Partnership

Analysis of ESIF Programmes implementation in 2007-13 (PMC) has identified a number of issues that had a negative impact on the workings of the management committee including:

- long time taken to determine the purpose of the group

- frequent focus on the more comfortable territory of discussing the progress of individual projects rather than taking a more strategic overview

- PMC members (in particular substitutes) often being programme experts rather than more strategic people

- (sometimes) lack of consistency, or duplication of effort, between the two PMCs - (sometimes) lack of clarity of papers prepared by the MA.

The interview research highlighted a number of drawbacks. With respect to the committee s

membership, the JPMC has been described as being too high level with most of the participants

having limited experience or hands-on involvement in strategic interventions or European programmes, which does not always allow for detailed discussion of delivery on the ground. Local stakeholders and economic and social partners are critical of the composition describing meeting as not being well attended with limited private sector representation as well as more limited

servants. Opportunities for the engagement of third sector organisations have also decreased, and certain disengagement of the third sector from the JPMC is reported. Overall, there is perceived to be unrealised potential in using the expertise and insight of a wider range of stakeholders, which can potentially impact performance.

Turning to the organisation of meetings, some partners were critical of their frequency . The JPMC meets only twice a year for two hours, which is regarded insufficient for meaningful discussion of implementation progress. Wide-ranging and technical agenda may discourage wider participation at the same time as not allowing for detailed discussion. The standards of papers going to the committee have been reported by some to be generally poor in recent years providing little information and not being available well in advance of the meetings.

Finally, the impacts on policymaking and accountability were questioned. The committee has been noted to be limited in its ability to influence decision-making, with its role being largely confined to raising members awareness of programme performance and a lot of decisions being taken before matters actually reach the meetings. Scrutiny of the JPMC and direct accountability to the public appears limited, with lack of publicity (including relevant media releases) on the decisions taken )nformation may be available but is not put upfront requiring significant effort to navigate and find it. In addition, there is limited awareness or interest by the public, nor would they be able to digest the information that is made available, as it is mostly statistical/technical or strategic. While JPMC meetings are viewed as useful by some stakeholders, regular direct contacts with the MA are described as being more useful as they allow for more detailed discussion of the actual delivery of the Programme. A need for more regular informal meetings bringing together stakeholders working on common themes was voiced, at a level below the JPMC.

The MA recognised the existence of certain drawbacks in the way the JPMC is currently functioning, at least in terms of unrealised potential. While the importance and necessity of maintaining the JPMC was emphasised, the possibility of introducing another level enabling fruitful and meaningful discussion about the programme priorities and progress was noted. It is hoped that this could enhance the quality of partnership working.

As regards the Highlands and Islands Territorial Committee, the lack of a strong formal status has raised questions about its value. There is a feeling that the committee is not fully delivering on its core task of overseeing progress of spend on various strategic interventions in the H&I due to a perceived lack of formal responsibility or input into programme implementation in the region, from the setting up of the strategic interventions to their delivery. This is perceived as a deterioration compared to the previous period, where involvement of regional stakeholders in programme delivery was better ensured through a dedicated OP and management structure.

The H&I representatives have noted that the shift from a separate H&I programme to a single Scottish OP has changed the dynamics of ESIF-related partnership in Scotland, leading to a lower level of local engagement and a more unequal partnership loss of the sense of a joint effort and collective responsibility in delivering the Programmes. There is a feeling that the existing partnership structure does not allow to address sufficiently the specific regional needs of H&I. Since the administration and running of the group is ensured by the MA, most of the information and analysis presented at the meetings is Scotland-wide rather than H&I-specific. Although this is starting to change, the H&I territorial committee has not so far managed to demonstrate its real value.

By contrast, one stakeholder noted that engagement under the LEADER programme was particularly effective in achieving true local partnership Engagement through Community Planning Partnerships (CPP) and other types of local action groups also ensures local stakeholders participation. Openness to the broader public is however not implicit, as most meetings have a

closed character due to sensitive project information being often discussed. However, committee minutes are published online providing accountability.

The MA engagement with local authorities mostly takes place through a collective representation body (SLAED), which is however not formalised. The group is mainly made up of European project officers and is not particularly open to the public per se but does nevertheless represent local government interests. It presents a forum to discuss challenges and seek clarifications from the SG with regards to the implementation of the programmes.

In addition, concerns were expressed by some civil society organisations regarding the lack of engagement in the current period (due to the decreased influence opportunities for civil society organisations through the JPMC), which have led to the set-up of a separate channel for dialogue and engagement a civil society forum. However, it has been noted to be largely non-functional at present.

Overall, local stakeholders consider that changes in the implementation arrangements in the current period (including delivery through strategic partners and a shift to a Scotland-wide OP) have worked to the detriment of wider engagement into programme implementation. The decreased engagement of local and third sector stakeholders, among other things, has reduced flows of information and decreased a sense of local ownership. On the other hand, the MA reports that the new structure is more effective and efficient since the programme is dealing with a smaller number of lead partners.

In terms of the UK-wide partnership, the MA reported high degree of autonomy in delivering the Scottish OPs as agreed in the framework of the Partnership Agreement and lack of interference in the delivery of the programme by central government, which is viewed positively but is not new. The opinions from stakeholder survey respondents on the effectiveness as well as inclusiveness and openness of the programme partnership are divided (see Table 13). While a marginally larger share of respondents believe that the programme partnership operates in an inclusive, open and fair manner as well as facilitates partners shared understanding and commitment percent the view on partners as being only interested in promoting their own organisational and financial interests is equally relatively widespread (39 percent).

Table 13: Stakeholder survey Q7. The partnership principle requires the participation of a wide range of partners throughout the different stages of programming and implementation through consultations, monitoring committee work and other mechanisms. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the operation of the partnership principle in practice?

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree Don t know The way the programme partnership operates is

inclusive, open and fair 0.0% 38.9% 22.2% 33.3% 0.0% 5.6%

The operation of the programme s partnership principle facilitates a shared understanding and shared commitment by partners to achieving the programme s

objectives 0.0% 38.9% 33.3% 27.8% 0.0% 0.0%

Partners are only interested in promoting their own

organisational and financial interests 0.0% 38.9% 33.3% 27.8% 0.0% 0.0%