Assessment of added value

According to Tyler (2012a), evidence from impact evaluations was scarce and thus there was very little evidence on additionality. However, the added value of EU Cohesion policy is still reported in two main areas. From a financial and economic perspective, business support co-funding is reported to have created additional gross value added and employment than would have been the case in the absence of support. Additionality in this sense was relatively high and support to business was meeting an important need )bid .

Governance and related democratic additionality is a second area of added value. The delivery of Structural Funds in Scotland has had a significant impact on partnership working mechanisms historically. In the period under investigation, an evaluation (Blake Stevenson 2011) looking at how the CPPs have responded to their new role in delivering ESIF has found that CPPs have adopted a more strategic approach, developing local employment strategies, as a consequence of having responsibility for co-ordinating the use of European funds, while delivery through CPPs has led to more effective use of Structural Funds. A major achievement of the initiative of routing Structural Funds through CPPs has been the impact it has had on partnership working as well as on policy/strategic innovation. While in some areas the funding allowed for the development or refinement of employability programmes that were already taking shape, in others the impact was more dramatic in that the partnership approach to employability provision required by ESIF has fundamentally changed the way the area works. The latter resulted in partners implementing strategic approaches to employability for the first time, allowing for the services and approaches become far more joined up than was the case historically )bid .

The interviews with stakeholders highlighted EU Cohesion policy added value in strategic,

administrative, democratic and financial terms.

Strategic added value. Structural Funds are viewed as a major driver behind the development in

the UK and therefore Scotland of the concept of regional policy, in the sense of a strategic long- term policy addressing economic development challenges specific to particular areas, which was largely absent before the access to EU funding and might be affected in light of the recent events the future of regional policy in the UK after Brexit being under question. CP is seen as enabling spatially targeted interventions that would otherwise not have happened.

Structural Funds are seen as providing a more certain, stable, reliable and long-term framework for regional policy planning and delivery than many domestic programmes, which are viewed as being more vague in content and/or unreliable over long and medium term. They are also seen to be a useful tool for a devolved government and less subject to the vagaries of politics, among other things supporting areas which have been vulnerable due to UK Government s austerity cuts Value is also seen in the alignment and negotiation of national and local spending priorities. The continuity and certainty of Cohesion policy funding are seen as crucial for ensuring commitment of providers and securing match funding in sectors like skills development and training. The absence of a multi-annual funding framework would raise additional risks or reduce the scale and ambition of interventions. Funding additionality is viewed as providing added value and opportunities for development. The challenge is to avoid further erosion of the additionality effect of Structural Funds support and prevent it from becoming mainstream and part of the general duties , which risks hindering innovative approaches to providing support. While SFs do not drive policy to a great extent (due to the relatively low share of funding), the Funds can act as change drivers. For instance, in the area of higher skills, SFs have been used to try to get higher skills linked to specific industries, which might become mainstreamed. This also applies to low carbon economy interventions, where SFs are used to build a pipeline of interventions, and getting the employability pipeline approach used by the local authorities up and running.

Administrative and democratic add value. Stimulation of partnership work has been highlighted as

one of the main achievements of CP, as well as the mainstreaming of new and more efficient ways of working such as e.g. employability pipelines where through the programmes different stakeholders and service providers are encouraged to work together in a coherent way something which has also become mainstreamed into wider employability policy. Accountability and local empowerment that CP provides have been noted among the key elements of added value benefitting Scotland over decades.

SFs have supported several key projects which have involved mobilisation of stakeholders in a meaningful way, including through the Cities Alliance and the employability pipelines of the local authorities. The best-functioning employability pipelines have generated genuine partnership, and this coordination would not have happened without SFs. Research has found that the employability pipeline approach has enabled local partnerships to develop a more strategic approach, in particular towards partnership working, improving outcomes and leading to a more client centred approach (TERU 2015). By working together, the Cities Alliance partners share knowledge and create projects of scale which offer greater investment prospects.

 The Employability Pipeline Strategic Intervention was one of the first to be approved under the 2014-20 programmes in Scotland and to spring 2017, £43.7 million in ESF has been approved up to the end of 2018 for the lead partners Skills Development Scotland and Scotland s local authorities. ESF support has been crucial in rolling out the employability pipeline model, which has become mainstream across employment and training organisations in Scotland. The employability pipeline model has been developed as a framework to support the effective delivery of employability services. The pipeline is made up of five key stages, whereby the needs of the individual are considered in relation to existing soft skills, employability skills and skills requiring development. The pipeline concept was introduced in order to provide a structured approach to the organisation and delivery of services to unemployed people in Scotland , especially the long term unemployed. A wide range of partners (including local authorities, national skills agencies and government departments, local colleges and third sector representatives) are involved in the design and management of most employability pipelines. Most also draw on a wide range of organisations to deliver their pipeline (TERU 2015).

 The Scottish Cities Alliance is a collaboration between Scotland s seven cities Aberdeen Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Inverness, Perth and Stirling) and the Scottish Government, working together to promote the economic potential of the country. The Alliance was established in 2011 to jointly promote economic development and develop a long-term investment promotion strategy in a bid to attract capital investment to Scotland s cities The Alliance has played a key role in the development of the Scottish Government s refreshed Agenda for Cities and International Trade and Investment Strategy. It secured £10 million of ERDF funding for a flagship Smart Cities Scotland project Scotland s th City The Smart City which including match funding will create a million programme to take forward co-designed technology and data opportunities that will help achieve the cities' ambitions to be global hi-tech hubs.

In addition, the opportunity to collaborate, exchange experience and learn from other organisations involved in the delivery of Structural Funds programmers, including through transnational cooperation initiatives, is highly valued by stakeholders.

The financial added-value capacity of Cohesion policy was considered to be more limited owing to the relatively low share of EU funding in domestic expenditure (£828 million for SFs versus £30 billion for domestic economic development spend as well as the scattering of policy interventions across a wide range of thematic fields )n this context although seen as a good value for money in

terms of the development of small interventions and what is achieved, CP is seen as lacking capacity to generate really significant changes. At the same time, it was noted that in specific cases, the ESIF contribution can be very considerable constituting a high share of smaller organisations (e.g. third sector) turnover, and although the overall share of Cohesion funding in Scotland is limited, targeted support in specific areas can be very perceptible and change-inducing (e.g. in the areas of skill development or youth unemployment).

4. Cohesion policy communication