Paper 1 : Discussion Paper Current Update

Transcription

1 Paper 1 : Discussion Paper Current Update 1. Update on the RDPE Programme The Rural Development Programme for England has now been formally adopted by the European Commission. Regular updates on the programme are available on the Government website These give details of the opening times for the four funding streams of the RDPE: Countryside Stewardship Countryside Productivity Growth Programme LEADER The GOV.UK webpage will form the landing site for anyone interested in LEADER or any of the other funding streams available under the Rural Development Programme (RDPE). The forms and application guidance are now available for the Countryside Productivity scheme on these pages. All LAG members should be aware of these pages, check their contents as the site develops and advise applicants of their availability. It is here that the mapping/postcode locator will be posted if/when this is available. 2. Update on Budgets On 27 th February we received notification that the total allocation for the South Pennines LAG for the programme will be 1.568M. The annual distribution of this allocation is laid out in Paper 2. Our allocation in euro is 1.960M euro. The allocation is based on an indicative exchange rate of 0.8. The 80 groups shown overleaf have been confirmed. This gives a regional distribution of LEADER funding as follows: Region Budget North West 13,960 Yorkshire and North East 19,949 East Midlands 17,027 West Midlands 13,171 East of England 22,322 South West 14,066 Devon & Cornwall 16,186 South East 21,322 Total 138,003 UK Distribution of LEADER funding South West South East Devon & Cornwall North West Yorkshire and North East East Midlands East of England West Midlands 1

2 Leader Group Budget Region Cumbria Fells and Dales 3,008 North West Atlantic and Moor 2,564 South West Devon & Cornwall North York Moors Coast & Hills 2,336 Yorkshire & North East Torridge & North Devon 2,325 South West Devon & Cornwall Solway, Border and Eden 2,261 North West Staffordshire 2,249 West Midlands Yorkshire Dales 2,232 Yorkshire & North East North Pennine Dales 2,133 Yorkshire & North East Coast, Wolds, Wetlands & Waterways 2,122 Yorkshire & North East Herefordshire 2,070 West Midlands Wensum and Coast 2,061 East of England Lindsey Action Zone 2,059 East Midlands Shropshire Hills 2,032 West Midlands Cotswolds 1,998 West Midlands Northumberland Coast and Lowlands 1,985 Yorkshire & North East Heritage Coast 1,972 East of England Greater Dartmoor LEAF 1,972 South West Devon & Cornwall Worcestershire 1,959 West Midlands West Norfolk 1,921 East of England Kent Downs and Marshes 1,886 South East Northumberland Uplands 1,881 Yorkshire & North East North and West Northamptonshire 1,868 East Midlands North Nottinghamshire 1,853 East Midlands Wool Towns 1,845 East of England Eastern Plateau 1,843 East of England West Kent 1,813 South East Essex Rivers 1,811 East of England Kestevens 1,800 East Midlands Wealden and Rother Rural Partnership 1,795 South East Waveney Valley 1,764 East of England Brecks 1,755 East of England South and East Cornwall 1,755 South West Devon & Cornwall Peak 1,753 East Midlands Heart of Wessex 1,738 South West (non Devon & Cornwall) Clay Vales 1,737 South East Central Sussex 1,705 South East North Wessex Downs 1,705 South West (non Devon & Cornwall) Wash Fens 1,671 East Midlands Rural Surrey 1,642 South East Somerset Levels and Moors 1,635 South West (non Devon & Cornwall) Lancashire North and Bowland 1,634 North West Fieldfare 1,634 South East Making It Local 1,627 South West Devon & Cornwall Beds and Hunts Claylands 1,625 East of England Southern Dorset 1,617 South West (non Devon & Cornwall) East Leicestershire 1,591 East Midlands West Cornwall 1,591 South West Devon & Cornwall East Kent 1,586 South East Durham Coast and Lowlands 1,584 Yorkshire & North East Northern Dorset 1,577 South West (non Devon & Cornwall) South Pennines 1,568 Yorkshire & North East Lancashire West 1,563 North West West of England 1,558 South West (non Devon & Cornwall) South Nottinghamshire 1,555 East Midlands Oxfordshire 1,550 South East West Cheshire and Warrington 1,537 North West Loddon and Test 1,537 South East Northern Lincolnshire 1,531 Yorkshire & North East South Devon Coastal 1,516 South West Devon & Cornwall Chilterns 1,515 South East Broads 1,513 East of England Coastal Action Zone 1,507 East Midlands Sussex Downs and Coastal Plain 1,492 South East Western Somerset 1,484 South West (non Devon & Cornwall) Cambridgeshire Fens 1,447 East of England Forest and Tewkesbury Borough 1,447 West Midlands Greensand Ridge 1,443 East of England Lancashire Pennine Moors 1,430 North West New Forest 1,430 South East REAL Devon 1,430 South West Devon & Cornwall North Warwickshire and Hinckley and Bo 1,416 West Midlands Coast to Coast 1,406 South West Devon & Cornwall Cheshire East 1,400 North West Plain Action 1,380 South West (non Devon & Cornwall) Vale Action 1,372 South West (non Devon & Cornwall) Bolsover North East Derbyshire 1,370 East Midlands East Peak 1,347 Yorkshire & North East Rural Peterborough and Rutland 1,322 East of England Tees Valley and Vale of Mowbray 1,230 Yorkshire & North East Mersey Rural 1,127 North West Total 138,003 2

3 3. Next Steps The RPA expect LEADER to be open for business after the General Election. Before this period, activities are timetabled as follows: March Publicity about LEADER programme commencing in the South Pennines must happen before 27 th March Formal contracts will be entered into with Accountable Bodies. April/May Formal training will take place for LEADER group representatives in operating processes and procedures, eligibility, state aid, IT systems and appraisal. These sessions will be primarily aimed at Programme Managers, although LAG chairs, LAG members and other accountable body staff are welcome to attend if desired. The sessions are likely to be a full day (10-4pm) and will probably run weekly over the course of 5 or 6 weeks after Easter. RH will arrange appropriate cascade training for all LAG members at a future LAG meeting. There will be national discussion on proposals for co-operation for the new Programme. LAG coordinators are also arranging a regional cooperation event on April 21 st Claire Dunn and John Dunford have volunteered to attend this event. May/June Application forms and handbooks will be made available. Summer There will be a national launch event for all approved groups to come together as a network. This will take the form of a number of seminars and workshops, as well as networking and cooperation activities. Again, it is anticipated that a limited number LAG members will be able to attend this. 4. New Information The RPA has been issuing a Question and Answer document at intervals as LAGs raise specific queries and answers become available. It has also been issuing some documents in draft for comment by LAG staff. Whilst much of this information is operational detail for programme staff, the key points for LAG members to note are as follows: Overall budgets The contract will set out the lifetime contract allocation in euros. This will then be converted into sterling for budgeting purposes on an annual basis. Therefore the sterling allocation over the life time of the whole programme will be subject to fluctuations based on the euro-sterling exchange rate. M& Budget The accountable body and the LAG have to carry the risk that fluctuations in the exchange rate may result in a reduction in available M&A (Management and Administration). This is discussed in Paper 2. The LAG is required to verify the reasonableness of costs by following the procurement guidance in its use of M&A budget, and all costs claimed must be actual and evidenced. The LAG should always seek to achieve value for money in their use of M&A and use digital by default wherever possible to promote the availability of LEADER funding. Commissioning The RPA are yet to design the business process for procured (commissioned) projects, so will provide further details in due course, but the emphasis at the start of the programme should be on open calls for projects. 3

4 Small grants and grant rates The minimum grant is stated as 2,500 (unless there are exceptional circumstances why it should be lower) with grants typically at a rate of 40%, ie requiring most business-focused projects to have a total cost of 6,250. The final amount of grant and therefore intervention rate will need to be determined by the appraisal assessment of the need for public funds. The project should only receive the minimum amount of funding required to ensure the project can go ahead. Ineligible costs Costs which cannot be claimed are listed as follows in the draft handbook: o costs for standard agricultural equipment and inputs, like animals and annual crops o cost of agricultural production rights and payment entitlements o cost of getting any consents needed, for example planning permission o costs for anything that s a standard industry obligation, for example requirements of the Basic Payment Scheme o costs that are incurred before the date of the offer letter o financial charges, such as interest, fines and maintenance o reclaimable VAT o any items the applicant already get EU or national funding for o projects the applicant is required to do by law or to meet a legal requirement o like-for-like replacements o costs connected with a leasing contract, such as lessor s margin, interest refinancing costs, overheads and insurance charges o salaries, running costs o relocation of the business LAG coordinators have challenged a number of these. For example: - the exclusion of salaries and running costs precludes against a number of possible activities under the support for rural service provision in particular; - the exclusion of relocation costs for a business precludes against business expansion projects etc. Verifying reasonableness of costs The following procurement rules must be followed by all applicants: Value of item or service How to show value for money 500 or less 2 quotes of references to 2 catalogue listings 501-1,500 3 quotes or references to 3 catalogue listings 1,501-50,000 3 quotes or 3 formal tenders 50,001 or more 3 formal competitive tenders Core Selection Criteria The following draft core selection criteria are proposed. The idea is to use the scoring and weighting criteria to help ensure funding goes to those projects which provide the best value for money, address clear needs and are financially viable. We will be able add our own specific criteria relevant to the locality and the Local Development Strategy. These criteria are similar to those used during our appraisal training session in January It is important that potential applicants are aware of these criteria to assist them in making the most robust case for their project as possible. Once these criteria are finalized, this information will be put on the South Pennines LEADER website. 4

5 High level criteria Individual Selection Criteria Strategic fit Scoring system 1. How well does the project fit with the relevant priorities identified? This needs to demonstrate a fit with one or more of the 6 national priorities for LEADER, showing how well and to what extent the project: Can demonstrate a clear contribution to supporting the rural economy; Where relevant, has strategic fit with other rural economic activity in the LEADER area, in particular other RDP funded activity through the ESIF Growth Programme and the LEP; Tourism related projects fit within an overall approach to supporting a destination and also align with other tourism related Growth Programme investments; Business support projects fit with an overall approach to supporting skills and advice in the ESIF Growth Programme and activity is complementary; Agricultural and forestry related projects align with the Countryside Productivity scheme offer in the LEADER area 0 Reject, 1-4 Policy / strategy Value For Money The expectation is for the LEADER group to have an awareness of the range of RDPE schemes in their area and be able to direct projects towards the most appropriate source of funding. Strategic fit local 2. How well does the project fit with the relevant priorities identified? How well and to what extent the project delivers against one or more of the priorities set out in the relevant Local Development Strategy? The criteria and scoring against this would be set by the local LEADER group. Need for the project 3. How well does the project demonstrate need and delivery of outcomes? Does the application demonstrate a clear need for the project to support the particular business, community or rural area? Has this has been clearly identified? Does the application set out clearly how the project outcomes will best address the need of the target beneficiaries [e.g. the business, community and / or sector to be supported.]? Need for public funding 4. Has the applicant considered other forms of public funding and set out clearly what difference the funding will make to the business and / or to the surrounding market? What evidence has been provided that the project has considered other funding 0 = Reject, 1-4 A higher weighting is likely to be given to this criteria in the calculation of total score 5

6 High level criteria Project viability Individual Selection Criteria options, including other sources of RDPE and public funding where available? What evidence has been provided to show what difference funding will make when compared to what would happen without it [deadweight]? What evidence has been provided that shows that the project will not result in potential harm on other similar businesses [displacement]? Outputs delivered 5. Are reasonable outputs and outcomes set out that are proportionate to the level of funding offered? Has the applicant demonstrated the reasonableness of costs in relation to the proposed target outcomes and outputs to be achieved [e.g. number of jobs created for the grant received or expected productivity gains]? Weighting would be on specific outputs to be delivered dependent upon local priorities. Deliverability 6. Is the project deliverable and costs realistic? Have competitive quotes been sought that reflect generally available market prices? Is there is a clear rationale for not choosing the lowest valid offer, should a more expensive quote be preferred that is not just based on a higher specification? Are the costs realistic and sufficient and do not go beyond the need identified to support the proposed improvements in productivity or environmental benefit? Has the application shown clearly that those involved in delivery of it have the skills and resources to deliver the project successfully? Have the necessary permissions, consents and licences been sought and are in place, if applicable, to deliver the project e.g. planning permission an environmental license or consent from the applicant s landlord? Has the application shown how it will demonstrate that it has been successful at project end? Risk management 7. Have the risks to delivery of the project been adequately identified? Has the applicant demonstrated that risks that are relevant to the size, scale and scope of the project and to the business / organisation in carrying out the project have been identified and set out appropriate mitigating actions to address them? Long term financial sustainability Scoring system A higher weighting is likely to be given to this criteria in the calculation of total score 1-4 6

7 High level criteria Cross cutting themes Individual Selection Criteria 8. How will the project demonstrate longer term sustainability? How will the project continue to benefit the business, sector or rural area after RDPE funding comes to an end? How does the project / business demonstrate long term sustainability once RDPE funding has come to an end? Viability of project / financial performance 9. How viable is the project? Has the applicant demonstrated clear financial projections for the project? Has the applicant provided evidence of its financial viability via 3 sets of accounts if it is an existing business? If the company is a new business, has it provided draft accounts and management accounts (if available) and a statement from their accountant that sets out expected business income and operating expenses? Environmental sustainability of the project 10. How does the project demonstrate sustainability? Have all relevant Environmental Sustainability requirements been considered and are they reflected in the design and delivery of the project? These requirements include - Environmental protection - Resource efficiency - Biodiversity and ecosystem protection - Climate change mitigation and adaptation - Polluter Pays Principle Is it easy to understand the environmental impacts associated with the project? Is there a clear explanation as to how any negative environmental impacts will be avoided or minimised and is this realistic? (If applicable, for larger projects) has an Environmental Impact Assessment been completed for the project? Environmental sustainability of the project 11. How does the project demonstrate sustainability? What impact will the project have on the environment and, where applicable, what mitigating actions are in place to reduce the potential impact on the environment? Does the application demonstrate an understanding of climate impact and does the project contribute positively to climate change (mitigation or adaptation)? (If applicable, for larger projects) has an Environmental Impact Assessment been Scoring system 7

8 High level criteria Individual Selection Criteria completed for the project? South Pennines LEADER LAG, , Paper 1 Scoring system 12. How well does the project address the theme of equality and diversity? Assessment focus will be dependent on the type of project to be funded under the call. Examples: Does the applicant business have an appropriate policy on equality and diversity (eg as an employer)? Have access requirements been fully considered (eg for buildings, websites)? Are jobs created open to a diverse range of applicants? 8