 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Going green at snail’s pace
In introducing our guide to NOF’s Green Spaces schemes, Kathryn Rawe gives a progress report
Make sure you receive your fair share of lottery cash - take out a no-obligation trial subscription
today.
NOF’s £125m Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities programme has been a mixed experiment for the Lottery’s largest distributor, charac-terised by delay and confusion. Conceived in March 1999 – NOF’s first environmental programme – it ‘launched’ in January 2000, with a search for ‘award partners’ whom NOF felt would be better placed than it was to deliver the scheme. Eleven award partners were announced that September and schemes began to open for business from January 2001 (the Scottish Land Fund was the first). It was another six months before all were up and running (the Welsh Enfys Partnership was last to open), so some schemes have been operational for less than a year. NOF accepted last spring that the whole process had been too drawn out. Stephen Dunmore, NOF’s chief executive, told Lottery Monitor then: ‘This programme has taken far too long and we’re very disappointed about that. We have learnt some lessons.’ Administration costs have turned out to be high: £12.5m, or 10% of the total fund. Helen Earner, senior policy manager at NOF, says much of this figure is attributable to buying in the necessary expertise of the award partners to run the
programme. ‘If we’d done it ourselves the figure would probably be smaller but we would not be able to provide such a high level of expertise and experience. Sometimes the best support you can give a project is not monetary; delivery costs are just one aspect.’ Because of the variation in start-dates, the award partners are at very different stages in their
programmes. The Scottish Land fund has awarded 46% of its budget, while the Welsh programme has allocated 12%. Other schemes seem still to be at a very early stage. The Countryside Agency’s Community Greens has so far made awards only for project preparation: no group has yet had a ‘creation’ grant. Consequently 1.2% of the fund has been spent so far. The number and apparently similarity of schemes has raised comment and criticism. Neil White, Surrey County Council’s NOF officer, says: ‘If your are going to go down the awards partners route, then you should have one or two partners at the most.’ According to White, NOF’s socially deprived target groups struggle when faced with a plethora of agencies. In his experience, ‘It’s very difficult to get groups interested in applying to more than one award partner, especially when they might have to fill in three different application forms to cover different aspects of the same project.’ NOF’s Helen Earner says: ‘The number of partners collectively meets the priorities set by the Government for the scheme and they have the confidence and relevant knowledge to meet their objectives. We wanted a diverse range of projects so we needed a diverse range of people. The partners were chosen because they best interpreted the scheme’s priorities.’ Helen Mitchell, manager at one award partner, the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers, says the large number of schemes could initially be confusing, but that each of the award partners was trying to be responsible and helpful in guiding applicants to the right scheme. ‘It means there is a greater chance of there being a scheme suitable for a group’s particular needs.’
If you are not deterred by the out-of-date and confusing information on the NOF website, and can get as far as identifying the individual award partner you are interested in, many of the partner websites are helpful and several have downloadable application forms and guidance notes. Application forms have been standardised as far as possible and the guidance booklets are clear.
NOF may also be reconsidering whether it spread the funding too thinly in this
programme. Some schemes have been significantly oversubscribed, causing processing delays and ultimate disappointment. Fresh Futures, run by Forward Scotland and Scottish National Heritage, had £150,000 to give away at its last round, but received applications for £1.6m.
There is little doubt that this scheme has had a steep learning curve for all involved. Helen Earner at NOF accepts as much: ‘We have been constantly evaluating the scheme… A lot of the projects have involved developing ideas,
mentor-ing and training because we don’t want people to apply for grants if they are not sure they could use the money effectively.’
For a comprehensive guide to Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities schemes, see
these charts
