theme could be tailored to the aims and content of the Measure / Fund involved. As one stakeholder consultee stated:

"Measure level scoring should have been primarily about the Measure."


One specialist interviewee stated:

The difficulty with the [scoring] system is that not all projects have the same opportunities to integrate the Themes and in some cases the opportunities vary hugely. Much more emphasis should be put on the effort which has gone in to maximising the opportunities which are available within a project rather than ticking boxes to questions which may not be relevant to a particular project.

5.5.2 Scoring Analysis

An analysis of the scores achieved by the approved projects during the application appraisal process provides some indication of the impact of the Theme scoring criteria on funding decisions. The scores achieved by approved projects have been examined by Vertical Measures, by Priority and, by Fund and by thematic priority. The detailed breakdown and findings of this analysis can be found in Annex 9. A summary of the findings is set out below.

5.5.2.1 Vertical Measures It might be expected that the relevant Cross Cutting Theme would score highly in the related Vertical Measures. It is also interesting to see how projects under these Measures score on the other Cross Cutting Themes. Only the Objective 1 Programme has ICT and Environmental Sustainability Vertical Measures. Both the Objective 1 and 3 Programmes have Equal Opportunities Vertical Measures. ICT scores achieved by P2M1 projects (ICT infrastructure) were all recorded as 'High', but perhaps surprisingly under P2M2 (stimulate and support demand for ICT) not all of the projects achieved a 'High' score, although none of the projects recorded a 'Low' ICT score. The scores achieved for the Environmental Sustainability and Equal Opportunities Themes under these Measures were mixed, with the latter generally achieving a higher level of scores. The five Environmental Sustainability Vertical Measures44 present a mixed picture in terms of the scores achieved for the related Theme. Surprisingly, there were approved projects under four of the five Measures which achieved 'Low' scores.

44 The five Vertical Environmental Sustainability Measures under the Objective 1 Programme are: P5M7 Enhancement & Protection of the Natural Environment; P5M8 Support for Recreational Opportunities & Management of Natural Environment; P5M9 Support for Coastal Fisheries & Aquaculture; P6M2 Energy Infrastructure; and P6M4 Environmental Infrastructure.


The Objective 1 Equal Opportunities Vertical Measure (P4M5 Improving the Participation of Women in the Labour Market) had a mixed level of scores for Equal Opportunities. This may be partially attributable to the fact that the Measure only targets one aspect of equality of opportunity - gender balance - whereas the Theme covers a range of other diversity issues, such as disability, Welsh language, ethnicity etc. Projects focusing on a particular equal opportunity issue, such as gender or support for disabled people, do not necessarily consider how they would approach other potential diversity needs of beneficiaries. Only one project recorded a low score against Environmental Sustainability under P4M5; all other projects scored either Medium or High against Environmental Sustainability and ICT. Vertical Measures (P5M1 and P5M2 – Promoting Gender Equality in the Labour Market) under the Objective 3 Programme both achieved a higher level of scores for the Theme than did the Objective 1 vertical Measure. Projects scored either Medium or High against Environmental Sustainability, whereas most projects scored Low against the ICT Theme.

5.5.3 Scores Achieved by Priority

Most Objective 1 rural development projects (Priority 5) and strategic infrastructure projects (Priority 6) have scored highly in terms of Environmental Sustainability. This is possibly because such projects have more obvious scope for environmental actions. However, WEFO have advised us that although scores were generally high, a number of strategic projects with substantial funding, in fact scored low. Any evaluations of these schemes should consider the Themes and assess whether there was further potential to address the Themes. Priorities 3 (community) and 4 (developing people) score 'Medium' to 'High', whilst Priorities 1 and 2 show mixed results, as illustrated in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1 Objective 1 Approved Projects' Environmental Sustainability Scores

52 22 28 41 21 7

118

4691

15675

9

124

58

137

268

139

470

100

200

300

400

500

1 2 3 4 5 6

Priority

Num

ber

of P

roje

cts

HighMedLow

Source: WEFO


Environmental Sustainability scores achieved by projects across all of the Objective 3 Programme's Priorities tend to be 'High', with very few 'Low' scores recorded.

Figure 5.2 Objective 3 Approved Projects Environmental Sustainability Scores

0 2 4 2 0

4358

3555

22

64

86

43

56

19

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 2 3 4 5

Priority

Num

ber

of P

roje

cts

HighMedLow

Source: WEFO

The ICT scores for all Priorities in Objective 1 are generally 'Medium' to 'High' with the exception of Priority 6 (strategic infrastructure), which shows mixed scores. (See Figure 5.3)

Figure 5.3 Objective 1 Approved Projects ICT Scores

27 11 23 20 32 18

160

49

162 146 134

22

105

57

71

296

84

180

100

200

300

400

500

1 2 3 4 5 6

Priority

Num

ber

of P

roje

cts

HighMedLow

Source: WEFO

There are a remarkably high proportion of Objective 3 projects with low scores for the ICT Theme, as illustrated in Figure 5.4, suggesting that although the Programme's projects tend to deal with human resource development issues, more could be done to make ICT a central part of projects.


Figure 5.4 Objective 3 Approved Projects ICT Scores

7492

5380

30

2022

10

14

6

12

32

20

21

6

020406080

100120140160

1 2 3 4 5

Priority

Num

ber o

f Pro

ject

s

HighMedLow

Source: WEFO

The Equal Opportunities Theme appears to have been considered to a greater extent in the Objective 1 Programme's Priorities 4 (developing people), 5 (rural development), and in particular Priority 3 (community regeneration). Those priorities dealing with SME development, the knowledge economy and infrastructure have tended not to score highly against this Theme, although in turn very few have 'Low' scores indicating that perhaps in most instances although Equal Opportunities is not a core 'issue' neither are such issues compromised. The pattern of scores is shown in Figure 5.5.

Figure 5.5 Objective 1 Approved Projects Equal Opportunities Scores

21 10 5 25 6 6

17981 69

199116

35

92

37180

242

127

170

100

200

300

400

500

1 2 3 4 5 6

Priority

Num

ber

of P

roje

cts

HighMedLow

Source: WEFO

As expected, Objective 3 ESF projects score well in terms of Equal Opportunities with very few 'Low' scores across all Priorities, see Figure 5.6.


Figure 5.6 Objective 3 Approved Projects Equal Opportunities Scores

7 2 5 10 2

52 7041

61

10

48

74

38

43

30

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 2 3 4 5

Priority

Num

ber

of P

roje

cts

HighMedLow

Source: WEFO

5.5.4 Analysis by Fund

5.5.4.1 ESF Funded Projects Objective 1 ESF projects score highly across all three Themes, particularly in relation to ICT and Environmental Sustainability. It would be expected that ESF projects - which by their nature focus on people - would achieve higher Equal Opportunities scores. However, a more flexible approach is adopted in relation to Environmental Sustainability and, to a lesser degree, ICT because of the nature of the projects. However, because of their focus on people, a stronger response is expected in relation to most projects' approaches to Equal Opportunities, compared to the other Themes, and less flexibility is given; this issue was raised during the stakeholder interviews. The comparison of the scores achieved are shown in Figure 5.7.


Figure 5.7 Scores Achieved by ESF Funded Projects (Objective 1)

2% 4% 8%

35% 36%50%

63% 60%42%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

ES ICT EO

Low Med High

Source: WEFO

The Objective 3 Programme's projects recorded relatively good scores for Equal Opportunities and Environmental Sustainability. However, projects tended towards 'Low' scores for the ICT Theme. This is illustrated in Figure 5.8.

Figure 5.8 Scores Achieved by ESF Projects (Objective 3)

2%

68%

5%

45%

14%

45%

53%

18%

50%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

ES ICT EO

Low Med High

Source: WEFO

5.5.4.2 Non-ESF Funded Projects Under the Objective 1 Programme, projects may be supported by the ESF, ERDF, EAGGF or FIFG. Project scoring is analysed in relation to each Fund. Non-ESF projects have typically scored well in terms of Equal Opportunities and Environmental Sustainability. Good ICT scores were also generally achieved. A


breakdown of the scores achieved by the non-ESF projects by Fund and can be found in Annex 9. Figure 5.9 illustrates the scores achieved by non-ESF supported schemes.

Figure 5.9 Scores achieved by non-ESF projects (Objective 1)

18% 12% 3%

34% 54%

45%

48%34%

52%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

ES ICT EO

Low Med High

Source: WEFO

5.6 The Effect of the Mid Term Evaluations on the Themes

Mid Term Evaluations of both Programmes were carried out in 2003, in accordance with the Regulations. The Evaluations of both the Objective 1 and Objective 3 Programme was carried out by a Consortium led by CRG Research.

5.6.1 Objective 1 Mid Term Evaluation Summary Conclusions

The Mid Term Evaluation of the Objective 1 Programme concluded that:

"The way in which the three Cross Cutting Themes are integrated into the Programme documentation is exemplary and the guidance available to project applicants generally thorough and well-targeted."

However, the report also stated that:

"project sponsors do not seem to give the Cross Cutting Themes particularly high levels of attention when drawing up applications. They make 'appropriate' entries on documentation, but there appears to be some scepticism about the real priority which needs to be given to them. In terms of both equal opportunities and environmental sustainability, a significant minority of project sponsors feel that one or other is not relevant to their project – this is particularly true for capital projects in respect of environmental sustainability."


The MTE found "relatively little evidence of projects tackling more demanding issues such as challenging gender stereotyping, although ESF projects appear to be meeting targets for the involvement of women, black and minority ethnic groups and disabled people." This point was further investigated in the Mid Term Evaluation Update for the Objective 1 Programme45 conducted in 2005, which concluded that "while projects under the Measure46 may have contributed to increasing activity rates amongst women, they have made few inroads into tackling gender segregation in the labour market." Projects funded by the Objective 1 Programme were found to have a notable effect in terms of the Information Society. However, a specialist interviewee stated:

"for the most part these are projects where the core activity relates to ICT. Outside of such projects, the impact of the Cross Cutting Theme on project implementation seems limited."

A similar pattern was found to apply to the Environmental Sustainability Theme, where some projects were found to be exemplars. A specialist interviewee stated:

"but in these cases, sustainability lies at the heart of the project's conception, rather than resulting from the need to address the Cross Cutting Theme."

The recommendations made by the Mid Term Evaluation for the Programme were limited to reviewing targets (Recommendation 12) for the ICT Theme (sub-recommendation j) and those relating to the participation of disabled people in the ESF measures (sub-recommendation k). In addition it was recommended that childcare targets be clarified and the aim of the targets be reviewed i.e. should they be related to short-term training, or alternatively sustainable childcare places. The targets have subsequently been reviewed and the Programme Complement revised. The Mid Term Evaluation recommended the merger of a number of the Programme's Measures. A number of these included the Themes' Vertical Measures. Priority 2 Measure 1 – ICT infrastructure - and Priority 2 Measure 2 – to stimulate and support demand for ICT - were merged. The new merged Measure was principally directed at revenue projects, as it was considered that the required infrastructure projects had either been already approved or were in the pipeline. However, an issue raised during the field research disputed whether sufficient infrastructure schemes had been supported – it

45 Mid Term Evaluation Update for the Objective 1 Programme, 2005, draft final report, Old Bell3 Economic Development and European Services. 46 Priority 4 Measure 5 – Improving the Participation of Women in the Labour Market (ESF)


was felt that this element of the Programme had been relatively under spent due to the unforeseen global changes in the approach to ICT, such as the dot.com crash. Concern was expressed during the specialist interviews that following this merger of the ICT Measures, the funds from P2M2 were transferred to P2M3 – Support for the Development of Innovation and R&D – just as projects were emerging to support the development of the demand side of ICT. Priority 2 Measure 5 – Clean Energy Sector Developments - and Priority 6 Measure 2 – Energy Infrastructure - were also merged. The focus of the new Measure was on clean energy, renewable energy and connections to strategic sites, with the aim of increasing the popularity of renewables. However, the timing of these changes were quite late in the Programme for developing these types of projects – which are commonly large scale and require planning permission and often involve the private sector. However a concerted effort to promote the funding available and target potential projects did result in a number of schemes coming forward. There were also a number of proposals for virement of funds involving Vertical Measures which were implemented. Whilst this exercise reduced some funding from Measures, other Vertical Measures secured increased resources. The virements were as follows:

Table 5.3 Proposed Virements involving Objective 1 Vertical Measures Virement of funding from Virement of funding to Value of virement

P2M5 Clean Energy Sector Developments

P2M3 Support for Development of Innovation R&D

€5.6 million (£4 million)

P6M2 Energy Infrastructure

P6M4 Environmental Infrastructure

P4M4 Improving the Learning System Value not specified

P5M1 Processing & Marketing of Agricultural Products P5M3 Forestry €3.413 million

(£2.438 million)

P5M2 Training – Services to Help Farming Adapt & Diversify P5M5 Investment in Agricultural Holdings

P5M4 Promoting Adaptation & Development of Rural Areas

€3.163 million (£2.259 million) & €1.249 million (£0.892 million)

P5M1 Processing & Marketing of Agricultural Products

P5M7 Enhancement & Protection of the Natural Environment & Countryside Management

€4.3778 million (£3.127 million)

<Objective 1 PMC(03)52 November 2003>

Recommendation 30 of the Mid Term Evaluation was that the PMC should initiate discussions "to identify how a resource could be made available (including Technical


Assistance) to provide practical advice to individual projects on integrating the Cross Cutting Themes into project implementation after the projects have received approval." WEFO reported47 to the PMC that:

"Discussions have taken place with a number of members of the Cross Cutting Partnership over recent months. A new network of ICT advisers has been established, and the Environment Agency and Chwarae Teg have secured Technical Assistance. Discussions with organisations supporting equal opportunities are on-going. The role of the Cross Cutting Themes unit in the appraisal process has been reviewed as part of the simplification arrangements, and the ICT advisor has been transferred from the WDA to WEFO."

From the field research only evidence of the Environment Agency support to Local Partnerships and representation on TAGs48 and the transfer of the ICT Adviser to WEFO were found. The Mid Term Evaluation Update49 reported that the Recommendation had been "partially implemented." This post-approval support is, however, provided by WEFO's EAGGF and FIFG appraisal staff, which appears to be a positive way of providing support for approved projects, and enables the transfer of experience between projects. However, it should be noted that this is resource intensive and would have major resource implications to establish for the whole Programme as EAGGF and FIFG staff have fewer projects to deal with than other WEFO appraisal staff.

5.6.2 Objective 3 – Mid Term Evaluation Summary Conclusions

As with the Objective 1 Programme, the Objective 3 Programme Mid Term Evaluation found that project sponsors do not give the Themes "particularly high levels of attention when drawing up applications." MTE stakeholders felt that at the application stage the incorporation of the Equal Opportunities Cross Cutting Theme had made appreciable progress, and useful guidance had been issued.

47 PMC(04)06 Mid-Term Evaluation: Response to Recommendations, March 2004. 48 The Environment Agency also provides support for the Environmental Sustainability Adviser, providing 50% of the cost of the post. 49 Mid Term Evaluation Update for the Objective 1 Programme – Final Report December 2005 pp.235


"Most sponsors believe they already have suitable policies in place, however, and the extent of ‘added value’ triggered by the need to address this Cross Cutting Theme is not necessarily high."

The MTE found evidence of "poor performance in relation to several equal opportunities targets (particularly linked to the involvement of black and minority ethic groups and disabled people)." There was found to be "limited attention" given to the Information Society requirements throughout the application / approval process.

"Having said this, projects typically do support the requirements of this Theme effectively, (albeit at the margin) if only through offering ICT training options widely and managing their own projects through relevant ICT applications."

Most ICT activity was mainly focused on ICT training. More ‘demanding’ elements (e.g. support for distance learning) were found to be less apparent. The Sustainable Development Theme seemed to be addressed "in only the broadest terms." General progress was considered to be "limited", linked to the low priority given to it at the application stage. This was attributed to the fact that:

"there appears to be some uncertainty in quite how this Theme should be addressed, though there is evidence that the incorporation of the sustainable development Cross Cutting Theme further encourages general awareness of the topic."

Recommendation 3 of the Objective 3 Mid Term Evaluation argued for a need to stimulate projects targeting support for women, black and minority ethnic individuals and disabled people. The Objective 3 Programme's October 2004 bidding round highlighted that projects addressing "Equality Issues - particularly the needs of disabled people" would be particularly welcomed.50 The Guidance also stated that under Priority 5 "project activity should focus on attitudinal change in the workplace and gender pay gap issues". It was stated that this was because a large amount of resources had already been committed to projects providing childcare. As with the Objective 1 Mid Term Evaluation, Recommendation 12 of the Objective 3 Evaluation suggested the review of the definition of childcare targets (sub-recommendation g) and targets for participation by disabled people (Sub-recommendation

50 East Wales Objective 3 Programme – ESF Application Guidance Notes 2004 – October Bidding Round Edition, WEFO.


h) need to be revisited. These targets were planned to be incorporated within the overall revision of the Programme Complement. Both of the Mid-Term Evaluations made a number of recommendations which enabled improvements in the targets and Measure budgets. However, they were not able to make any recommendations which would lead to real improvements in the implementation of the Themes, particularly at the project level, although some suggestions were made. Therefore, whilst lessons could be learned from the Evaluations, the benefits can only really be realised on a large scale through the development and implementation of future Programmes given the limited opportunity to make real changes during the current Programmes. However, some of the lessons learned can also be usefully used by domestic initiatives – for example Communities First and the Local Regeneration Fund.

5.7 Examples of Good Practice from other Regions

A short exercise was undertaken to look at the practice of other UK regions in relation to the Cross Cutting Themes. It should be noted, that given the brevity of this element of the study, we have not considered any evaluation of these practices and are therefore not able to provide a robust assessment of whether these practices would be effective in the Welsh context. However, they provide some interesting ideas to consider further. All Programmes implement the Equal Opportunities and Environmental Sustainability / Sustainable Development Themes. Only some Programmes implement the ICT Theme, with the others implementing 'Innovation' as a Theme. Innovation is defined as "the successful exploitation of ideas by individuals or businesses"51, and the eventual aim of this theme is to embed an innovation culture, changing the behaviour of individuals within organisations and organisations themselves. All Programmes and Regions promote the Themes to varying degrees but in similar ways and require the Themes to be addressed in all applications. Some regions have developed some useful and practical materials to support the Themes' implementation, and examples of these are provided below.

5.7.1 Government Office London – Equal Opportunities Guidance52

The Government for London (GOL) has developed guidance for advising projects on equality mainstreaming. It promotes the use of Equality Audits; these build on the concept

51 http://www.westmidlandsworkingtogether.org.uk/government/home.php 52 http://www.gos.gov.uk/gol/docs/189146/198595/252705/Equal_Opportunities_Guidance.pdf


of Gender audits which are considered to be good practice by the European Commission. Equality audits also include disabled people and people from ethnic minorities or any other group whose progress is relevant to be monitored by the organisation. The Guidance talks an organisation through the development of its policies, starting with a check on how existing policies work in practice. The audit also acts as a way of consulting with members of the organisation and participants. It is to be repeated at regular intervals to assess progress against objectives. The Guidance states that audits are designed to assess the starting point for developing a mainstreamed approach to equality and can be used for any size or type of organisation, or project.

5.7.2 Merseyside – Cross Cutting Themes Policy Managers

The Merseyside Objective 1 Programme uses Cross Cutting Themes Policy Managers, similar to the Cross Cutting Theme Advisers in Wales. The Policy Managers are able to provide comments to every project supported under the Programme, and provide advice to the applicant to explore different avenues. Given the scale of the Programme in Merseyside the resources are able to allow for this direct involvement by the Policy Managers. This method of support has also been used in Wales for projects as a whole – not just the Cross Cutting Themes - by WEFO's EAGGF / FIFG Division which manages Objective 1 rural based projects. Guidance and information relating to the Themes on the Merseyside Objective 1 website53 is also easy to find. This is helpful to project sponsors and probably helps to raise the profile of the Themes.

5.7.3 West Midlands – Highlighting Events and Best Practice

The West Midlands Programme website's Cross Cutting Theme pages, in addition to the standard guidance, provide details of events, such as conferences and seminars, and new guidance on Theme related aspects. For example, a seminar entitled BREEAM and Beyond is advertised which is organised by Government Office West Midlands (GOWM), Advantage West Midlands (AWM), Eastside and the Local Strategic Partnership. It aims to demystify the BREEAM (Building Research Establishment's Environmental Assessment Method) standards for commercial buildings. The event will involve BREEAM experts and also examples of best practice examples of BREEAM in action.

53 http://www.euandmerseyside.org/


The website also includes helpful examples of how projects have approached each of the Themes both vertically and horizontally.

5.7.4 The GB Equal Programme

Projects in receipt of Equal funding are expected to base their overall approach to mainstreaming equality on the model used in Local Government. This model is seen by the Equal Programme as representing current best practice. The model consists of 5 levels; progression through these levels ensures mainstreaming of equality and diversity. Level 1: Committing to a comprehensive equality policy Level 2: Assessment and consultation Level 3: Setting equality objectives and targets Level 4: Information systems and monitoring against targets Level 5: Achieving and reviewing outcomes In addition, the EQUAL Programme recommends five steps that can be taken in order to progress through the five levels above. These are as follows: • Develop a policy which all partners can commit to; • Draw up an equalities baseline to use to measure progress; • Set SMART targets for equality objectives; • Collect monitoring data systematically throughout the programme; and • Evaluate progress and review policy and targets at regular intervals.

5.7.5 Useful examples from the other regions

Three key aspects were drawn from the way the other Programmes approach the Themes. Firstly, providing easy to locate information and guidance is essential for engaging with project sponsors. Secondly, providing guidance and links which can help on specific aspects provides sponsors with detailed information and promotes best practice. This guidance is not necessarily produced directly for the Programme's activities. It can usefully be supplemented by providing real examples of projects which have been successful in their approach to the Themes. Finally, it is helpful to provide practical tools which can help organisations design, run and evaluate their projects.


6.0 Conclusions

Summary of Recommendations for Future Implementation Based on the research a number of recommendations are made for future Programmes which will help to encourage the continued integration of the Themes. In outline these focus on: • A review of the application form to provide a simplified format which is flexible and is

able to take account of the particular aims and objectives of the Structural Fund Programmes in Wales;

• A simplification of the application process focused on ensuring that project design takes account of the Themes at an early stage;

• A weighting of the scores against the Themes according to the type of project, reflecting the extent of the opportunities available to contribute to different Themes;

• Ensuring that the output targets are agreed upfront and are accommodated in the design of the monitoring and evaluating procedures when the administration arrangements for the Programmes are put in place;

• Developing the current network of advice and support to increase the availability of this service. Providing dedicated support in relation to a number of Assembly programmes would be beneficial and take the pressure off those who currently provide such support as an adjunct to their other responsibilities;

• Adopting a regular programme of events and activities which are able to promote good practice in the integration of the Themes and publicising a range of practical examples of how projects have integrated the Themes;

• Continuing the approach of horizontal and vertical integration of the Themes; • Retaining the Cross Cutting Theme Group to at least establish the Themes within the

new Programmes; • Reviewing the terminology used for each of the Themes to ensure it adequately reflects

the activities of the Programmes and promotes best practice in projects, and, • Building in an ex-ante assessment of the Themes to establish baseline data from which

to measure progress towards their integration.

6.1 The Effects of the Themes in Achieving the Broader Social and Economic Aims of the Programme

The effects of the Themes need to be considered at a number of levels:


• The majority of the Cross Cutting Theme headline targets for the two Programmes seem likely to be achieved, as discussed in Section 2, although in some cases the necessary data to make a proper assessment is not available. The more important point, however, is that the extent to which there is a strong causal link between actions under the two Programmes and changes in the relevant headline indicators is probably fairly limited. It is likely, for example, that the improvements which have been seen in the position of women within the labour market have been driven to a greater extent by wider economic trends rather than by activities which have been funded through the Programmes;

• The majority of the specific output targets for both Programmes – which were analysed

in Section 4 - also seem set to be achieved, with a significant number already attained – although in most cases a substantial amount remains to be done if the projected results are to be delivered. Whilst some targets under each Theme are likely to be missed, underachievement in some areas will be balanced by substantial overachievement in others. However, performance against the Environmental Sustainability targets looks likely to fall behind that of the other two Themes, although it is accepted that these targets were raised considerably as part of the MTE54. It is impossible to unpick how far outputs can be attributed to the existence of the Themes within the Programmes. In some cases – particularly under the Vertical Measures – it is clear that the particular form of the Programmes has driven the outputs, but in other areas it is likely that the establishment of the targets has led to the reporting of outputs which might have been delivered anyway, as discussed in Sections 3.1 and 5.3. Against this, it is clear that the partial nature of the targeting process means that a substantial proportion of the relevant outputs go unreported;

• The evidence on the impacts of the Themes on the creation of employment and on the

quality of the employment which is created is unsatisfactory, as discussed in Section 4.2:

► The only area where there is clear evidence of job creation is in relation to the

Vertical Measures under the Objective 1 Programme. The output data indicates that these Measures have been responsible for 10% of the (gross) direct jobs being created under the Programme (4,400 jobs) and for 38% of the indirect gross job creation (1,020 jobs);

54 Only the Environmental Sustainability targets were raised as part of the MTE and not the Equal Opportunities and ICT Theme targets.


► Projects only report on the number of full-time equivalent jobs which they create. They do not typically collect or report information on the characteristics of the jobs which are created or on the characteristics of those who hold these jobs;

• Where information is available on the characteristics of project beneficiaries the

evidence is that:

► The proportion of female beneficiaries mostly exceeds their proportion within the labour force, as illustrated in Section 4.4.3;

► The representation of Black and Minority Ethnic people (shown in Section 4.4.4)

appears to far exceed their representation within the labour market whilst the proportions of disabled people (Section 4.4.5) and Welsh speaking beneficiaries (Section 4.4.6) appear to be relatively low. However, the robustness of these results is open to question because of issues about the consistency of definitions and the high proportion of 'don't know' responses on these aspects;

• The Objective 1 Programme is on course to achieve its childcare targets, as discussed

in Section 4.3, and the Objective 3 Programme is likely to substantially exceed its targets. However, there is not much evidence that this has influenced participation rates, with many beneficiaries apparently preferring other – presumably longer term and/or 'cheaper'– arrangements even where provision exists within projects. Specific survey work with beneficiaries would be needed to explore this issue properly;

• The Themes have to be seen to a large extent as part of a long term quasi-political

process for driving attitudinal change. The Programmes will have contributed to this; they have clearly helped to raise consciousness of the issues involved and to develop and disseminate good practice. The bottom-up partnership approach under the Programmes has also provided the development of the capacity to develop best practice projects. Identifying the shorter term results of such developments – and isolating the impacts of the Programmes from the various other drivers of change which are working in the same direction – is, however, clearly impossible.

The research also considered the thematic priorities of Business, Rural Regeneration, Infrastructure and Community and Human Resource Development (HRD) and highlighted how some of the activities carried out under the Programmes are supported by the Themes. In summary the Themes have contributed to the thematic priorities in the following ways:


• Business – awareness of the need to integrate environmental sustainability appraisal to business support programmes has been raised and large scale projects supported to increase the support available to encourage businesses to adopt environmental management systems. Vertical Measures have provided support and profile raising for all three Themes to be taken up by business;

• Rural regeneration – The Themes have provided enhancements to projects which are

directed towards supporting rural areas, through both Vertical and Horizontal Measures. Environmental projects have been directly supported and schemes have been funded which seek to address the needs of individuals who live in rural areas. There have also been schemes using ICT to overcome the remoteness of rural areas;

• Infrastructure – The Objective 1 Programme has emphasised the benefits of

constructing buildings to the environmental BREEAM standards, energy saving measures and constructing buildings which are accessible to all, in capital build projects. There have also been a number of vertical schemes directly supporting environmental and ICT infrastructure; and,

• Community and Human Resource Development – Equal Opportunities has been the

main influencing Theme contributing to this thematic priority, as it covers people orientated activities. In many cases ICT has been used to support these activities. Environmental sustainability has also provided support for these projects, particularly community schemes which have undertaken environmental projects.

6.2 How Well Have Projects Integrated the Themes?

Many projects supported under the Programmes gave relatively vague or low key descriptions of their commitments to the Themes. In these cases it is difficult to assess whether projects had achieved their original commitments or not. However – as discussed in Section 3.2 - all of the project case studies within the field work indicated that they could demonstrate they had at least met their proposed intentions with regard to the Themes. However, a widely held perspective highlighted by stakeholders during the field research was that the majority of projects pay lip service to the Themes, particularly where the Themes apply horizontally. Projects often find it difficult to see how they can apply the Themes in a horizontal manner, particularly when they have to ensure that their project meets a range of other critical and no doubt, often more pressing constraints such as timescale, securing match funding, consultation and statutory requirements.


However, the high profile of the Themes in the Programmes has meant that project sponsors have been encouraged to consider the Themes. At the very least, it has highlighted the need to consider and address the issues involved in some way and it has raised their importance. Building on the last point in 6.1 above, continually drawing attention to the Themes should gradually lead to an incremental increase in their integration in project design. The field research found examples of individuals who were keen on promoting these issues within their organisation, using the Structural Fund requirements to add extra impetus to the case for the Themes. The major factor which was highlighted during the fieldwork as the cause of projects missing opportunities to apply the Themes is the lack of knowledge on how to integrate them at the design stage. Section 3.2.3 highlighted the need for projects to receive practical and realistic advice at an early stage in their development. Otherwise the result can be the 'bolting-on' of actions, sometimes resulting in a lack of genuine adoption of the Themes. Section 3.3 sets out a number of factors which were identified during the field research as barriers to the implementation of the Themes, including higher costs and the resultant need for increased match funding, as well as the interaction with other administrative requirements and processes. An overarching issue which links many of the barriers is that many factors need to be addressed both in the design of a project and in the administrative requirements of the application and approval process. Project sponsors, in all sectors and organisations, often find it difficult to meet all of the demands. A further key element is the lack of knowledge and experience of building the Themes horizontally into a project. The guidance provided in terms of written materials and advice and support for implementing the Themes have generally been well received (Section 3.1). The key feedback is the need for specific practical examples of how the Themes could be integrated. Requests were made for short and simple fact sheets and case studies of projects which have been successful and for examples where approaches have not been successful. Almost all of the projects interviewed during the fieldwork claimed that they would have done what they had set out to do with regard to the Themes in any case (Section 3.4) – re-emphasising the point about the likely effective 'deadweight' in the reported outputs noted in 6.1 above - although the high profile of the Themes did encourage sponsors to review their approach. However, all projects and stakeholders interviewed during the research believe that knowledge of the Themes has increased markedly since the start of the


Programmes in 2000. The issue to address now is to improve sponsors' practical knowledge of how to integrate the Themes horizontally. The monitoring process which operates across both Programmes has evolved over time. Reporting requirements in relation to the Themes have been added on – along with other additional reporting - but the targets which have been set for the Programmes do not always fit neatly with the information which is collected and their evidential basis is not very clear. ESF projects through their nature, support a range of individuals and target groups, and face extensive data monitoring requirements, which are to a large extent determined at UK level. Some of the personal information which is sought may also not always be readily provided by beneficiaries. Section 3.5 considers the issues in relation to the monitoring systems. Section 3.2.1 draws out the low priority which projects often place on implementing the Themes since follow-up is perceived to be minimal. There is also a concentration on the quantitative monitoring of projects, although the effectiveness of actions in relation to the Themes can often only really be assessed by qualitative evaluation. On a positive note, the Themes are specifically considered in the monitoring visits which are conducted by WEFO, as set out in Section 3.5. Whilst these visits are not able to consider the Themes in too much depth as their focus is on finance and project management and the visiting teams may not have a great deal of technical expertise on the Themes, they do help to raise their profile.

6.3 The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Model used to Integrate the Themes

Knowledge of the baseline data was relatively low amongst the stakeholders interviewed during the research; this is partly attributable to the time since the Programmes were developed and also because these aspects of the Programmes were drawn up by a small number of individuals. Despite this, as discussed in Section 5.1, the general view is that the baseline data were sufficient for setting the scene for the Themes. However, the availability of relevant data has moved on and future Programmes could clearly benefit from the use of a more extensive range of data and more systematic analysis of how relevant indicators could be expected to change as a result of both wider trends and the impact of the actions which it is proposed to fund. Section 5.2 of the report considers the role of the Cross Cutting Theme Group. Many stakeholders believe that it has played an important role in enhancing the position of the Themes in the implementation of the process, through raising the profile with the


Programme Monitoring Committees (PMCs) and providing advice and guidance to WEFO. This role was particularly important in the early days of the Programme. The field research leads us to conclude that there is substantial merit in the combination of a horizontal and vertical approach to the integration of the Themes. As discussed in Section 5.3.1, the Vertical Measures have enabled funding to be channelled specifically towards particular identified issues, such as the need to develop clean energy, increase broadband infrastructure, or address gender balance issues in the labour market. At the same time, the horizontal approach establishes more general pressures on projects to at least start to address the Thematic concerns. This is especially relevant in relation to the Equal Opportunities and Environmental Sustainability Themes. ICT can play an important role in improving the way in which a project is run - such as web sites for marketing purposes or opening up e-learning opportunities for peripheral communities etc; it broadens the way in which issues can be addressed. Measuring the impact of the Themes proves to be difficult, as considered in Section 5.4. The available targets and indicators provide at least a partial measure of the results of the Themes. However, some of the most important benefits - particularly from the horizontal approach - are the qualitative outcomes, including attitudinal change, which are much more difficult to measure and interpret. A more structured approach to encouraging evaluation – including self-evaluation - of projects would add benefit here. The Themes' targets do not, in the most part, influence the structure of projects; instead, sponsors select the appropriate Measure under which they can secure funding and then commit themselves to the targets which they consider to be achievable by the particular project. However, the selection process of the Programmes does help to direct support to those projects which are most able to contribute to the targets, although the pressures to achieve spend have probably limited the practical importance of this effect. Although there are no gateway criteria as such, the scoring process has played an important more general role in raising the profile and importance of the Themes to project sponsors. Section 5.5 of the report discusses the issues relating to the scoring criteria. A practical point is that the scoring criteria encourage sponsors to review their projects from the point of view of the Themes. The appraisal process used for the non-ESF projects appears to exert a more effective influence than the numerically based ESF assessment. The approach of weighting the contribution to all three Themes equally for all projects is problematic. For example, ESF projects - which by their nature deal with people as a central component - should arguably be required to address Equal Opportunities in a more


challenging way, whereas Environmental Sustainability, which is more difficult to realistically address, should probably generally carry less emphasis in relation to such projects. However, it remains important to ensure that all projects should still be required to address all three Themes. If a weighting of the Themes is introduced, this should be accompanied by the Themes' questions being gateways. This weighting could be reviewed for each Measure, to encourage emphasis on the most appropriate Theme. Additionally, there is a reasonable argument that the Objective 3 definition of sustainable development, as opposed to environmental sustainability, is more applicable in relation to ESF projects, as it also takes account of social and economic impacts. The effect of the Mid Term Evaluation of both Programmes is considered in Section 5.6. The major focus of the Evaluation's recommendations which were taken forward related to budget virements and reviewing targets. Those recommendations which related to strengthening the implementation of the Programmes were not apparently taken forward in such a clear way. This presumably partly reflects the priority placed on the needs to ensure that resources are fully committed and that the targets – against which the Programmes will eventually be evaluated – will be, as far as possible, met. Some of the recommendations – such as reviewing the application form and implementing a system of advice for approved projects – might also have taken too long to implement to have much useful impact this time round given the limited time the Programmes have left to run.

6.4 Key Points for Future Implementation

This final section of the report provides a series of recommendations which build on the findings and conclusions from this research study. The proposals seek to build on the profile of the Themes which has been created during the current Programmes.

6.4.1 Reviewing the application form

The application forms could be both better adapted to meet the needs of the two Programmes and simplified. Reflecting the problems experienced with ESF monitoring and data collection as discussed in Section 4, and the associated inflexibility of the UK-wide application form, discussed in Section 5.4, the ESF form in particular needs to be customised to reflect the particular circumstances of Wales and the associated form of the Equal Opportunities objectives. The forms should be constructed to allow sponsors to fully set out their plans, the justification for the activity and the outcomes. Ensuring that projects can clearly set out and show a clear link between the aims and objectives of the relevant Programme, the project's activities and the expected results / outputs is important.


Whilst there is merit in having separate questions relating to each of the Cross Cutting Themes, as it ensures projects reflect on the issues involved, as demonstrated through the consultations, also ensuring the other questions reflect 'sustainable development' principles, would enable the Environmental Sustainability and Equal Opportunities Themes to be better integrated into projects. A specific question relating to the use of ICT / other technology to support the project would also have merit. In conjunction with a revised application form - which itself could assist - the complex application process needs to be simplified. This was highlighted in terms of the voluminous guidance available as part of the application process discussed in Section 3.1, and the potential delays incurred by the various stages which projects have to go through, for example securing statutory approvals, as noted in Section 3.3. A more streamlined approach to the requirements of the application and selection process would provide a clearer focus for project design, including the integration of the Themes. An application process which provides projects with guidance on design and encourages projects to be built up based on the Themes' principles would provide a closer integration and in overall terms a stronger project. In essence this is a mainstreaming of the Themes in the application process itself.

6.4.2 Scoring

All projects should be scored / appraised against the three Themes. However, the scores should be weighted depending on the aims of the particular Measure and Fund - as discussed in Section 5.5 - to ensure that the approach to the Themes is tailored to the project and funding. For example, ESF projects targeting the unemployed should be required to address Equal Opportunities to a greater extent than Environmental Sustainability. Weighting should relate to the extent of the opportunities to address the Themes within a particular type of project. However, this weighting of scores should be accompanied by a requirement to achieve a minimum threshold against all three Themes combined and retain the horizontal approach to implementation. Projects would be required to meet this Cross Cutting Theme threshold before receiving approval. The scoring process also needs ideally to reflect the characteristics / starting situations of the sponsors and beneficiaries involved in a realistic way, as discussed in Section 3.2.

6.4.3 Targets and Monitoring and Evaluation

Programme and Measure targets must be agreed up front in line with objectives for the Themes and in conjunction with the design of the monitoring and evaluation procedures.


This will enable a single system to be put in place which will ensure the collection of appropriate information from projects. The difficulties of many projects in measuring or demonstrating their approach to the Themes, as discussed in Section 3.2, could be overcome to a certain degree by the requirement for each project to set itself a number of specific targets and actions directly relating to each of the Themes, reflecting in a realistic way the characteristics of the sponsors and the intended beneficiaries. This would make it easier to assess how projects have implemented the Themes and provide projects with clear actions and milestones for addressing the Themes, in contrast to the often ambiguous nature of the current system. A formal system for evaluating an extensive sample of projects should be implemented. This will provide a basis for a more effective assessment of the impact of projects, including that of the Cross Cutting Themes, as well as establishing greater pressures on projects to comply with their commitments. Greater emphasis needs to be placed on the assessment of qualitative impacts, including 'distance travelled'. Self-evaluation should also be encouraged. Providing clear advice on the monitoring and evaluation required of projects before a project starts is important, so that systems can be put in place by each project in advance and, where appropriate, the necessary baseline information can be collected and/or follow-up survey work planned. At the Programme level there would be benefit in formally incorporating ex-ante assessments of the Themes to establish baseline data. This would enable a progress of the Themes' integration at the Programme level.

6.4.4 Network of Advice and Support

Section 3 discussed the various forms of support available for the Themes which suggested that the support available, particularly in the early stages of project development, should be increased. A network of advisers across Wales for the Themes who are able to provide targeted advice and support for all projects would be an important step in ensuring the design of projects integrates the Themes. It is important that this is the main role of these advisers and that it is not an 'add on' to their main job. The role and effectiveness of this network of advisers would be further strengthened if they were able to provide this service to support all public sector funded programmes. This would be a way of raising the importance of the Themes across other domestic


Programmes and provide a way of supporting strategic Assembly policies in promoting sustainable development and diversity. This advice and support would be beneficial both during the project design stages and also once the project has been approved. This post-approval support would enable projects to ensure they are able to effectively implement the Themes and adapt to changing circumstances. There would also be benefit in providing further training on the Themes for those that deliver mainstream services, such as business support or training schemes, so that they are integrated more fully into delivery as highlighted in Section 5.4.1. If the individual delivering the service had an understanding of the Themes they would relay a more positive message about the adoption of the Themes to users and trainees and it would be integrated into mainstream delivery, for example through training courses or financial business support services.

6.4.5 Practical Examples

Reflecting the need highlighted in Section 3.1, case studies of how projects have integrated the Themes effectively, and experiences of where the approach has not been successful, would be useful in demonstrating to project sponsors how to approach the Themes. This should be provided in a number of different ways, including printed materials distributed widely, web site features, high profile seminars and practical workshops. As an example the Conclusions of the Bristol Informal Meeting on Sustainable Communities in Europe55 in December 2005, provides eight characteristics which would be useful guidance for projects. These are attached in Annex 10.

6.4.6 Vertical and Horizontal Organisation

Reflecting the strengths identified in terms of implementing the Themes throughout all projects, as shown in Section 5.3, and the need to continue to encourage and improve their integration, the continued horizontal application of the three Themes is recommended. The Equal Opportunities and Environmental Sustainability / Sustainable Development Theme need to underpin the conception of projects if they are to be integrated effectively. Practical actions can then be more easily integrated into projects, rather than being treated as 'bolt on' elements.

55 http://www.odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?docid=1162287


In the future the ICT Theme could be treated separately to the other two Themes, with the focus being on encouraging projects to consider the technology which could be used to enhance implementation and project management. There is also merit in continuing to provide resources targeted at particular aspects of the Themes through appropriate Vertical Measures, e.g. energy infrastructure, as discussed in Section 5.3.1. The specific issues to be targeted should be based on the recommendations of prior studies, ex ante evaluations and the latest baseline data.

6.4.7 Terminology

Reflecting views expressed during some of the interviews and taking account of developments taking place outside of the Structural Fund Programmes, we make some suggestions about the terminology for the three Themes. There is benefit in retaining the term 'Environmental Sustainability' because of its clear focus, particularly for 'physical' projects. There are also advantages in using the term 'Sustainable Development' for training and education projects, where a more broadly based approach is needed. This would need to be used in conjunction with a framework to guide the development and appraisal of projects. The implementation of the Equal Opportunities Theme might be enhanced by using the more recently adopted term 'Diversity'. This should help to take it a further step away from the confines of organisational equal opportunities policies and employment legislation. Whilst Information and Communications Technology (ICT) would cover most relevant technology applicable to projects, a wider definition should be allowed to encourage projects to consider any technologies which would benefit their implementation and bring greater benefits.

6.5 Concluding Remarks

In conclusion we would emphasise that a great deal of work has been undertaken in encouraging the integration of the three Themes across the Objective 1 and 3 Programmes. This has resulted in benefits in terms of raising the profile of the Themes and improving awareness of their importance. Future work now needs to focus on building upon this position, developing understanding of the Themes and improving their integration within all projects. This can be supported through the development of systems and processes which enable the measurement of the integration and impact of the Themes, with a simplified funding application and project management process.


Annex One Bibliography

A1

Bibliography

Better Quality of Life: a strategy for Sustainable Development for the UK, May 1999 Business in the Information Age: The International Benchmarking Study, 2004, Department for Trade and Industry East Wales Objective 3 Operational Programme 2000-2006 East Wales Objective 3 Programme - ESF Application Guidance Note 2004 - October Bidding Round Edition, WEFO East Wales Objective 3 Programme Complement 2000-2006 East Wales Objective 3 Programme Monitoring Committee - Mid Term Review Proposals - PMC3(04)52, November 2003 East Wales Objective 3 Programme Monitoring Committee – Suspension of Indicative Financial Allocations for the East Wales Objective 3 Programme (ESF) - MC3(04)117, March 2004 East Wales Objective 3 Programme Monitoring Committee - Implementation of the Sustainable Development Cross-Cutting Theme: Progress Report (December 2005, draft) East Wales Objective 3 Programme Monitoring Committee - Mid Term Evaluation: Response to Recommendations - MC3(04)116, March 2004 Government Office for London - Equal Opportunities Guidance www.gos.gov.uk/gol/docs/189146/198595/252705/Equal_Opportunities_Guidance.pdf Institute for Employment Studies, Guide to Measuring Soft Outcomes and Distance Travelled, produced for the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE), 2000 Mid Term Evaluation of the Objective 1 West Wales and the Valleys Programme 2000-2006, CRG Research Ltd in association with Cardiff University and Fitzpatrick Associates Mid Term Evaluation of the Objective 3 East Wales Operational Programme 2000-2006, CRG Research Ltd in association with Cardiff University

A2

National Assembly for Wales, Equality of Opportunity Committee - Mid-Term Evaluation of the Objective 1 Programme for West Wales and the Valleys, 2 October 2003 National Entrepreneurship Observatory, Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: 2004 Wales Executive Report, produced for the Welsh Development Agency Objective 1 - Maximising the Environmental Sustainability of the West Wales & the Valleys: A Step-by Step Guide for Project Applicants and Programme Managers, Prepared by Environmental Resources Ltd, October 2000 Objective 1 Priority 3 Measure 3 Environmental Appraisals (undated) www.wefo.wales.gov.uk Objective 1 Programme Monitoring Committee 22 June 2001, PMC(01)43A - Cross Cutting Themes Action Plan Objective 1 Programme Monitoring Committee, November 2003 PMC(03)52 – Mid-Term Review Proposals Objective 1 Programme West Wales and the Valleys - Considerations relating to Bilingualism (undated) www.wefo.wales.gov.uk Objectives 1 and 3 Applicants' Guide to integrating environmental sustainability - HRD Regional Level Applications, produced by the Environment Agency Wales and partners, 2003 Old Bell3, Mid Term Evaluation Update for the Objective 1 Programme - Draft Final Report, October 2005 Old Bell3, Mid Term Evaluation Update for the Objective 3 Programme - Draft Final Report, November 2005 Sian Swann of Chwarae Teg, Equal Opportunities Guidelines for European Programmes in Wales, Produced for the European Equality Partnership, December 2000 Sian Swann of Chwarae Teg, Equal Opportunities Additional Guidance for Applicants and Assessors, Produced for the European Equality Partnership, May 2003

A3

Sustainable Development Indicators for Wales, 2005, National Assembly for Wales 22/3/05 Wales Transport Statistics 2005, Welsh Assembly Government, produced by the Department of Transport www.wales.gov.uk/keypubstatisticsforwales/content/publication/transport/2005/wts2005/wts2005-ch7/wts2005-ch7.htm WEFO Fact Sheet 4a Equal Opportunities - Disability - 2003 Year of Disabled People, November 2003 WEFO Fact Sheet 4b Equal Opportunities - Welsh Language, (undated) WEFO Fact Sheet 4c Equal Opportunities - Support for Black and Minority Ethnic People in Wales, (undated) Welsh Development Agency (WDA), Guide 2 Tendering for Public Sector Contracts, (undated) West Wales and the Valleys Objective 1 Programme - Addressing Language Issues when responding to the ERDF, EAGGF Application Guidance and Scoring Criteria (undated) www.wefo.wales.gov.uk West Wales and the Valleys Objective 1 Programme - Addressing Welsh language issues in responding to Section 4 of the ESF Project Selection Criteria (undated) www.wefo.wales.gov.uk West Wales and the Valleys Objective 1 Programme - Maximising the Potential of the Information Society (undated) www.wefo.wales.gov.uk West Wales and the Valleys Objective 1 Programme Complement 2000-2006 West Wales and the Valleys Objective 1 Programme Monitoring Committee - Implementation of the Equal Opportunities Cross Cutting Theme: Progress Report PMC(04)22, June 2004 West Wales and the Valleys Objective 1 Programme Monitoring Committee - Mid-Term Evaluation: Response to Recommendations PMC(04)06, March 2004

A4

West Wales and the Valleys Objective 1 Programme Monitoring Committee - Mid-Term Review Changes PMC(05)04, March 2005 West Wales and the Valleys Objective 1 Single Programming Document 2000-2006

A5

Annex Two Consultees – Phases 3 & 5

A6

Phase 3 Consultees

Name Organisation

Environmental Sustainability

Frank Jones WEFO

Simon Halfacree Environment Agency

Simon Bilsborough Countryside Council for Wales

John Lambert Environment Agency

Cathy O'Brien Environment Agency

Katherine Bollington Environment Agency

Ruth Tipping Environment Agency

ICT

Brian Moon WEFO

Janine Pepworth Broadband Wales,

Diana Reynolds Cymru Ar-Lein, Welsh Assembly Government

Ann Beynon BT Wales

Patrick Sullivan Welsh Development Agency

Brian Reeves Merlin Partnership, Welsh Assembly Government

Equal Opportunities

Chriss O'Connell WEFO

Kate Bennett Equal Opportunities Commission

Robin Lynn Commission for Racial Equality

Will Bee Disability Rights Commission

Huw Onllwyn Jones Welsh Language Board

Yvonne Griffiths Jones Chwarae Teg

A7

Phase 5 Consultees

Name Organisation

Programme Level

Neil Howard WEFO EAGGF & FIFG

Les Opperman WEFO ESF Objective 1 & 3

Ruth Akers WEFO ESF Objective 3

Sue Price WEFO ERDF

Cathy Presland WEFO Policy

Mike Theodoulou Foothold (Objective 1 PMC)

Neville Davies Carmarthenshire CBC (Objective 1 PMC)

Virginia Chambers Welsh Development Agency (TAG 2)

Richard Essex Consultant (TAG 6)

Phil Fiander WCVA (Objective 1 & 3)

Gerallt Llewellyn-Jones Menter Mon

Nigel Tidy Welsh Development Agency

Local level

Peter Davies Torfaen CBC

Victoria Philips Caerphilly CBC

Mike Shaw Hazel Lloyd Bob Jacques Peter James Alison Kinsey David Willis Matthew Ross

Ceredigion Objective 1 Officer Group56

Ceredigion County Council Ceredigion Association of Voluntary Organisations Ymlaen Ceredigion WDA Ceredigion County Council Ceredigion County Council Environment Agency Wales

Gwyn Evans Pembrokeshire

Clare Owen Evans Newport CBC

Joanne Parry Regional Partnership

Diane Jones Ynys Mon

56 In responding to the request for an interview, it was requested that this be done at the Ceredigion Objective 1 Officer Group, and so provided a range of views from the local area.

A8

Annex Three Project Sample Methodology

A9

A10

Project Sampling The following framework was used to calculate the proportionate split of the number of projects from each Programme. Objective 1 Objective 3 Total

Total approved projects at March 2005 1,040 510 1,550

Proportion: 70 % 30 % -

Sample Number: 28 12 40

The initial project sample selection from each Programme was random using the thematic Priorities. The proportion was estimated using the total costs allocated in the SPD / Operational Programme for the Programmes, as shown in the table below. Case Study Sampling Business Rural

Regeneration Infrastructure Community

& HRD Total

Proportion of Programmes' value:

36% 12% 12% 40%

Number of projects: 14 5 5 16 40

Objective 1 11 5 5 7 28

Objective 3 4 0 0 8 12

Total Projects: 15 5 5 15 40

The following Tables show the detailed framework which was then used to aid in the final selection of the sample projects. Some projects which were originally selected were subsequently de-selected for a number of practical reasons such as individuals which had been involved in the detailed delivery of the projects had moved on; this was especially true of those projects which had completed and for some smaller organisations. It was important to engage with individuals involved, as many of the questions sought to draw out experiences of working with the Themes, which is not always possible to extract from project records etc.

11

Objective 1 Sampling Framework Business Rural Regeneration Infrastructure Community & HRD Total

Projects selected from: Priority 1 & Priority 2 Priority 5 Priority 6 Priority 3 &

Priority 4

No. of Objective 1 sample projects: 11 5 5 7 28

Large Projects (minimum no.) >£1 m 3 2 2 3 10

Vertical Measures Measures 2.1, 2.2, & 2.5 Measure 5.7 Measure 6.4 Measure 4.5

No. of vertical projects 3 1 1 1 6

Completed projects: 5 2 3 3 13

Live projects: 6 3 2 4 15 Objective 3 Sampling Framework Business Rural

Regeneration Infrastructure Community & HRD Total

Projects selected from: Priority 4 - - Priorities 1, 2, 3 & 5

No. of Objective 3 sample projects: 4 - - 8 12

Large Projects (minimum no.) >£1 m 2 - - 3 5

Vertical Measures - - - Measures 5.1 & 5.2

No. of vertical projects - - - 2 6

Completed projects: 2 - - 4 6

Live projects: 2 - - 4 6 Some projects selected may fit with more than one of the above variables, for example, a large project could come from a vertical measure.

Annex Four Topic Guides

A12

Phase 3 Interview Topic Guide Cross Cutting Theme Specialist Interviews – Environmental Sustainability The Phase 3 stakeholder group includes the Cross Cutting Theme advisers; members of the Cross Cutting Themes Group; and stakeholders in key agencies if they are not already represented in the above. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research. The purpose of this research is to provide an analysis of the integration of the three separate Cross Cutting Themes for the Objective 1 and Objective 3 Programme for use by the Welsh European Programme Office (WEFO) to indicate progress in the current Programmes and also to provide evidence on which to base recommendations for the next round of Structural Fund Programmes. Background Information

Name:

Organisation:

Role in Programmes:

(Cross Cutting Theme Adviser, Member of Cross Cutting Theme Group, other)

Relevant Theme:

Environmental Sustainability

Which Programmes do you deal with in this capacity? Objective 1 Programme / Objective 3 Programme / Both Please describe your role / activities with respect to the Themes: For example – monitoring & mapping, assistance to applicants, referrals to experts, assessing applications etc. What particular expertise do you bring to the process? Do you consider yourself an expert in any particular aspect of the Environmental Sustainability theme, if so which? What is your view of the definition and scope of the term 'environmental sustainability'? How does it apply to the Wales' Objective 1 and 3 Programmes?

A13

Project Integration of Cross Cutting Themes A separate phase of our research will look at this area in more detail, but we would like to explore your views on these issues as well.

Overall, to what extent have projects adopted the Environmental Sustainability theme? Is there any difference between the horizontal & vertical application of the theme? Broadly speaking would you say this uptake has been innovative / proactive or passive / reluctant? How does this application of the Theme by projects compare with the other themes, and why? How does this compare with similar projects which are NOT funded by the Structural Funds? Have there been in changes over time in projects? Are the projects in the pipeline or just started that are getting better or worse, or is no change evident? In what type of ways, if any, have projects addressed the Environmental Sustainability theme? Can you provide examples? (This will be explored in project studies, but looking for general comments here or views) Where projects hade addressed the Environmental Sustainability Theme, what do you think motivates them to do so? - compliance / genuine intentions? What evidence do you have to illustrate your answer? To what extent has the experience of working with the Environmental Sustainability Theme promoted changed attitudes amongst project sponsors? (amongst partners, project staff, beneficiaries etc.)

A14

What evidence is there of any change? How is it manifested? Are there any key influencers in identified change? Do you feel that opportunities have been missed by projects? Use prompts as examples Are there ways in which WEFO or the Advisers could encourage projects to address missed opportunities? What else could be done and by whom? What types of barriers (if any) are you aware of that in your opinion may have affected the implementation of Environmental Sustainability? Examples could include: level of understanding of environmental sustainability, budget restraints – within the project or those available to supporting the Themes; message not getting out or being understood – still paying lip service; the wider context which projects operate in – are other strategies supporting the Themes or hindering / diluting them?. To what extent do you think the Environmental Sustainability guidance tools are useful to applicants? Why do you say that? - Availability of guidance tools - Practical advice on how to design projects - In your experience are they used by applicants to design projects? - Are there any changes you consider could be made? What effect, if any, do you think the guidance had on the quality of projects? Prompt – we are interested in positive and negative effects What additional action could be taken, if any, to ensure the better implementation of the Environmental Sustainability Theme in the future? e.g. more training, on-line help, more guidance etc.

A15

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Model Used to Integrate the Themes This is about the approach which has been taken in Wales to integrate the themes in the implementation of the Programmes.

To what extent do you feel that the baseline data used were appropriate for Environmental Sustainability and appropriate in setting the scene for the Programmes? We are interested here in how accurate & comprehensive the data was. Was there any link between the Environmental Sustainability Objectives to issues highlighted by the analysis of the baseline data? If yes, what links were there? A list of the Objectives will be provided. To what extent did the Environmental Sustainability Objectives support the Programmes' aims? A list of the Aims will be provided. Was the full range of Environmental Sustainability objectives covered by the targets set? What effect, if any have the targets had on the integration of Environmental Sustainability in the Programmes? To what extent do you feel the Environmental Sustainability targets have been measurable? Are you aware of the Cross Cutting Theme Group? Do you know what its role is? What effect, if any, has the Group had on the Themes' implementation?

- If any, what are its particular achievements? - If any, what barriers has it faced, if any? - Are you aware of what work they would like to pursue as a Group? - How could their role be improved in terms of influencing the theme's implementation?

Is there a theme champion on either of the PMCs (answer in relation to whichever PMC(s) you have knowledge)?

A16

What effect do you think this had? Do you think this was important and in what way? What is your opinion of segregating activities vertically and horizontally? – (May need to explain vertical & horizontal) Has this helped overall in the implementation of the Environmental Sustainability theme, or has it raised other issues / problems? For example in entrenching attitudes, or failing to mainstream activity. Has it had any effect on targeting resources? How are vertical Measures that are underperforming / performing well identified? What views do you have on the scoring criteria used in ESF, ERDF, EAGGF & FIFG projects? Do you consider the scoring questions essential, subsidiary or irrelevant to implementing the themes in projects? - What effect, if any, has the 12 marks (ESF) or High/Medium/Low weighting (ERDF, EAGGF

& FIFG) for each theme has had on the take up of the Environmental Sustainability theme? - What effect has the knowledge and guidance available to scorers enabled them to assess

the impact on the Theme? How are Theme Advisers involved in the appraisal process? - Are the questions asked relevant?

- If any, are there any particular strengths in the questions used? - If any, are there any particular weaknesses in the questions used?

- What happens if the Theme is addressed with insufficient quality in application forms? - Do you have any other issues relating to the scoring questions, including technical issues?

This could include changes made to the scores / questions over time. Are you aware of types of projects where there are particular difficulties in addressing Environmental Sustainability? What do you think should be done about this, if anything?

A17

Are you aware of [types of] projects that are good at contributing to the Environmental Sustainability theme? Are you aware of any opportunities that may have been missed by the Programme to improve Environmental Sustainability practices? How can best practice be shared between projects, Cross Cutting Theme advisers, experts, other application advisers e.g. secretariats etc?

What effect has the Environmental Sustainability Theme had on achieving broader social and economic objectives of the Programme? We will be analysing data to support this part of the research, but we are interested in your views on these issues as well. In terms of actual achievement, in what way do you feel the Environmental Sustainability theme has affected (positively or negatively) towards:

- Creating jobs Why do you say that? In what way? - Job creation overall Why do you say that? In what way? - Creating jobs for target groups – women, disabled, ethnic minorities, Welsh speakers, Why do you say that? In what way?

The Programmes have a number of broad areas, do you feel that the Environmental Sustainability Theme has particularly contributed towards them in any way:

- Supporting Business ; - Supporting rural regeneration; - Supporting infrastructure; and - Supporting community & HRD

A18

Do you know of projects in which Environmental Sustainability is being proactively shown to be good for headline target outputs e.g. job creation, business opportunities etc? Probe for specific examples of good practice.

Are you aware of any projects which have examples of good practice in applying the Environmental Sustainability Theme, which would be useful for other projects? e.g. marketing materials, evaluation reports, etc. Please give contact name and number / e-mail etc. and we may contact them separately.

A19

Phase 3 Interview Topic Guide Cross Cutting Theme Specialist Interviews – Information & Communications Technology (ICT) The Phase 3 stakeholder group includes the Cross Cutting Theme advisers; members of the Cross Cutting Themes Group; and stakeholders in key agencies if they are not already represented in the above. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research. The purpose of this research is to provide an analysis of the integration of the three separate cross cutting themes for the Objective 1 and Objective 3 Programme for use by the Welsh European Programme Office (WEFO) to indicate progress in the current Programmes and also to provide evidence on which to base recommendations for the next round of Structural Fund Programmes. Background Information

Name:

Organisation:

Role in Programmes: (Cross Cutting Theme Adviser, Member of Cross Cutting Theme Group, other)

Relevant theme: ICT Which Programmes do you deal with in this capacity? Objective 1 Programme / Objective 3 Programme / Both [note – if they deal with both, ask them to highlight any differences between the two Programmes in their responses - remember to keep prompting on this issue throughout the interview if relevant]. Please describe your role / activities with respect to the Themes: For example – monitoring & mapping, assistance to applicants, referrals to experts, assessing applications etc. What particular expertise do you bring to the process? Do you consider yourself an expert in any particular aspect of the ICT theme, if so which?

A20

Project Integration of Cross Cutting Themes A separate phase of our research will look at this area in more detail, but we would like to explore your views on these issues as well.

Overall, to what extent have projects adopted the ICT theme? Is there any difference between the horizontal & vertical application of the theme? Broadly speaking would you say this uptake has been innovative / proactive or passive / reluctant? How does this application of the Theme by projects compare with the other themes, and why? How does this compare with similar projects which are NOT funded by the Structural Funds? Have there been in changes over time in projects? Are the projects in the pipeline or just started that are getting better or worse, or is no change evident? In what type of ways, if any, have projects addressed the ICT theme? Can you provide examples? (This will be explored in project studies, but looking for general comments here or views)

Where projects hade addressed the ICT Theme, what do you think motivates them to do so? - compliance / genuine intentions? What evidence do you have to illustrate your answer? To what extent has the experience of working with the ICT Theme promoted changed attitudes amongst project sponsors? (amongst partners, project staff, beneficiaries etc.)

A21

What evidence is there of any change? How is it manifested? Are there any key influencers in identified change? Do you feel that opportunities have been missed by projects? e.g. use of broadband, multi-channel delivery, use of mobile technologies etc. Are there ways in which WEFO or the Advisers could encourage projects to address missed opportunities? What more could be done and by whom? What types of barriers (if any) are you aware of that in your opinion may have affected the implementation of the Themes? Examples could include: budget restraints – within the project or those available to supporting Themes; message not getting out or being understood – still paying lip service; lack of awareness, lack of innovation, lack ICT technical expertise / insight in the application writing process, the wider context which projects operate in – are other strategies supporting the Themes or hindering / diluting them?. To what extent do you think the ICT guidance tools are useful to applicants? Why do you say that? - Availability of guidance tools - Practical advice on how to design projects - In your experience are they used by applicants to design projects? - Are there any changes you consider could be made? What effect, if any, do you think the guidance had on the quality of projects? Prompt – we are interested in positive and negative effects

A22

What additional action could be taken, if any, to ensure the better implementation of ICT in the future? e.g. training, on-line help, more guidance etc.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Model Used to Integrate the Themes This is about the approach which has been taken in Wales to integrate the themes in the implementation of the Programmes.

To what extent do you feel that the baseline data used were appropriate for Environmental Sustainability and appropriate in setting the scene for the Programmes? We are interested here in how accurate & comprehensive the data was. Was there any link between the Environmental Sustainability Objectives to issues highlighted by the analysis of the baseline data? If yes, what links were there? A list of the Objectives will be provided. To what extent did the ICT Objectives support the Programmes' aims? Was the full range of ICT objectives covered by the targets set? What effect, if any have the targets had on the integration of ICT in the Programmes? To what extent do you feel the ICT targets have been measurable?

A23

Are you aware of the Cross Cutting Theme Group? Do you know what its role is? What effect, if any, has the Group had on the themes' implementation? - If any, what are its particular achievements? - If any, what barriers has it faced, if any? - Are you aware of what work they would like to pursue as a Group? - How could their role be improved in terms of influencing the theme's implementation? Is there a theme champion on either of the PMCs? (answer in relation to whichever PMC(s) you have knowledge) What effect do you think this had? Do you think this was important and in what way? What is your opinion of segregating activities vertically and horizontally? (May need to explain vertical & horizontal) Has this helped overall in the implementation of the Themes, or has it raised other issues / problems? For example in entrenching attitudes, or failing to mainstream activity. Has it had any effect on targeting resources? How are vertical Measures that are underperforming / performing well identified? What views do you have on the scoring criteria used in ESF, ERDF, EAGGF & FIFG projects? Do you consider the scoring questions essential, subsidiary or irrelevant to implementing the themes in projects?

A24

- What effect, if any, has the 12 marks (ESF) or High/Medium/Low weighting (ERDF, EAGGF & FIFG) for each theme has had on the take up of the ICT theme? - What effect has the knowledge and guidance available to scorers enabled them to assess the impact on the Theme? How are Theme Advisers involved in the appraisal process? - Are the questions asked relevant? - If any, are there any particular strengths in the questions used? - If any, are there any particular weaknesses in the questions used? - What happens if the Theme is addressed with insufficient quality in application forms? - Do you have any other issues relating to the scoring questions, including technical issues? This could include changes made to the scores / questions over time. Are you aware of types of projects where there are particular difficulties in addressing ICT? What do you think should be done about this, if anything? Are you aware of [types of] projects that are good at contributing to ICT? Do you feel that opportunities have been missed by the Programme to improve ICT practices?

A25

How can best practice be shared between projects, Cross Cutting Theme advisers, experts, other application advisers e.g. secretariats etc?

What effect has the ICT Theme had on achieving broader social and economic objectives of the Programme?

We will be analysing data to support this part of the research, but we are interested in your views on these issues as well.

In terms of actual achievement, in what way do you feel the ICT theme has affected (positively or negatively) towards:

- Creating jobs Why do you say that? In what way? - Job creation overall Why do you say that? In what way? - Creating jobs for target groups – women, disabled, ethnic minorities, Welsh speakers,

Why do you say that? In what way? The Programmes have a number of broad areas, do you feel that the ICT Theme has particularly contributed towards them in any way:

- Supporting Business ; - Supporting rural regeneration; - Supporting infrastructure; and - Supporting community & HRD Do you know of projects in which ICT is being proactively shown to be good for headline target outputs e.g. job creation, business opportunities etc?

Probe for specific examples of good practice.

A26

Are you aware of any projects which have examples of good practice which would be useful for other projects? e.g. marketing materials, evaluation reports, etc. Please give contact name and number / e-mail etc. and we will contact them separately.

A27

Phase 3 Interview Topic Guide Cross Cutting Theme Specialist Interviews – Equal Opportunities The Phase 3 stakeholder group includes the Cross Cutting Theme advisers; members of the Cross Cutting Themes Group; and stakeholders in key agencies if they are not already represented in the above. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this research. The purpose of this research is to provide an analysis of the integration of the three separate cross cutting themes for the Objective 1 and Objective 3 Programme for use by the Welsh European Programme Office (WEFO) to indicate progress in the current Programmes and also to provide evidence on which to base recommendations for the next round of Structural Fund Programmes. Background Information Name:

Organisation:

Role in Programmes:

(Cross Cutting Theme Adviser, Member of Cross Cutting Theme Group, other)

Relevant theme:

Equal Opportunities

Which Programmes do you deal with in this capacity? Objective 1 Programme / Objective 3 Programme / Both [note – if they deal with both, ask them to highlight any differences between the two Programmes in their responses – remember to keep prompting on this issue throughout the interview if relevant]. Please describe your role / activities with respect to the Themes: For example – monitoring & mapping, assistance to applicants, referrals to experts, assessing applications etc. Would you say you represent a particular equality group or all groups?

A28

Project Integration of Cross Cutting Themes A separate phase of our research will look at this area in more detail, but we would like to explore your views on these issues as well. Overall, to what extent have projects adopted the Equal Opportunities theme? Is there any difference between the horizontal & vertical application of the theme? Broadly speaking would you say this uptake has been innovative / proactive or passive / reluctant? How does this application of the Theme by projects compare with the other themes, and why? How does this compare with similar projects which are NOT funded by the Structural Funds? Have there been in changes over time in projects? Are the projects in the pipeline or just started that are getting better or worse, or is no change evident?

In what types of ways have projects addressed the Equal Opportunities theme – • Within the project structure • Staffing of projects • Policy • Targeting • Ways of working with beneficiaries • A mainstreaming approach / a positive action approach? Can you provide examples? (This will be explored in project studies, but looking for general comments here or views) Have projects found it easier to address some of the equality groups than others? e.g. Welsh speakers, women, BME groups, disabled people, other equality groups etc. Why is that?

A29

Where projects hade addressed the Equal Opportunities Theme, what do you think motivates them to do so? - compliance / genuine intentions? What evidence do you have to illustrate your answer? To what extent has the experience of working with the Equal Opportunities theme promoted changed attitudes amongst project sponsors? (amongst partners, project staff, beneficiaries etc.) What evidence is there of any change? How is it manifested? Are there any key influencers in identified change? Do you feel that opportunities have been missed by projects? Use prompts as examples Are there ways in which WEFO or the Advisers could encourage projects to address missed opportunities? What else could be done and by whom? What types of barriers (if any) are you aware of that in your opinion may have affected the implementation of Equal Opportunities? Examples could include: level of understanding of equal opportunities, budget restraints – within the project or those available to supporting the Themes; message not getting out or being understood – still paying lip service; the wider context which projects operate in – are other strategies supporting the Themes or hindering / diluting them?. To what extent do you think the Equal Opportunities guidance tools are useful to applicants? Why do you say that? - Availability of guidance tools - Practical advice on how to design projects

A30

- In your experience are they used by applicants to design projects? - Are there any changes you consider could be made? What effect, if any, do you think the guidance had on the quality of projects? Prompt – we are interested in positive and negative effects What additional action could be taken, if any, to ensure the better implementation of Equal Opportunities in the future? e.g. more training, on-line help, more guidance etc.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Model Used to Integrate the Themes This is about the approach which has been taken in Wales to integrate the themes in the implementation of the Programmes. To what extent do you feel that the baseline data used were appropriate for Equal Opportunities and appropriate in setting the scene for the Programmes? We are interested here in how accurate & comprehensive the data was. Was there any link between the Equal Opportunities Objectives to issues highlighted by the analysis of the baseline data? If yes, what links were there? A list of the Objectives will be provided. To what extent did the Equal Opportunities Objectives support the Programmes' aims? A list of the Aims will be provided. Was the full range of Equal Opportunities objectives covered by the targets set? What effect, if any have the targets had on the integration of Equal Opportunities in the Programmes?

A31

To what extent do you feel the Equal Opportunities targets have been measurable? Are you aware of the Cross Cutting Theme Group? Do you know what its role is? What effect, if any, has the Group had on the themes' implementation? - If any, what are its particular achievements? - If any, what barriers has it faced, if any? - Are you aware of what work they would like to pursue as a Group? - How could their role be improved in terms of influencing the theme's implementation? Is there an Equal Opportunities champion on either of the PMCs? (answer in relation to whichever PMC(s) you have knowledge What effect do you think this had? Do you think this was important and in what way? What is your opinion of segregating activities vertically and horizontally? (May need to explain vertical & horizontal) Has this helped overall in the implementation of the Equal Opportunities theme, or has it raised other issues / problems? For example in entrenching attitudes, or failing to mainstream activity. Has it enabled resources to be targeted at particular needs? How are vertical Measures that are underperforming / performing well identified? What views do you have on the scoring criteria used in ESF, ERDF, EAGGF & FIFG projects? Do you consider the scoring questions essential, subsidiary or irrelevant to implementing the themes in projects?

A32

- What effect, if any, has the 12 marks (ESF) or High/Medium/Low weighting (ERDF, EAGGF & FIFG) for each theme has had on the take up of the Equal Opportunities theme? - What effect has the knowledge and guidance available to scorers enabled them to assess the impact on the Theme? How are Theme Advisers involved in the appraisal process? - Are the questions asked relevant? - If any, are there any particular strengths in the questions used? - If any, are there any particular weaknesses in the questions used? - What happens if the Theme is addressed with insufficient quality in application forms? - Do you have any other issues relating to the scoring questions, including technical issues? This could include changes made to the scores / questions over time. Are you aware of types of projects where there are particular difficulties in addressing Equal Opportunities? What do you think should be done about this, if anything? Are these real difficulties or do you feel that they result from Equal Opportunities not being a priority? e.g. capital projects, SME projects? Are you aware of [types of] projects that are good at contributing to the Equal Opportunities theme? Are you aware of any opportunities that have been missed by the Programme to improve Equal Opportunities practices? How can best practice be shared between projects, Cross Cutting Theme advisers, experts, other application advisers e.g. secretariats etc?

A33

What effect has the Equal Opportunities Theme had on achieving broader social and economic objectives of the Programme? We will be analysing data to support this part of the research, but we are interested in your views on these issues as well. In terms of actual achievement, in what way do you feel the Equal Opportunities theme has contributed (positively or negatively) towards: - Creating jobs Why do you say that? In what way? - Job creation overall Why do you say that? In what way? - Creating jobs for target groups – women, disabled, ethnic minorities, Welsh speakers, Why do you say that? In what way? The Programmes have a number of broad areas, do you feel that the Environmental Sustainability Theme has particularly contributed towards them in any way: - Supporting Business ; - Supporting rural regeneration; - Supporting infrastructure; and - Supporting community & HRD Do you know of projects in which Equal Opportunities is being proactively shown to be good for headline target outputs e.g. job creation, business opportunities etc? Probe for specific examples of good practice.

Are you aware of any projects which have examples of good practice which would be useful for other projects? e.g. marketing materials, evaluation reports, etc. Please give contact name and number / e-mail etc. and we may contact them separately.

A34

Phase 4 Interview Topic Guide Project Case Study Thank you very much for agreeing to participate in this research. The purpose of this research is, as explained in the letter of 21 September, we have been commissioned by the Welsh European Funding Office (WEFO) to provide an analysis of the integration of the three separate cross cutting themes for the Objective 1 and Objective 3 Programmes. The research will be used to assess progress in the current Programmes and also to provide evidence on which to base recommendations for the next round of Structural Fund Programmes. I would like to emphasize that ECOTEC is an independent research team working on behalf of WEFO. The information you give us will not be made publicly available in any form which makes you or your project identifiable. In the unlikely event of us receiving information from you which suggests to us there may be irregularities with the project we are obliged to inform WEFO of this. The nature of this research means that this would be very unlikely to occur. Background Information Project Title & WEFO reference

Interviewee Name: Organisation:

Where is the project operated from?

What area does the project cover e.g. all-Wales, north Wales etc.

Project Value: £ Grant Value: £ Programme:

Objective 1 / Objective 3

Priority: Measure: Fund: ESF / ERDF / EAGGF / FIFG Project start date:

Project end date:

Which is / was your role in the project? Were you involved in the project application stages?

A35

Project Integration of Cross Cutting Themes

1. Please describe your project's approach to each of the Themes: a. Equal Opportunities (meeting the needs of men & women, ethnic minorities, disabled people, Welsh

speakers, other; promoting equal opportunities, actions to encourage equal opportunities). How does this compare to the application? If it is different, why? b. Environmental sustainability

How does this compare to the application? If it is different, why? c. ICT

How does this compare to the application? If it is different, why? 2. To what extent is the project meeting the Themes' targets thus far? What Themes' targets have you achieved so far? In what ways is the project falling short of or exceeding targets? Why is it falling short of or exceeding targets? 3. Do you think you will achieve your targets? If not, probe why not. If yes, then ask whether it has been challenging or easy and whether they will exceed targets? 4. If your project has experienced any problems and issues in meeting the targets in implementing any of the Cross Cutting Themes, please explain? (if appropriate sponsor will be asked for a copy of their latest monitoring return) 5. What effect, if any, did implementing the Themes have on your core project activity? Why do you say that?

A36

6. What effect, if any, did implementing the Themes have on your project outcomes? Why do you say that? 7. What improvements could be made to your project, if any, towards ensuring the better implementation of the Themes? 8. Would you have carried out the Themes' activities in your project anyway or were you encouraged by the application process e.g. scoring, advice, to carry out additional activities / or amend the project design to take on board the themes? 9. What other factors, if any, do you think might have encouraged you to carry out the Themes' activities? e.g. Assembly Strategy, organisation policy etc. Why do you say that? 10. In the absence of Themes (but assuming ESF/ERDF/EAGGF/FIFG support) what would have been the effect on the project? - gone ahead unchanged - gone ahead with reduced emphasis on the Themes but would still have carried out some Theme activity

(what would have been done in the absence of the Themes?) - gone ahead with no Theme activities

- probe on which parts of the project / specific activities they have done that are additional and what they would have done anyway. 11. Do you now consider the Themes in other project development that you are involved with, including projects not funded by the Structural Funds?

A37

Do you think this is because of your experience of the Themes in this project or would you have done so anyway? 12. Substitution and Equal Opportunities – Has your project supported target groups when it would previously have supported others e.g. has the project employed EO target groups at the expense of those whom they would have employed otherwise? Have some groups benefited more than others? (men, women, ethnic minorities, Welsh speakers, disabled people, others) 13. To what extent do your project beneficiaries in the targets groups live outside the Programme area? 14. Has your project developed any links between the themes e.g. ICT actions supporting target equal opportunities groups or environmental schemes? 15. Have you used the Themes' guidance tools for your project? If yes, did you find them accessible? - Why do you say that? If yes, did you find them useful, or not useful?

- Why do you say that?

A38

If you didn't use the tools, why not? 16. In what ways, if any, could the Themes' guidance tools have been improved? 17. Are you aware of the Themes' literature available on WEFO's website? 18. Do you find this accessible for you, and useful or not useful? 19. What additional support would have been useful to assist your project in the implementation of the Themes? 20. What improvements, if any, do you feel that you could make towards ensuring the better implementation of the Themes overall? 21. What effect, if any, did addressing the Themes have on the quality of your project? We are interested in both negative and positive effects here. Probe fully.

A39

22. Do you have a monitoring system for tracking the implementation of the Themes? Please describe it. How do you demonstrate / record that the Themes' outcomes have been achieved? 23. Have you experienced any difficulties in reporting your achievements to WEFO or other interested partners? For example the arrangements for reporting, the way you collect your data? 24. For ESF projects only: If a beneficiary attends more than one course are they always counted on each occasion, or only once? Are you able to record the outcomes with regard to gender, disability, ethnicity etc.? or do you have to use the 'Don't Know' box? 25. Were you required to revise your approach to any of themes in your project during the application process i.e. did WEFO require you to provide additional information / activities for the project to meet the selection process? If yes, has this made any difference to your expected outcomes? Probe fully. 26. Do you have any examples of good practice which would be useful for other projects? e.g. marketing materials, evaluation reports, etc.

A40

How effective have the Themes been on achieving broader social and economic objectives of the Programme? We will be analysing data to support this part of the research, but we are interested in your views on these issues as well.

27. In terms of actual achievement, in what way do you feel that the integration of the Themes in your project contributed, positively or negatively, towards: a. Job creation overall

Why do you say that? b. Hindered the creation of jobs

Why do you say that?

c. Creating jobs for target groups – women, disabled etc.; Why do you say that? NOTE: THE ABOVE QUESTION RELATES TO THE THEMES, NOT THE PROJECT OVERALL 28. The Programmes have a number of broad areas, in what way do you feel your project has particularly contributed towards them: • Supporting Business; • Supporting rural regeneration; • Supporting infrastructure; and • Supporting community & HRD

[Amend list to reflect project] Probe for specific examples of good practice.

A41

Phase 5 Interview Topic Guide General Programme Stakeholder Interviews Thank you very much for agreeing to participate in this research. The purpose of this research is to provide an analysis of the integration of the three separate Cross Cutting Themes for the Objective 1 and Objective 3 Programme for use by the Welsh European Programme Office (WEFO) to indicate progress in the current Programmes and also to provide evidence on which to base recommendations for the next round of Structural Fund Programmes. A. Background Information Name:

Organisation:

Role in Programmes:

Theme(s) involved with:

Equal Opportunities / Environmental Sustainability / ICT / All

Which Programmes do you deal with in this capacity: Objective 1 Programme / Objective 3 Programme / Both [note – if they deal with both Programmes, ask them to highlight any differences between the two Programmes in their responses – remember to keep prompting throughout the interview, if relevant]. Please describe your role / activities with respect to the Themes:

A42

B. Project Integration of Cross Cutting Themes A separate phase of our research will look at this area in more detail, but we would like to explore your views on these issues as well. 1. Overall, to what extent have projects generally taken on board: a. the Equal Opportunities theme? b. the Environmental Sustainability theme? c. the ICT theme? 2. Is there any difference between the horizontal and vertical application of the themes? 3. Broadly speaking would you say this uptake has been innovative / proactive or passive / reluctant? 4. Have there been any changes over time in projects with respect to the themes? Are there projects in the pipeline or just started that are getting better, or is no progress evident?

A43

5. In what type of ways have projects addressed the Equal Opportunities theme? – • Within the project structure • Staffing of projects • Policy • Targeting • Ways of working with beneficiaries • A mainstreaming approach / a positive action approach? 6. In what type of ways have projects addressed the Environmental Sustainability theme? • Building standards • Environmentally sound equipment • training 7. In what type of ways have projects addressed the ICT theme? • More skilled staff • More ICT equipment • Delivery of ICT services (This will be explored in project studies, but looking for general comments here or views) 8. Where projects have addressed the Themes, what do you think motivates them to do so? - compliance / genuine intentions? What evidence do you have to illustrate your answer? 9. What more, if anything, have projects done than would not have been done anyway in the absence of the Structural Funds in terms of the Themes? (can compare this to non-Structural Funded projects) 10. In the absence of the Themes (but assuming ESF/ERDF/EAGGF/FIFG support) what would have been the effect on the projects? - gone ahead unchanged - gone ahead with reduced emphasis on the Themes but would still have carried out some Theme activity (what

would have been done in the absence of the Themes?) - gone ahead with no Theme activities

A44

11. To what extent has the experience of working with the Themes promoted changed attitudes amongst project sponsors? (amongst partners, project staff, beneficiaries etc.) 12. What evidence is there of any change? How is it manifested? 13. Are there any individuals who are typically the focus of any change, or who are the influencers in this process? 14. Do you feel that opportunities have been missed by projects? Use prompts as examples 15. Are there ways in which WEFO or the Theme Advisers could encourage projects to address missed opportunities? 16. What more could be done, if anything, and by whom? 17. What types of barriers (if any) are you aware of that in your opinion may have affected the implementation of the Themes? Examples could include: level of understanding of the Themes, budget restraints – within the project or those available to supporting the Themes; message not getting out or being understood – still paying lip service; the wider context which projects operate in – are other strategies supporting the Themes or hindering / diluting them?.

A45

18. To what extent do you think the Themes' guidance tools are useful to applicants? Why do you say that? Please distinguish between the 3 Themes if there are differences. - Availability of the guidance tools - Practical advice on how to design projects - In your experience are they used by applicants to design projects? - Are there any changes you consider could be made? 19. What effect, if any, do you think the guidance has had on the quality of projects? Prompt – we are interested in positive and negative effects. 20. What additional action could be taken, if any, to ensure the better implementation of the Themes in the future? e.g. more training, on-line help, more guidance etc.

C. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Model Used to Integrate the Themes This is about the approach which has been taken in Wales to integrate the themes in the implementation of the Programmes. 21. To what extent do you feel that the baseline data used were appropriate for each of the themes? – We are interested here in how accurate & comprehensive the data was. 22. Was there any link between each of the Themes' Objectives to issues highlighted by the analysis of the baseline data? If yes, what links were there?

A46

23. To what extent did the Themes' Objectives support the Programmes' aims? 24. To what extent do you feel the Themes' targets have been measurable? 25. Are you aware of any problems projects may experience in demonstrating / recording their results for the Themes? 26. Are you aware of the Cross Cutting Theme Group? Do you know what its role is? 27. What effect, if any, has the Group had on the themes' implementation?

- What are its particular achievements, if any? - What barriers has it faced, if any? - How could their role be changed and improved in terms of influencing the Themes' implementation?

28. Are there champions of any of the Themes on either of the PMCs or other partnership structures? 29. What effect do you think this had? Do you think this was important and in what way?

A47

30. What is your opinion of segregating activities vertically and horizontally? Has this helped overall in the implementation of the Themes, or has it raised other issues / problems? For example in entrenching attitudes, or failing to mainstream activity. 31. Has it had any effect on targeting resources? 32. What views do you have on the scoring criteria used in ESF, ERDF, EAGGF & FIFG projects? Do you consider the scoring questions essential or subsidiary to implementing the Themes in projects? 33. What effect, if any, has the 12 marks (ESF) or High/Medium/Low weighting (ERDF, EAGGF, FIFG) for each Theme had on the take up of the Themes? 34. Do you feel that the scorers have sufficient or insufficient knowledge and / or guidance on the Themes to effectively assess their impact? 35. Are the questions asked relevant?

- If any, are there any particular strengths in the questions used? - If any, are there any particular weaknesses in the questions used?

36. What happens if the Themes are addressed with insufficient quality in application forms? 37. Do you have any other issues relating to the scoring questions, including technical issues? This could include changes made to the scores / questions over time etc.

A48

38. Are you aware of types of projects where there are particular difficulties in addressing any or all of the Themes? What do you think should be done about this, if anything? Are these real difficulties or do you feel that they result from the Themes not being a priority? 39. Are you aware of [types of] projects that are good at contributing to any or all of the Themes? 40. Are you aware of any opportunities that may have been missed by the Programme to improve the implementation of the Themes generally e.g. improving Equal Opportunities practices or IS strategies etc? 41. How can best practice be shared between projects, Theme advisers, experts, other application advisers e.g. secretariats etc?

D. How effective have the Themes been on achieving broader social and economic objectives of the Programme? We will be analysing data to support this part of the research, but we are interested in your views on these issues as well.

42. In terms of actual achievement, in what way do you feel the Themes have contributed (positively or negatively) towards: a. Job creation overall Why do you say that? In what way?

A49

b. Hindered the creation of jobs Why do you say that? In what way? c. Creating jobs for target groups – women, disabled etc.; Why do you say that? In what way?

43. The Programmes address a number of broad areas, do you feel that the Themes have particularly contributed towards them in any way:

- Supporting Business; - Supporting rural regeneration; - Supporting infrastructure; and - Supporting community & HRD

44. Do you know of projects in which any or all of the Themes are being proactively shown to be good for headline target outputs e.g. job creation, business opportunities etc? Probe for specific examples of good practice.

Are you aware of any projects which have examples of good practice which would be useful for other projects? e.g. marketing materials, evaluation reports, etc. Please give contact name and number / e-mail etc. and we may contact them separately.

A50

Annex Five Programme Priorities and Measures

A51

Objective 1 Programme Priorities and Measures Priority 1 – Expanding and Developing the SME Base Measure 1 – Financial Support for SMEs Measure 2 – Promoting Entrepreneurship and Increasing the SME Birth Rate Measure 3 – Developing Competitive SMEs Measure 4 – Promoting Adaptability and Entrepreneurship Measure 5 – Providing Sites and Premises for SMEs Priority 2 – Developing Innovation and the Knowledge-Based Economy Measure 1 – ICT Infrastructure Measure 2 – To Stimulate and Support Demand for ICT Measure 3 – Support for the Development of Innovation and R&D Measure 4 – Skills for Innovation and Technology Measure 5 – Clean Energy Sector Developments Priority 3 – Community Economic Regeneration Measure 1 – Community Action for Social Inclusion Measure 2 – Partnership and Community Capacity-building Measure 3 – Partnership and Community Capacity-building and Regeneration of Deprived

Areas through Community-Led Action Measure 4 – Support for the Creation and Development of Businesses in the Social

Economy Priority 4 – Developing People Measure 1 – Preventative and Active Employment Measures Measure 2 – Social Inclusion Measure 3 – Lifetime Learning for all Measure 4 – Improving the Learning System Measure 5 – Improving the Participation of Women in the Labour Market Priority 5 – Rural Development and the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources Measure 1 – Processing and Marketing Agricultural Products Measure 2 – Training – Services to Help Farming Adapt and Diversify Measure 3 – Forestry Measure 4 – Adaptation and Development of Rural Areas Measure 5 – Investment in Agricultural Holdings Measure 6 – Promoting Local Economic Development

A52

Measure 7 – Enhancement and Protection of the Natural Environment and Countryside Management

Measure 8 – Support for Recreational Opportunities and Management of the Natural Environment

Measure 9 – Support for Coastal Fisheries and Aquaculture Priority 6 – Strategic Infrastructure Development Measure 1 – Accessibility and Transport Measure 2 – Energy Infrastructure Measure 3 – Strategic Employment Sites Measure 4 – Environmental Infrastructure Objective 3 Programme Priorities and Measures Priority 1 – Active Labour Market Policies Measure 1 – Preventing Long-Term Unemployment Measure 2 – Re-Integration of the Long-Term Unemployed Measure 3 – Supporting the Transition from Education to the Labour Market Priority 2 – Equal Opportunities for all and Social Inclusion Measure 1 – Pathways to Employment Measure 2 – Capacity Building for Community-Based Groups Measure 3 – The Development of Business Opportunities in the Social Economy Measure 4 – Local Development to Promote Social Inclusion Priority 3 – Lifelong Learning Measure 1 – Developing New or Improved Guidance and Learning Systems Measure 2 – Increasing Participation and Attainment in Lifelong Learning Priority 4 – Promoting Business Competitiveness Measure 1 – Supporting Management Development Measure 2 – Skills and Knowledge Development for the Workforce in SMEs Measure 3 – Encouraging Innovation, R&D and the Information Society Measure 4 – Support to Encourage and Develop Entrepreneurship Measure 5 – Anticipation and Analysis of Skill Needs Priority 5 – Promoting Gender Equality in the Labour Market Measure 1 – Pathways to Participation Measure 2 – Promoting Attitudinal Change

A53

Annex Six Cross Cutting Theme Guidance

A54

Objective 1 Sustainability Guide

In 2000, guidance was prepared57 for project applicants and Programme Managers on behalf of the Countryside Council for Wales, the Environment Agency Wales and the WDA. This gives guidance about what is sustainable development, what it means in practice, and how applicants can design their project to meet and maximise the environmental sustainability impacts from their project. It highlights for each Measure how to design and deliver an environmentally sustainable project, suggested actions, targets, as well as selection criteria which will be used to evaluate the project. The guidance also carried out an assessment of the extent to which the Programme's Measures meet the SPD's environmental sustainability objectives. It identified that all six of the Priorities, and each of the Measures, contained some opportunities to contribute to the eight Theme objectives. Priority 6 in particular demonstrates high levels of opportunity to integrate the Theme, but opportunities were also clearly identified in other Measures (e.g. 1.3, 2.3, 3.3, 4.3, 5.3, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9).

ESF sustainability guidance for completion of selection questions

Guidance is available for applicants for ESF funding under Objective 1 and 3 Programmes in Wales.58 This addresses all of the questions asked in the application, including guidance about each of the three Themes. Further discussion regarding the scoring / appraisal criteria is provided in Section 4 of this report.

Guide to integrating environmental sustainability

A more recent guide has been produced by the Environment Agency Wales59. It was prepared in response to a demand from those submitting projects to the HRD Regional Partnership and those delivering actions linked with Objective 1 and 3 HRD measures and priorities, i.e. • Objective 1 - Measure 1.4, Measure 2.4, and all Priority 4; and • Objective 3 - all Priorities and Measures except Measure 1.3 and Measure 2.4

57 Maximising the environmental sustainability of the West Wales and the Valleys Objective 1 Programme. ERM. 58 European Social Fund. Guidance for applicants on completion of selection questions (Appraisers edition) 59 Objectives 1&3 applicants' guide to integrating environmental sustainability. HRD regional level applications. Environment Agency Wales and partners, 2003.

A55

The guide gives a background of the definition and rationale for sustainable development within the European ESF Programmes. It then provides a detailed checklist of topics that can contribute to the level of sustainability of a project, asks whether each topic could be relevant to the application, where the impact may occur (on people, internally or externally), and finally gives the opportunity to list how the project will contribute to any improvement relating to each topic. Environmental checklist Environmental topic √ if relevant People (P) /

external (E)/ internal (I)

HOW will the improvement be achieved?

SUSTAINABLE ENERGY

Create awareness of how to reduce energy use

Achieve a reduction in energy use

Create awareness of the types of 'clean' sources of energy

.... Environment Agency Wales and partners - guide to integrating environmental sustainability

The guide also lists details of relevant qualifications arising from formal teaching about the environment or environmental sustainability. It provides case study examples of projects funded through ESF that demonstrate how the checklist can be completed. Finally, the guide provides a list of useful organisations, contacts and websites that should be able to offer advice on issues relating to environmental sustainability.

Priority 3 Measure 3 Guidance

This is a brief note that has also been prepared in response to requests from sponsors of Measure 3.3 (Objective 1) projects for more guidance on the meaning of the term 'environmental appraisal'. The sponsors want to be able to build it into project applications if appropriate, thus contributing to the 'community environmental appraisal' target for this Measure.

Objective 1 ICT Guidance

The ICT guidance material produced and endorsed by the PMC is "Maximising the potential of the Information Society and its Tools in the Framework of the West Wales and

A56

Valleys Objective 1 Programme: A Practical Guide for Project Applicants and Programme Managers". It was issued by the WDA (Wales Information Society Unit) in August 2001.

Equal Opportunities in the Structural Funds

There is separate guidance on equal opportunities in the Structural Funds for applicants and assessors. Written by Sian Swann of Chwarae Teg and produced on behalf of the European Equality Partnership. The guidance was launched at the National Eisteddfod for Wales, in August by Edwina Hart AM. The guidance is available in Welsh and English, twelve community languages as identified by the Commission for Racial Equality in Wales and alternative formats. The guidance is in everyday language, and addresses the following: • Why projects have to comply with the equal opportunities • Criteria and the role of projects in promoting equal opportunities • What mainstreaming equal opportunities means when applying for funds • Project that appear to have no equal opportunities implications • Isn’t all this going to be expensive to do? • The equality question on the application forms and finalising the project plan • Issues for projects specifically designed around equalities • Factors / targeted at under-represented groups? • What assessors should look for • Examples to help you respond to the equal opportunities • Questions in the forms • Sources of help • European Equality Partnership (EEP) Members The guidance provides some examples to work through. The guide helpfully addresses some of the issues of Equal Opportunities being more problematic in capital and business related projects. This guidance is available on line, and builds on the earlier guidance produced at the outset. It recognises the widening definition of equal opportunities noted in the SPD.

2003 European Year of Disabled People - Good Practice Brochure

This is a brochure highlighting projects which are aimed at disabled people. The brochure raises awareness of how Structural Funds and opportunities within the Programmes could support and assist disabled people. The brochure is a way of showing that the 2003

A57

European Year of Disabled People was a way of highlighting the difference targeted funds can make to the lives of the people of Wales.

Welsh Language Fact Sheet

A fact sheet identifying projects with a strong emphasis on the Welsh language, which have successfully accessed Structural Funds, has been produced. WEFO’s Communications Team has been distributing them widely at events across Wales.

Black and Minority Ethnic People in Wales

A fact sheet identifying projects supported by the Structural Fund Programmes, that have an emphasis on addressing the needs of Black and Minority Ethnic people in Wales, is currently with the publishers.

A58

Annex Seven Target Outputs and References

A59

This Annex details the output measures and the reference codes for identifying them, as used in WEFO's monitoring database. Ref. Output

1001 No. of gross new direct jobs

1002 No. of gross new indirect jobs

1003 No. of gross new jobs in high technology

1006 No. of gross jobs safeguarded

1011 No. of temporary jobs

1018 No. of new SMEs receiving financial support owned by women, people from ethnic minorities or people with disabilities

1019 No. of new SMEs given advice/information or assistance owned by women, people from ethnic minorities, people with disabilities or Welsh-speaking

1028 £k increase in turnover of supported companies

1033 No. of new SMEs adopting Environmental Management Systems

1036 No. of regional audit of existing provision

1037 20 Exemplar e-commerce users to be created and publicised in each local authority area

1039 No. of companies provided with environmental technology transfer

1043 No. of research initiatives supported

1044 No. exemplar models developed for clean energy

1049 No. of community environmental appraisals undertaken

1050 No. of community environmental enhancement projects supported

1056 No. of hectares of derelict/contaminated land improved

1058 No. of enterprises receiving financial support led by women, disabled, ethnic minorities

1060 No. of additional childcare places provided

1064 No. of ICT training facilities created/upgraded

1072 No. of projects promoting environmental sustainability in the production and marketing of agricultural produce

1074 No. of new sustainable woodland management schemes

1075 No. of hectares of woodland brought into sustainable management

1084 No. of initiatives addressing issues for the disabled, women and ethnic groups

1090 No. of access management projects

1091 No. of kilometres of managed access

1092 No. of land management projects

1093 No. of hectares brought under sustainable management

1094 No. of kilometres of traditional boundary created or renovated

1095 No. of resource management projects

A60

Ref. Output

1096 No. of land managers adopting comprehensive pollution and waste management

1097 No. of land managers adopting energy efficiency and conservation measures

1098 No. of hectares of buffer zones alongside farm water courses managed

1099 No. of coastal management schemes supported

1100 No. of km of riverine habitats improved

1101 No. of visitor management initiatives supported

1102 No. of inland angling fishery projects

1113 No. of public transport schemes improved

1114 No. of multi-modal centres receiving support

1115 No. of new plants assisted

1116 No. of new users connected to the network

1118 No. of hectares of contaminated land rehabilitated

1119 No. of minewater treatment schemes

1120 No. of water efficiency schemes

1121 No. of major flood defence schemes

1123 No. of tonnes of municipal waste recycled/composted/energy recovered

1124 No. of properties with reduced flood risk

1125 No. of tonnes of industrial and commercial waste diverted from landfill

1126 No. of participants trained in business development and IT

1127 No. of women receiving training

1131 No. of firms benefiting (profitability increases) from e-commerce and ICT support

1132 No. of feasibility studies

1133 Re-use, recycling, composting or energy recovery initiatives

1134 No. of communities benefiting from ICT based projects

1135 Supported projects rolled out into private sector-supported production

1141 No. of managers/proprietors trained

1143 No. of beneficiaries

1144 No. of beneficiaries accessing advice, guidance, information on Lifelong Learning/career opportunities

1148 No. of beneficiaries gaining a positive outcome on leaving

1154 No. of beneficiaries participating in local economic, social and environmental development activity

1160 No. of childcare places provided

1162 No. of community organisations/groups participating in local economic, social and environmental development activity

1168 No. of employees helped

1183 No. participating in active measures

A61

Ref. Output

1189 No. of businesses with environmental systems action plans

1191 No. of business start-ups specialising in environmental goods and services

1192 No. of businesses assisted to integrate environmentally sustainable systems

1193 No. of businesses assisted with business-environmental management training

1194 No. of businesses receiving support to introduce environmentally sustainable systems

1195 No. of companies involved in disseminating environmental sustainability R&D to other businesses

1197 No. of environmental learning initiatives

1198 No. of environmental/sustainable development material initiatives

1201 No. of managers gaining qualifications in business-environment management

1206 No. of projects supported linked to environmental sustainability

1209 No. of trainers trained in marketing/awareness raising of environmental systems and sustainable approaches to business

1357 No. of local initiatives supported

1358 No. of public sector sites broadband enabled

1359 No. of public sector access points broadband enabled

1360 No, of broadband points presence broadband enabled

1361 Increased no. of businesses with access to broadband

1362 Increase no. of communities with access to broadband

1363 No. of population within the eligible areas gaining access to broadband enabled public access

1427 No. of land managers adopting agricultural water resource management

A62

Annex Eight Labour Market Comparator Data

A63

Objective 1 – Gender - Measures, outputs and comparisons Programme Measure

Target Reference and Description

Comparison Spatial Level of Comparator

Data Source

1.4 1143 - No. of beneficiaries – all those in employment

Percentage of employed persons who are female

West Wales and the Valleys

LFS


Percentage of employed persons who are female


LFS

3.1 1143 - No. of beneficiaries – total population

Percentage of work age population that is female


LFS

4.1 1148 - No. of beneficiaries gaining a positive outcome on leaving – all unemployed

Percentage of all unemployed who are female

Wales LFS

4.1 1183 - No. participating in active measures – all unemployed

Percentage of all unemployed who are female

Wales LFS

4.2 1143 - No. of beneficiaries – work age population

Percentage of work age population who are female


LFS

4.3 1144 - No. of beneficiaries accessing advice, guidance, information on Lifelong Learning/career opportunities – total population

Percentage of work age population who are female


LFS

Objective 1 – Gender - Comparison Analysis Measure Output

Ref Variable Reported

% Predicted %

Comparator %

Programme Sample size (reported)

Don’t Knows

1.4 1143 Employed 47.5% 46.6% 46.7% 36,580 64

2.4 1143 Employed 30.1% 42.4% 46.7% 3,126 0

3.1 1143 Population 69.1% 60.1% 48.6% 4,784 2

4.1 1148 Unemployed 45.2% 39.6% 39.7% 26,391 0

4.1 1183 Unemployed 42.5% 38.9% 39.7% 49,203 0

4.2 1143 Work age population

46.1% 43.5% 48.6% 81,288 2


58.1% 56.4% 48.6% 132,617 9

A64

Objective 1 - Ethnic Minorities - Measures, outputs and comparisons Programme Measure

Target Reference and Description

Comparison Spatial Level of Comparator

Data Source

1.4 1143 - No. of beneficiaries –all those in employment

% of employed people of working age working age who are black, minority, ethnic.


LFS




LFS


% of the working age population who are black, minority, ethnic.


LFS


% of the out of work population of working age who are black, minority, ethnic.


LFS




LFS




LFS




LFS

4.5 1143 - No. of beneficiaries – all women



LFS

4.5 1143 - No. of beneficiaries gaining a positive outcome on leaving – all women



LFS

A65

Objective 1 – Ethnic Minorities - Comparison Analysis Measure Output


% Predicted %

Comparator %


Don’t Knows

1.4 1143 Employed 8.9% 4.2% 1.6% 36,580 3,009

2.4 1143 Employed 16.3% 7.3% 1.6% 3,126 154

3.1 1143 Population 2.9% 4.1% 1.6% 4,784 18

4.1 1148 Unemployed 4.3% 4.0% 1.6% 26,391 198

4.1 1183 Unemployed 5.0% 3.7% 1.6% 49,203 1,361


4.0% 3.4% 1.6% 81,288 19,834


7.9% 8.0% 1.6% 132,617 1,079

4.5 1143 All Women 9.1% 3.8% 1.6% 6,110 489

4.5 1148 All Women 6.6% 4.0% 1.6% 3,535 21

Objective 1 - Disabled - Measures, Outputs and comparisons

Programme Measure

Output Comparison Spatial Level of Comparator

Data Source


% of working age population with a disability (DDA/Long-term limiting illness)


LFS




LFS




LFS




LFS




LFS




LFS




LFS

A66

Programme Output Comparison Spatial Data Source Measure Level of

Comparator




LFS




LFS

Objective 1 – Disabled -Comparator Analysis Measure Output


% Predicted %

Comparator %


Don’t Knows

1.4 1143 Employed 3.5% 5.6% 24.4% 36,580 7,025

2.4 1143 Employed 3.8% 3.7% 24.4% 3,126 303

3.1 1143 Population 9.7% 42.7% 24.4% 4,784 66

4.1 1148 Unemployed 9.9% 10.1% 24.4% 26,391 1,891

4.1 1183 Unemployed 11.4% 11.0% 24.4% 49,203 1,192


24.1% 17.5% 24.4% 81,288 20.096


13.4% 12.6% 24.4% 132,617 4,725

4.5 1143 All Women 5.9% 12.8% 24.4% 6,110 600

4.5 1148 All Women 5.1% 4.0% 24.4% 3,535 128

Objective 1 – Welsh Speakers - Measures, Outputs and Comparisons

Programme Measure


Data Source


Welsh speakers – percentage of the population aged 3+


LFS




LFS




LFS




LFS

A67

Programme Output Comparison Spatial Level of Data Source Measure Comparator




LFS




LFS




LFS




LFS




LFS

Objective 1 – Welsh Speakers - Comparator Analysis Measure Output


% Predicted %

Comparator %


Don’t Knows

1.4 1143 Employed 24.0% 11.0% 32.0% 36,580 19,080

2.4 1143 Employed 5.9% 3.6% 32.0% 3,126 1,398

3.1 1143 Population 19.9% 13.8% 32.0% 4,784 1,720

4.1 1148 Unemployed 10.0% 7.4% 32.0% 26,391 12,981

4.1 1183 Unemployed 9.2% 7.6% 32.0% 49,203 25,100


18.6% 7.8% 32.0% 81,288 48,109


7.8% 14.1% 32.0% 132,617 89,870

4.5 1143 All Women 7.1% 7.4% 32.0% 6,110 2,650

4.5 1148 All Women 8.2% 17.6% 32.0% 3,535 1,686

A68

Objective 3 – Gender - Measures, outputs and comparisons Measure Output Comparison Spatial Level

of Comparator

Data Source

1.1 1148 - No. of beneficiaries gaining a positive outcome on leaving – unemployed people

Estimate of % of unemployed who are female

All Wales LFS

1.1 1183 - No. participating in active measures – unemployed people


All Wales LFS



All Wales LFS



All Wales LFS

1.3 1148 - No. of beneficiaries gaining a positive outcome on leaving – people aged 13-18

% of working age population what are female

East Wales LFS

1.3 1183 - No. participating in active measures – people aged 13-18


East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS

3.1 1144 - No. of beneficiaries accessing advice / guidance / information services – total population


East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS

4.2 1168 - No. of employees helped – employed people

% of employed who are female

East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS

4.4 1143 - No. of beneficiaries – employed people


East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS

A69

Measure Output Comparison Spatial Level Data Source of Comparator

5.1 1145 - No. of beneficiaries completing their courses – total population


East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS

Objective 3 Gender Comparator Analysis Measure Output


% Predicted %

Comparator %


Don’t Knows

1.1 1148 Unemployed 39.3% 37.8% 39.7% 3,138 0

1.1 1183 Unemployed 32.4% 37.6% 39.7% 8,137 0

1.2 1148 Unemployed 40.2% 37.6% 39.7% 480 0

1.2 1183 Unemployed 41.0% 51.3% 39.7% 1,135 0

1.3 1148 Aged 13-18 44.1% 37.1% 48.6% 2,530 0

1.3 1183 Aged 13-18 41.7% 35.5% 48.6% 3,548 0

2.1 1143

Total population

40.7% 38.9% 48.6% 10,472 4

2.2 1143

Total population

44.9% 39.8% 48.6% 5,776 0

2.3 1143

Total population

68.7% 67.2% 48.6% 2,101 0

3.1 1144

Total population

5.9% 54.4% 48.6% 37,951 3

3.2 1144

Total population

42.9% 40.7% 48.6% 44,861 0

4.2 1168 Employed 30.9% 13.6% 46.7% 274 2

4.3 1168 Employed 36.8% 49.7% 46.7% 201 0

4.4 1143 Employed 53.3% 49.9% 46.7% 2,391 0

5.1 1143

Total population

69.9% 89.5% 48.6% 4,217 0

5.1 1145

Total population

97.6% 94.2% 48.6% 1,918 0

5.2 1143

Total population

69.4% 63.2% 48.6% 1,775 0

A70

Measure Output Variable Predicted Comparator Programme Don’t Reported % Ref % % Sample Knows

size (reported)

5.2 1145 Total population

65.1% 89.9% 48.6% 1,302 0

Objective 3 – Ethnicity - Measures, outputs and comparisons Measure Output Comparison Spatial Level

of Comparator

Data Source



East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS


% of working age who are Black and Minority Ethnic

East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS

A71

Measure Output Comparison Spatial Level Data of Source Comparator



East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS

Objective 3 Ethnicity Comparator Analysis Measure Output


% Predicted %

Comparator %


Don’t Knows

1.1 1148 Unemployed 5.5% 4.6% 4.5% 3,138 1,084

1.1 1183 Unemployed 15.2% 8.5% 4.5% 8,137 67

1.2 1148 Unemployed 10.9% 19.4% 4.5% 480 1

1.2 1183 Unemployed 17.1% 23.6% 4.5% 1,135 6

1.3 1148 Aged 13-18 6.4% 10.2% 4.5% 2,530 186

1.3 1183 Aged 13-18 5.4% 10.2% 4.5% 3,548 190

2.1 1143

Total population

20.3% 15.2% 4.5% 10,472 728


58.8% 43.0% 4.5% 5,776 574

2.3 1143

Total population

8.6% 19.2% 4.5% 2,101 220

3.1 1144

Total population

8.0% 8.1% 4.5% 37,951 141

A72

Measure Output Variable Reported Predicted Comparator Don’t Programme Sample size Ref % % % Knows (reported)


7.6% 9.7% 4.5% 44,861 17,753

4.2 1168 Employed 1.5% 79.5% 4.5% 274 15

4.3 1168 Employed 6.1% 4.2% 4.5% 201 4

4.4 1143 Employed 9.8% 6.3% 4.5% 2,391 196


8.9% 9.2% 4.5% 4,217 215


19.2% 22.8% 4.5% 1,918 23


1.5% 1.8% 4.5% 1,775 2


1.0% 4.5% 4.5% 1,302 0

Objective 3 – Disability - Measures, outputs and comparisons

Programme Measure


Data Source


% of working age who are disabled

East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS


Unavailable Na Na


Unavailable Na Na

2.1 1143- No. of beneficiaries – total population


East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS

3.1 1144 - No. of beneficiaries accessing advice / guidance /


East Wales LFS

A73

Programme Output Comparison Spatial Level of Data Measure Comparator Source

information services – total population



East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS

Objective 3 Disability Comparator Analysis Measure

Output Ref

Variable Reported %

Predicted %

Comparator %


Don’t Knows

1.1 1148 Unemployed 3.6% 16.8% 24.4% 3,138 1,066

1.1 1183 Unemployed 6.2% 38.3% 24.4% 8,137 969

1.2 1148 Unemployed 11.5% 12.9% 24.4% 480 140

1.2 1183 Unemployed 17.7% 12.9% 24.4% 1,135 194

1.3 1148 Aged 13-18 8.3% 8.8% Na 2,530 1

1.3 1183 Aged 13-18 9.7% 8.3% Na 3,548 4

2.1 1143

Total population

29.1% 22.7% 24.4% 10,472 839

2.2 1143

Total population

9.1% 8.5% 24.4% 5,776 663

2.3 1143

Total population

11.3% 15.3% 24.4% 2,101 73

3.1 1144

Total population

7.9% 7.0% 24.4% 37,951 392

A74


3.2 1144

Total population

8.1% 7.8% 24.4% 44,861 18,168

4.2 1168 Employed 1.1% 9.1% 24.4% 274 11

4.3 1168 Employed 3.2% 4.5% 24.4% 201 11

4.4 1143 Employed 4.2% 4.1% 24.4% 2,391 133

5.1 1143

Total population

3.7% 5.9% 24.4% 4,217 315

5.1 1145

Total population

3.7% 7.2% 24.4% 1,918 43

5.2 1143

Total population

9.0% 2.0% 24.4% 1,775 28

5.2 1145

Total population

9.9% 1.5% 24.4% 1,302 0

Objective 3 – Welsh Speakers - Measures, outputs and comparisons Measure Output Comparison Spatial Level

of Comparator

Data Source

1.1 No. of beneficiaries gaining a positive outcome on leaving – unemployed people

Welsh speakers – % of 3+ population

East Wales LFS

1.1 No. participating in active measures – unemployed people


East Wales LFS

1.2 No. of beneficiaries gaining a positive outcome on leaving – unemployed people


East Wales LFS

1.2 No. participating in active measures – unemployed people


East Wales LFS

1.3 No. of beneficiaries gaining a positive outcome on leaving – people aged 13-18

Unavailable Na Na

1.3 No. participating in active measures – people aged 13-18

Unavailable Na Na

2.1 No. of beneficiaries – total population


East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS

3.1 No. of beneficiaries accessing advice/guidance/information services – total population


East Wales LFS

A75

Measure Output Comparison Spatial Level Data of Source Comparator

3.2 No. of beneficiaries accessing advice/guidance/information services – total population


East Wales LFS

4.2 No. of employees helped – employed people


East Wales LFS

4.3 No. of employees helped – employed people


East Wales LFS

4.4 No. of beneficiaries – employed people


East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS

5.1 No. of beneficiaries completing their courses – total population


East Wales LFS



East Wales LFS

5.2 No. of beneficiaries completing their courses – total population


East Wales LFS

Objective 3 Welsh Speakers Comparator Analysis

Measure

Output Ref

Variable Reported %

Predicted %

Comparator %


Don’t Knows

1.1 1148 Unemployed 4.4% 2.0% 22.1% 3,138 2,156

1.1 1183 Unemployed 4.2% 1.8% 22.1% 8,137 5,633

1.2 1148 Unemployed 20.5% 4.2% 22.1% 480 328

1.2 1183 Unemployed 14.9% 4.1% 22.1% 1,135 772

1.3 1148 Aged 13-18 2.6% 5.5% Na 2,530 1,731

1.3 1183 Aged 13-18 3.0% 4.8% Na 3,548 1,802

2.1 1143

Total population

2.1% 3.7% 22.1% 10,472 4,651

2.2 1143

Total population

2.1% 7.9% 22.1% 5,776 4,485

2.3 1143

Total population

5.9% 13.5% 22.1% 2,101 1,190

3.1 1144

Total population

2.3% 6.3% 22.1% 37,951 35,907

3.2 1144

Total population

17.8% 9.3% 22.1% 44,861 31,782

4.2 1168 Employed Na Na 22.1% 274 274

4.3 1168 Employed 7.2% 7.2% 22.1% 201 95

A76


4.4 1143 Employed 5.0% 5.0% 22.1% 2,391 2,339

5.1 1143

Total population

20.9% 20.9% 22.1% 4,217 802

5.1 1145

Total population

6.8% 6.8% 22.1% 1,918 407

5.2 1143

Total population

3.7% 3.7% 22.1% 1,775 202

5.2 1145

Total population

3.8% 3.8% 22.1% 1,302 38

A77

Annex Nine Breakdown of Scores

A78

This Annex provides the details of the analysis which has been done in relation to the scores achieved by the approved projects. Scoring by Vertical Measure Objective 1 - ICT Theme Priority 2 :Developing Innovation and the knowledge-based economy Measure 1: ICT infrastructure (ERDF)

High Medium Low

Environmental Sustainability - 43% 57%

ICT 100% - -

Equal Opportunities 43% 57% 0% Source: WEFO

Objective 1 - ICT Theme Priority 2 Measure 2 To stimulate & support demand for ICT (ERDF)

High Medium Low

Environmental Sustainability 14% 67% 19%

ICT 36% 64% -

Equal Opportunities 38% 62% - Source: WEFO

Objective 1 - Environmental Sustainability Theme Priority 2 Measure 5 Clean energy sector developments (ERDF)

High Medium Low


ICT 8% 67% 25%


A79

Objective 1 - Environmental Sustainability Theme Priority 5 – Rural development & the sustainable use of natural resources - Measure 7 – A sustainable countryside – enhancement & protection of the natural environment & countryside management (EAGGF)

High Medium Low


ICT 34% 51% 15%


Objective 1 - Environmental Sustainability Theme Priority 5 Measure 8 Support for Recreational Opportunities & Management of the Natural Environment (ERDF)

High Medium Low


ICT 44% 35% 21%

Equal Opportunities 71% 29% - Source: WEFO

Objective 1 - Environmental Sustainability Theme Priority 5 Measure 9 Support for Coastal Fisheries and Aquaculture (FIFG)

High Medium Low


ICT 36% 57% 7%


Objective 1 - Environmental Sustainability Theme Priority 6 Measure 2 Energy Infrastructure (ERDF)

High Medium Low

Environmental Sustainability 80% - 20%

ICT - 33% 67%

Equal Opportunities - 67% 33% Source: WEFO

A80

Objective 1 - Environmental Sustainability Theme Priority 6 – Strategic infrastructure development - Measure 4 – Environmental infrastructure (ERDF)

High Medium Low

Environmental Sustainability 70% - 30%

ICT 30% 40% 30%


Objective 1 - Equal Opportunities Theme Priority 4 – Developing People - Measure 5 – Improving the participation of women in the labour market (ESF)

High Medium Low

Environmental Sustainability 52% 45% 3% (1)

ICT 64% 36% 0%


Objective 3 - Equal Opportunities Theme Priority 5 – Promoting gender equality in the labour market - Measure 1 – – Pathways to participation (ESF)

High Medium Low

Environmental Sustainability 40% 60% -

ICT 16% 16% 68%


Objective 3 - Equal Opportunities Theme Priority 5 – Promoting gender equality in the labour market - Measure 2 – Promoting attitudinal change (ESF)

High Medium Low

Environmental Sustainability 64% 36% -

ICT 9% 9% 82%


A81

Scoring by Priority

Objective 1

Objective 1 Priority 1 – Expanding and Developing the SME base

High Medium Low


ICT 36% 55% 9%


Objective 1 Priority 2 – Developing Innovation and the Knowledge Based Economy

High Medium Low


ICT 49% 42% 9%


Objective 1 Priority 3 – Community Economic Regeneration

High Medium Low


ICT 28% 63% 9%


Objective 1 Priority 4 – Developing People

High Medium Low


ICT 64% 32% 4%


A82

Objective 1 Priority 5 – Rural Development and the sustainable use of resources

High Medium Low


ICT 34% 54% 13%


Objective 1 Priority 6 – Strategic Infrastructure Development

High Medium Low


ICT 31% 28% 31%


Objective 3 Objective 3 Priority 1 – Developing active labour market policies to prevent and combat unemployment

High Medium Low


ICT 11% 19% 70%


Objective 3 Priority 2 – Equal opportunities for all and promoting social inclusion

High Medium Low


ICT 22% 15% 63%


A83

Objective 3 Priority 3 – Lifelong learning

High Medium Low


ICT 11% 19% 70%


Objective 3 Priority 4 – Promoting business competitiveness

High Medium Low


ICT 18% 12% 70%


Objective 3 Priority 5 – Promoting gender equality within the labour market

High Medium Low


ICT 14% 14% 71%


Analysis by Fund Objective 1 ESF Projects

High Medium Low


ICT 60% 36% 4%


A84

Objective 1 Non-ESF projects (includes ERDF, EAGGF & FIFG)

High Medium Low


ICT 34% 54% 12%


Objective 1 ERDF

High Medium Low


ICT 34% 54% 13%


Objective 1 EAGGF

High Medium Low


ICT 37% 51% 12%


Objective 1 FIFG

High Medium Low


ICT 36% 57% 7%


A85

Annex Ten Bristol Accord – Sustainable Communities

A86

Conclusions of Bristol Ministerial Informal Meeting on Sustainable Communities in Europe - EIGHT CHARACTERISTICS OF A SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY (as presented in the Bristol Accord, December 2005) (1) ACTIVE, INCLUSIVE AND SAFE – Fair, tolerant and cohesive with a strong local culture and other shared community activities Sustainable communities offer: • a sense of community and cultural identity, and belonging; • tolerance, respect and engagement with people from different cultures, background and beliefs; • friendly, co-operative and helpful behaviour in neighbourhoods; • opportunities for cultural, leisure, community, sport and other activities, including for children and young people;

• low levels of crime, drugs and antisocial behaviour with visible, effective and community friendly policing; and,

• social inclusion, equality of opportunity and good life chances for all. (2) WELL RUN – with effective and inclusive participation, representation and leadership Sustainable communities enjoy: • representative, accountable governance systems which both facilitate strategic, visionary leadership and enable inclusive, active and effective participation by individuals and organizations; • effective engagement with the community at neighbourhood level, including capacity building to develop the community’s skills, knowledge and confidence; • strong, informed and effective partnerships that lead by example (e.g. government, business, community); • strong, inclusive, community and voluntary sector; and, • sense of civic values, responsibility and pride. (3) WELL CONNECTED – with good transport services and communication linking people to jobs, schools, health and other services Sustainable communities offer: • transport facilities, including public transport, that help people travel within and between communities and reduce dependence on cars; • facilities to encourage safe local walking and cycling; • an appropriate level of local parking facilities in line with local plans to manage road traffic demand; • widely available and effective telecommunications and Internet access; and, • good access to regional, national and international communications networks. (4) WELL SERVED – with public, private, community and voluntary services that are appropriate to people’s needs and accessible to all Sustainable communities have: • well-performing local schools, further and higher education institutions, and other opportunities for lifelong learning; • high quality local health care and social services, integrated where possible with other services; • high quality services for families and children (including early years child care);

A87

• good range of affordable public, community, voluntary and private services (e.g. retail, fresh food, commercial, utilities, information and advice) which are accessible to the whole community; and, • service providers who think and act long-term and beyond their own immediate geographical and interest boundaries, and who involve users and local residents in shaping their policy and practice. (5) ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE – providing places for people to live that are considerate of the environment Sustainable communities: • providing places for people to live that respect the environment and use resources efficiently; • actively seek to minimise climate change, including through energy efficiency and the use of renewables; • protect the environment, by minimising pollution on land, in water and in the air; • minimise waste and dispose of it in accordance with current good practice; • make efficient use of natural resources, encouraging sustainable production and consumption; • protect and improve bio-diversity (e.g. wildlife habitats); • enable a lifestyle that minimises negative environmental impact and enhances positive impacts (e.g. by creating opportunities for walking and cycling, and reducing noise pollution and dependence on cars); and, • create cleaner, safer and greener neighbourhoods (e.g. by reducing litter and graffiti, and maintaining pleasant public spaces). (6) THRIVING – with a flourishing, diverse and innovative local economy Sustainable communities feature: • a wide range of good quality jobs and training opportunities; • sufficient suitable land and buildings to support economic prosperity and change; • dynamic job and business creation, with benefits for the local community; • a strong business community with links into the wider economy; and, • economically viable and attractive town centres. (7) WELL DESIGNED AND BUILT – featuring quality built and natural environment Sustainable communities offer: • sense of place – a place with a positive ‘feeling’ for people and local distinctiveness; • user-friendly public and green spaces with facilities for everyone including children and older people; • sufficient range, diversity, affordability and accessibility of housing within a balanced housing market; • appropriate size, scale, density, design and layout, including mixed-use development, that complement the distinctive local character of the community; • high quality, mixed-use, durable, flexible and adaptable buildings, using materials which minimise negative environmental impacts; • buildings and public spaces which promote health and are designed to reduce crime and make people feel safe; • buildings, facilities and services that mean they are well prepared against disasters – both natural and man-made; and, • accessibility of jobs, key services and facilities by public transport, walking and cycling.

A88

(8) FAIR FOR EVERYONE – including those in other communities, now and in the future Sustainable communities: • recognise individuals’ rights and responsibilities; • respect the rights and aspirations of others (both neighbouring communities, and across the wider world) also to be sustainable; and, • have due regard for the needs of future generations in current decisions and actions.

A89

Documents

Cross Cutting Themes Research Project (Objectives 1 & 3) · 2016-10-31 · Cross Cutting Themes Research Project (Objectives 1 & 3) Final Report C3008 / April 2006 ECOTEC X 6 th Floor