As the Rural Renaissance Programme draws to a close by March 2009, there has been a thorough study undertaken to review its impact regionwide and the processes that were used. The following is an extract from the study. This offers much food for thought that will hopefully be taken on board with the new Local Action for Rural Communities (LARC) Programme and other such initiatives. The following is an extract from the report containing the conclusions and recommendations:

Conclusions

The evaluation concludes that the original intentions for Rural Renaissance and Modernising Rural Delivery (MRD) Access to Services have been achieved in terms of:

»   Producing outcomes addressing the original  Rural Renaissance and MRD Objectives

»   The establishment of a network of Rural Regeneration Partnerships with a broad composition and delegated authority to invest up to £100,000 to deliver agreed strategic rural economic development priorities

The evaluation also concludes that the outputs recorded by December 2007 are relatively modest in comparison with the effort and resources that have been used to establish Rural Renaissance and MRD, but the Strategic Added Value already generated should be considered, as well as the potential longer term benefits from using the Partnerships in the future. In addition, further outputs and outcomes are anticipated in the future.

The decision to invest in this programme was an appropriate response to the situation at the time. The rural economy had a set of long-term problems, particularly in the less accessible areas, and there were immediate and acute issues. SWRDA’s development of Rural Renaissance demonstrated a willingness to respond to these needs. The original rationale was not articulated in terms of market failure but an opportunity to take advantage of funding and partnership opportunities. It was an innovative response and has also provided a model for the current increased emphasis on partnership working.

Recommendations

The overall recommendation is that SWRDA should continue to work with Rural Renaissance Partnerships (or their successors in each sub-region) in order to maximise the long-term benefits of the investment in partnership processes for regeneration.

»   Subject to the new sub-regional working arrangements, we recommend that there is discussion between SWRDA and Partnerships to establish their role as regeneration partners or delivery agents and then this should be set out in a standard memorandum of understanding, which can be used to underpin and set a context for other aspects of the relationship

»   We recommend that continued attention is given to clarifying responsibilities and processes within the Agency when working with Rural Renaissance and other Partnerships

»   It may be appropriate in future to include a “year zero” to ensure that priorities and operating principles are clear

»   The RDA, with or without Partnership support, could have taken a lead in providing operational systems that could then have been co-ordinated and used in a standard way by all Schemes. We recommend that in future initiatives, operational systems are developed once,drawing on previous experiences and then made available to all

»   The Joint Working Group networking meetings are good practice and should be continued and encouraged as recommended good practice in other programmes

»   Partnerships that have been successful in engaging the private sector should use their experiences to inform the establishment/refreshment of other partnerships

»   There needs to be a consistent approach to setting targets that recognises different sub-regional priorities and uncertainties, focussed strongly on the fundamental analysis and objectives stated for the intervention. We also recommend that target reviews are formally undertaken from time to time to check if either targets or investment patterns need to be amended, and any re-direction is clearly recorded. If using the environment as an economic asset is a feature of future work, it should be further defined and appropriate indicators of success developed

»   It is useful to have clarity on the likelihood of follow-on programmes to avoid losing some of the regeneration capacity and to make informed decisions about the value of investing in building capacity or new structures. Establishing new delivery structures requires considerable resource from SWRDA and partners therefore the costs of creating new structures is likely to adversely affect the value for money of the initiatives impact

»   It is useful to have early discussion regarding follow-on programmes (if appropriate) in order to avoid losing some of the regeneration capacity and to maintain the value of the original investment. Establishing new delivery structures requires considerable resource from SWRDA and partners

»   We recommend that wider resource issues are considered when setting up new programmes and where possible, Partnerships are accommodated within accountable bodies that are able to provide logistical and funding support and that early capacity building resources are provided

»   When regeneration schemes are planned, options regarding their delivery should be considered in the context of their planned length and forecast spend. Two years originally allowed for MRD Delivery Plan Schemes was insufficient.

»   We recommend that further work is undertaken to establish and disseminate best practice to help projects deliver some of the more ‘difficult’ outputs

»   We recommend that the work undertaken to capture a wider scope of rural regeneration impacts in addition to the RDA core outputs is used and recorded in a more consistent way

Roger Tym & Partners, July 2008