CC(3) VS41

Cyswllt Amgylchedd Cymru, Wales Environment Link, 27 Heol y Wig/27 Pier Street, Aberystwyth, SY23 2LN (01970 611621) enquiry@waleslink.org

Cadeirydd / Chair :  Geraint Hopkins, Cyfarwyddwraig / Director :  Susan Evans www.waleslink.org

NAW Communities and Culture Committee Consultation - Voluntary Sector Funding

Wales Environment Link (WEL) is a network for voluntary environmental and countryside organisations in Wales, most of whom have an all-Wales remit. WEL is officially designated the Intermediary Body between the government and the voluntary environmental sector in Wales. Our vision is to increase the effectiveness of the environmental sector in its ability to protect and improve the environment through facilitating and articulating the voice of the sector.

WEL is pleased to be given this opportunity to respond to the consultation document of the Assembly  Communities and Culture Committee concerning voluntary sector funding. Many of WEL’s members will be responding individually to this consultation, our joint response therefore focuses on key issues of collective concern.

Ease or difficulty of obtaining funding from the Welsh Assembly Government or relevant national funding bodies

Examples of best practice

• WEL welcomes the fact that the Welsh Assembly Government and Assembly Sponsored Public Bodies do set aside funding for specialist areas of work relating to the environment, such as that provided for Eco Schools and Local Environmental Quality.
• WEL recognises the value of the Environment Wales model, which combines Development Officer support with a range of grant streams, and which has helped support over 700 environmental projects throughout Wales.
• WEL is supportive of the umbrella grant schemes which have enabled Forestry Commission Wales and the Countryside Council for Wales to re-distribute EU funds to the voluntary sector. There does seem to be a reluctance in Government agencies to provide leadership in setting up and managing such umbrella schemes, but WEL believes that they are a practical way to bring EU funding to smaller voluntary sector organisations.
• WEL would highlight three examples of best practice
• Forestry Commission’s EU funded Cyd Coed programme has provided very substantial funding to community groups;
• the Wetlands for Wales project (funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund), which provides funding for biodiversity projects; and
• the Countryside Council for Wales led Phoenix project that has enabled       vast improvements to voluntary sector nature reserves in Wales.
• WEL also welcomes funding practices such as:
• evidence based decision making;
• the opportunity to discuss proposals in advance of formal application deadlines, which helps to avoid unnecessary work.

Competitivity and capacity

• Most funding has to be bid for in a competitive environment and there are always more applications than funding available. This can lead to time and resources being allocated to preparing applications that may or may not be successful.
• We are concerned that with more of future lottery resources / funding  going to the Olympics, it will be even  harder  to get funding for projects. Even with 70%  of  the BIG lottery funds ring fenced for the voluntary sector, competition for funds is currently extremely high and  the success rate is decreasing.
• The level of work required by voluntary organisations to submit an application for funds is increasing, therefore there is a high risk that delivery capacity of organisations will be adversely affected if they are not successful.
• The level of work required is a particular problem for smaller voluntary sector organisations, who do not have specialist funding raising officers and have to divert staff resources from other work in order to undertake the necessary research for applications.
• The support and guidance offered to projects by Environment Wales through a dedicated Development Officer makes this funding source of particular value to small organisations undertaking new projects.

Transparency

• Funding applications can be made more frustrating and de-moralising for the staff involved if the final funding decision is not transparent.
• An example of this is when there is an assessment process in place, but the ultimate decision is made by a committee. In some cases the committee can, or may have to, act in a way that appears to ignore the assessment process, because there are insufficient funds available to meet demand. This can be particular problem with, for example, Lottery funding.
• The Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund has clear criteria and is easy to apply for but some of the comments received back from the committee have not always reflected the criteria or the content of the application.

Structural Funds and the requirement of demonstrating tangible economic outputs

• WEL members have sought to ensure that Structural Funds enhance the environment, and that the application processes prevent projects coming forward that damage wildlife.
• Many WEL members welcome and share the Welsh Assembly Government’s target to bring designated sites into favourable condition (Outcome 21 & Target 32 of the Environment Strategy for Wales), and are deeply concerned that there are currently insufficient discussion on what constitutes favourable condition and inadequate resources available to meet this target and opportunities to access EU funds for this work are being lost.
• We recognise that the proposed Environment for Growth Strategic Framework will support enhancement of the natural environment, but are concerned that the requirement to demonstrate "sustainable economic growth” will make it difficult to access funding for nature conservation and land management projects. This is because of the difficulty of demonstrating tangible economic outputs in the required timeframe, or specific economic benefits in the precise locality.

Availability of revenue funding

• Much funding is focused on capital only support.
• Anecdotal reports from projects suggests that this causes real problems when trying to deliver project activities, as funding for people to deliver what is needed is not available. 
• An exception to this is the Environment Wales Management Grant stream that provides up to 6 years of funding for project posts. Monitoring reports indicate that this funding is highly effective in building capacity in voluntary sector organisations and in creating sustainable jobs. However the fund is over-subscribed with applications outnumbering grants approximately fourfold each year.
• More revenue funding for voluntary organisations should be made available through funding programmes such as the Communities Facilities and Activities programme (which is now restricted to capital funding only), Environment Wales, Volunteering in Wales, and the Sustainable Development Fund.
• A stream for revenue funding from Visit Wales to enable job creation would also be beneficial.
• Difficulty is experienced in securing funding for:
• core costs;
• training and supporting volunteers involved in surveys and monitoring;
• conservation and land management work for biodiversity gain; and
• work with volunteers that does not involve physical conservation work.
• This is despite the fact that WAG use and in some cases rely on the data generated.
• Again whilst Environment Wales is an exception to this e.g. the Training Grant stream covers any training for volunteers or staff relevant to project activity and its project grant stream covers the full spectrum of community environmental voluntary activity, its grant funding of approx. £600,000 pa is insufficient to meet the demands of the sector.

Other examples of difficulties encountered

• Rural Development Plan - funding mechanisms make it difficult for key pan-Wales delivery projects to be undertaken.
• Mentro Allan - the process and lengthy involvement of voluntary organisations resulted in very little funding going to NGOs.
• Future funding initiatives need to consider enabling communities to acquire control of income generating assets.

2. Ease or difficulty in complying with constraints or conditions placed on funding.

Lack of diversity

• Funders both within the public sector and the lottery often have similar funding criteria, such as:
• being the principal funder
• only being the funder of last resort
• capital intensive projects
• short term projects
• new, innovative projects rather than successful established projects
• low risk, non-controversial projects
• similar locations (such as Communities First areas)
• Again, it should be noted that none of these criteria apply to Environment Wales.

Partnership working

• In WEL’s experience, most funding requires partnership working.
• Whilst WEL agrees that in some circumstances partnership working is valuable and necessary, in other situations it can be a barrier to delivering valuable action.
• WEL has the following concerns about grant providers’ focus on partnership working:
• there is a tendency in the public sector to assume partnership working must mean bringing every conceivable stakeholder together, and to take no action unless an absolute consensus is reached and this is encouraged by the risk adverse tendencies of funders; 
• there can be instances where those making the application are not aware of all the potential partners, or of which other organisations might be preparing bids;
• partnerships are very time-consuming to construct and to maintain.
• There is often a lack of clear distinction between service provision - which should be fully funded - and genuine equal partnerships where partners share control and funding responsibilities. 
• WEL supports directly negotiated partnership agreements, for their flexibility and potential to address actual needs.

Innovation and risk adversity

• Innovation is also often included in the criteria for funding but it can be difficult to demonstrate, particularly as it is not always clearly defined what is meant by the term. Indeed having to continually develop innovative projects for funding can be problematic.
• It would be better if in some instances, if the applicant had to prove how they had improved their project based on lessons learnt either from evaluation or feedback from stakeholders.
• Constantly trying to develop projects which are 'innovative' is a distraction from funding projects that are known to work. WEL recognise that if projects are to deliver long-term value, then they need long-term support without constantly having to create new activities or innovations.
• Again the Environment Wales model is helpful here as a long-term relationship with a Development Officer provides regular evaluations of progress and builds a greater understanding between projects and funders of what really works.
• Conversely, organisations can also encounter risk adversity, whereby funding bodies only fund what is already likely to be successful and non-controversial, and is supported by multiple endorsements and exhaustive consultation, bureaucratic and detailed monitoring and reporting. 

Size of organisation

• Organisations who deliver activities in all parts of Wales, find that they are effectively ruled out of any engagement with local funding sources such as Leader+ because of the requirement to duplicate in each local area the applications, consultation and liaison. This means that local initiatives may be unnecessarily duplicating what a national organisation can deliver in a more effective way.
• The high cost and risk involved in preparing large grant bids excludes many small organisations from large grant sources. 

Other examples of difficulties encountered

• Although many WAG funding programmes and delivery bodies agree on the principle of full cost recovery, it is not often adopted across the spectrum of Welsh funding. 
• Voluntary sector organisations have to get funding from somewhere so unless they are in fully funded service provision arrangements, grant and contractual conditions should not erect barriers to obtaining match funding from other sources. 
• Common grant conditions which do this include requirements that match funding is already in place, demands for pre-eminent acknowledgement and/or exclusive PR rights and branding, rigid deadlines, requirements to submit original invoices.
• As a consequence of the tendencies described above, projects which are very difficult to get funded include:
  • projects with more than a 3 year time frame or which require a gradual approach; 
  • projects which do not primarily involve short term capital expenditure; 
  • innovative projects testing new techniques, projects designed to change a status quo, such as involving land purchase to introduce alternative uses of land or alternative forms of energy production;
  • projects to deliver Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) targets and to halt biodiversity loss, create and restore habitats.

3. Issues related to the duration or timing of funding.

• WEL welcomes the fact that there is some movement being made towards three to five year funding packages, but would argue that the duration of most funding still generally varies from one to three years; except Environment Wales Management Grants.
• For example, the Let's Walk Cymru initiative, which the Sports Council for Wales has been running for a year, only has funding until March 2008.
• Funding with such a short duration causes particular problems for:
  • recruiting and retaining staff for large projects; and
  • landscape scale and ecological changes, such as species recovery projects which often take ten years or more to make a difference.
• WEL would therefore like to suggest that grant makers consider making more 5 year funding available, or at least consider how they could extend their funding without grant recipients having to go through the same application process again.
• We note that the Big Lottery Fund has taken this on board with its People and Places Programme which does have the potential for three plus three years funding, although this is dependant on the funding being available.
• WEL commends the former Forestry Commission Woodland Grant Scheme, for its 5 year time frame and its support of annual repeated works. The replacement Better Woodlands for Wales Scheme has yet to demonstrate its potential but is widely seen as excessively bureaucratic and too rigidly deterministic.
• WEL welcomes the move by CCW to longer term funding agreements with "strategic partners".

4. Any other comments relevant to the inquiry

Specific difficulties encountered by the environmental sector

• WEL believes that the environmental sector is under resourced and struggles for funding generally in comparison to other sectors, particularly as environmental projects must often deliver social or economic outcomes as well as environmental ones to qualify for funding. This is not always reciprocated i.e. economic or social projects need not always demonstrate environmental benefits. Also, whilst many environmental projects deliver a multitude of outcomes and help deliver objectives across many Welsh Assembly Government ministerial portfolios; funding towards these projects is typically not provided by these departments thus restricting the amount of money available to the sector.
• The Green Philanthropy report, launched by New Philanthropy Capital (NPC), estimates that less than 2% of charitable grants on the UK go to environmental charities, and less than 5% of the £8bn of voluntary donations given annually in the UK go to environmental causes.
• There are very few Charitable trusts that will fund environmental work compared to Scotland and England.  
• WEL would welcome increased funding for projects that address environmental issues as well as social and economic needs, for example community recycling and re-use initiatives, school gardens, local food production, allotment projects, green tourism etc - perhaps through Welsh Assembly Government departments that are not primarily associated with the environment
• The Big Lottery Fund People and Places programme - which is supposed to be the fund that delivers on environmental as well as social outcomes - does not achieve this, as the outcomes are focused on benefits to people rather than the environment in its own right. for example habitat creation or management projects geared specifically to threatened species or Biodiversity Action Plan priorities.
• Although WEL recognises that funding programmes need to be joined up and deliver added value wherever possible, it is often very difficult, and not appropriate for certain land management and biodiversity projects to be undertaken within areas of multiple deprivation, and to monitor outcomes unrelated to the project aims - such as health targets. 

Levels of funding

• WAG funds delivered through Councils for Voluntary Service are not often at a level where they can make a difference, with many funds being less than £5,000. Raising the ceiling of funding available to individual projects would be advantageous to voluntary organisations. 

Delivery of WAG policy priorities

• Funding should be available to deliver on WAG work programme priorities and targets, such as those within the Environment Strategy. 
• As explained above, there is no current measure available to deliver conservation management and Natura 2000 site management. Most funding to deliver these land management priorities is falling through the gap.
• Funding for biodiversity and to deliver on Welsh BAP / Section 42 targets in particular is very scarce, and the CCW budget for this needs to be increased (but not to the detriment of other CCW budgets) to match the increase in numbers of priority species and habitats in Wales.
• Statutory duties, such as public rights of way, suffer from problems of underfunding. For example, volunteers may be willing to undertake work but Local Authorities are often unable to provide funding, facilitation or insurance cover.

Monitoring

• A lot of statistical information is collected as part of the monitoring process associated with funding streams.
• It would be advantageous if this information could be presented in a way that could demonstrate the social, economic or environmental changes that are occurring across Wales. Regular monitoring and evaluation is carried out on all projects registered with Environment Wales so there is expertise and a precedent to demonstrate value. There is very limited specific research on some subjects in Wales, with a lot of research being undertaken in England only or at best England and Wales.
• The Assembly may wish to consider providing more funding for research and policy work, which could be used to target future funding more efficiently. However; we do note that much knowledge exists for the smaller funding streams.

Wales Environment Link values the opportunity to take part in this important consultation process and trusts the above response will be taken into consideration by the Communities and Culture Committee.

How WEL has come to agree this response

The production of consultation responses within the WEL network is an inclusive and comprehensive process. Whilst WEL recognises that all consultation responses must be given equal treatment, we would ask the Committee to note WEL’s protocol for writing consultation responses, as well as the number of organisations that have signed up to this response:

1. WEL’s members were asked to contribute their experiences and opinions in response to the questions in the consultation letter.

2. Co-ordinator used contributions to determine common positions

3. Coordinator circulated first draft around WEL members via email, giving members the opportunity to amend the text.

4. Any point over which there was disagreement was further discussed via email.

5. A final draft was sent around the relevant WEL e-groups and Council, inviting any further amendments and sign-up.

The member organisations of Wales Environment Link that sign up to this consultation response are:

BTCV Cymru
Butterfly Conservation
Coed Cadw - Woodland Trust
Keep Wales Tidy
The National Trust Wales
Plantlife
Ramblers’ Association
RSPB Cymru
Sustrans Cymru
Wildlife Trusts Wales
Youth Hostels Association

For further information please contact:

Michele Aitchison
Advocacy Officer for Wales Environment Link
Baltic House
Mount Stuart Square
Cardiff
CF10 5FH

Telephone: 02920 431 716
E-mail: maitchison-wel@wcva.org.uk