Scottish Government

3 POLICY BACKGROUND

3.1 Policy Context

To be fully effective, the ERDF Programme must not only address the challenges set out in the analysis of the socio-economic background section, but link these to a range of policy actions in order to maximise the value added of the Structural Funds. These links must be established at different levels to ensure funding not only complements but builds on existing policy. Specifically, the ERDF Programme should fit within and alongside:

• the Community Strategic Guidelines, which set the indicative framework for the Cohesion Policy in support of the EU's growth and jobs commitments;
• the UK's National Strategic Reference Framework, as specified in Article 27 of the General Regulation, in which the chapter on Scottish Structural Funds goals provides the overall framework within which the ERDF Programme must fit;
• the UK's National Reform Programme, detailing how the UK as a whole is addressing the challenges and targets developed as part of the wider Lisbon Agenda, to which the Structural Funds are intended to contribute; and, lastly,
• the array of domestic policy initiatives.

Figure 1 illustrates how these different policy tiers should combine in the Programme.

Figure 1: Hierarchy of strategic objectives

The following section presents the key policy context for the challenges identified in the socio-economic background with these different tiers of policy guidelines and actions to ensure consistency of approach - at the levels of the EU, the UK and Scotland. It will form the basis of the priority structure set out in Chapter 4. Reflecting the themes covered in the socio-economic analysis above, the policy areas to be considered are:

• enterprise, RTD and innovation challenges: mapping onto key challenges 1-4;
• urban challenges: mapping onto challenges 5-6; and
• rural challenges: mapping onto challenges 7-8.

In addition, there are three cross-cutting strategic themes which will inform all aspects of the Programme - equal opportunities, environmental sustainability and social inclusion. These are treated in Chapter 8.

Enterprise, RTD and innovation challenges

EU Level

Article 25 of the Structural Fund Regulations provides for the Council to establish Community Strategic Guidelines to provide an indicative framework for Structural and Cohesion Fund programmes. Based on the Commission's 2005 Communication, three main Guidelines for future spending have been identified:

• improving the attractiveness of Member States, regions and cities by improving accessibility, ensuring adequate quality and level of services, and preserving their environmental potential;
• encouraging innovation, entrepreneurship and the growth of the knowledge economy by research and innovation capacities, including new information and communication technologies; and
• creating more and better jobs by attracting more people into employment, entrepreneurial activity, improving the adaptability of workers and enterprises and increasing investment in human capital.

Within the Community Strategic Guidelines, there are several Guidelines where the challenges identified in the socio-economic analysis feature strongly.

• Facilitate innovation and promote entrepreneurship. The Guideline notes that there is a widespread need to encourage entrepreneurs to set up enterprises as well as to provide a support environment for their start-up and growth.

• Programme challenge 1: Improving the capacity of the region's research centres (especially in higher and further education) to contribute to the wider research and innovation environment of the regional economy maps neatly onto the Guideline.
• Programme challenge 2: Focusing support on key industries and clusters would enable the challenges of RTD and innovation set out in the Guideline to be addressed more effectively with limited resources.
• Programme challenge 3: The aim of improving the entrepreneurship rate is recognised explicitly in this challenge.

• Improve access to finance. One aspect of the support environment for growing enterprises is the financial resources available to growing enterprises. The Guideline acknowledges that Cohesion Policy can contribute to regional economic growth by improving access to private equity and venture capital.
  • Programme challenge 4: Access to finance is explicitly recognised in this challenge as one of the developmental bottlenecks for the region.
• Increase and improve investment in RTD. The Guideline outlines the importance of strengthening co-operation amongst enterprises and research centres, supporting RTD undertaken by SMEs and developing the overall RTD capacity of the region.
  • Programme challenge 1: As noted above, by addressing the critical weaknesses in the region's RTD and innovation system (notably in higher and further education), the Guideline has been recognised as one of the priority areas for the Programme to address.
  • Programme challenge 2: Improvements in regional RTD cannot be easily achieved across the economy as a whole with limited ERDF support - consequently, concentrating on particular industries and clusters where improvements can have significant spillover effects would be a more effective use of resources.

UK and Scottish Levels

The UKNational Strategic Reference Framework (as required by the General Structural Fund Regulation, Article 27) provides a reference instrument for drawing up Programmes to ensure that Structural Funds spending is consistent both with the Community Strategic Guidelines and the Member State's National Reform Programme for delivering the Lisbon Agenda. In the UKNSRF, there is a dedicated chapter to Scotland.

Overall, the UK Framework sets out the Government's central economic objective to raise the rate of sustainable growth and achieve rising prosperity and a better quality of life, with economic and employment opportunities for all. In Scotland, the primary aim is to contribute to the sustainable economic growth of the region through improvements in productivity while addressing social inclusion and environmental sustainability needs. The European Social Fund will contribute to these strategies to increase employment and raise skill levels.

The Scottish chapter sets out the challenges and sets of priority actions for the ERDF Programme under the Competitiveness Objective. Low firm formation rates and deficiencies in the knowledge and innovation system are recognised in the NSRF as the key needs for Scotland as a whole. Figure 2 shows the links between the NSRF priority actions for the Competitiveness Programme and the challenges identified in the socio-economic background.

Figure 2: Programme challenges and the National Strategic Reference Framework: enterprise, RTD and innovation

As part of the goal of promoting productivity growth, the UK's National Reform Programme emphasises the need to improve entrepreneurship and access to finance, particularly for businesses. With respect to RTD and innovation, the importance of addressing the challenge is reinforced in the UK's National Reform Programme. The UK Government's overall approach to encouraging national economic growth is based on improving productivity performance through an integrated series of policy measures. One of the key drivers of productivity is the capacity to generate and make full economic use of science and innovation. In pursuit of this goal, the National Reform Programme highlights the need to encourage greater private and public investment in RTD - particularly in the enterprise sector - as well as investing in a research base that is responsive to the economy, not least in sustainable industries such as renewable energy. It has set the goal of increasing UK public and private investment in RTD to 2.5% of GDP by 2014. In addition, the NRP has an aspiration of achieving an 80% employment rate.

The UK approach is echoed in Scotland. The goal of improving RTD and innovation performance and improving new firm formation rates in Scotland is central to the Scottish Government's key strategies supporting economic development. The Framework for Economic Development in Scotland ( FEDS), refreshed in 2004, sets the overall strategy for developing the Scottish economy. Its vision is:

to raise the quality of life of the Scottish people through increasing the economic opportunities for all on a socially and environmentally sustainable basis.

To achieve this, FEDS has four principal outcomes:

• economic growth: with growth accelerated and sustained through greater competitiveness in the global economy;
• regional development: with economic growth a pre-requisite for all regions to enjoy the same economic opportunities, and with regional development itself contributing to national economic prosperity;
• closing the opportunity gap: with economic growth a pre-requisite for all in society to enjoy enhanced economic opportunities, and with social development in turn contributing to national economic prosperity; and
• sustainable development: in economic, social and environmental terms.

Central to these four outcomes is a long-term strategy to improve the productivity of the public and enterprise sector in the Scottish economy. As in the wider UK strategy, one of the key factors in this is the generation and full economic use of knowledge - FEDS acknowledges that Scotland needs to adapt to knowledge-intensive global markets rather than the labour-intensive markets in which it has successfully competed in the past.

Scottish Government policy for developing the enterprise sector has been set out in Smart Successful Scotland, which was also refreshed in 2004. The strategy not only lays out the goals of the Enterprise Networks in Scotland but acts as a framework for co-ordinating enterprise development policy more widely. It has a vision consisting of three outcomes:

• growing businesses: a fast learning, high earning Scotland;
• global connections; and
• learning and skills.

As part of the first outcome, the challenge of increased commercialisation of research and innovation is explicitly defined with a need to increased levels of research and development spending in Scottish companies, more effective links between universities and enterprises and increasing the number of ideas being registered for patents in Scotland.

Under the heading of Growing Businesses, the strategy points to a manifold challenge for Scottish entrepreneurship, recognising that: the Scottish enterprise birth rate is persistently below the UK average; and that the shares of new enterprises in Scotland owned by women as well as started by disadvantaged groups are low. The strategy also points to the gaps in the Scottish capital market for financing for Scottish companies with high growth potential.

Social enterprises are also important in this regard. The Scottish Social Enterprise Strategy sets out the social economy as a key area is creating employment and development opportunities for those furthest from employment through helping to make social firms more sustainable and competitive. Priorities for supporting the sector in the strategy complement the focus on the social economy within the ESF Programme.

Economic development has been placed in a wider sustainable development framework at EU, UK and Scottish levels. Consequently, it is important to recognise a significant environmental sustainability dimension, in terms of how environmental concerns are linked with enterprise development. The Scottish Green Jobs Strategy outlines how Scotland should seize the business opportunities and advantages arising from sustainable development with a view to creatinga vibrant, low-carbon economy with Scotland a centre for green enterprise. This will be achieved through a combination of support for the economic opportunities arising from a commitment to environment sustainability - such as renewables technologies and economic efficiencies arising from waste-recycling - as well as more general information-raising and skills improvements in mainstreaming environmental issues into economic activity.

Another key strategy that will shape the policy context for the Programme is A Science Strategy for Scotland, published in 2001. Among its objectives, the strategy recognises the importance of maintaining a strong science base fully connected to UK and international activity and funding sources as well as increasing the effective exploitation of scientific research to strengthen Scottish businesses. Both have been identified as major challenges for the region. At the time that the Programme was being developed, a new version of the science strategy was under preparation.

Urban challenges

EU Level

Regeneration can be defined as the sustainable economic, physical, social and environmental transformation of areas with particular disadvantage. In a Lisbon perspective, it is essential that regeneration is pursued so that all areas can contribute to the jobs and economic growth agenda. The Community Strategic Guidelines recognise the distinctiveness of these challenges. The need to address urban regeneration acts as cross-cutting themes across all the Guidelines. It is explicitly noted that within the Structural Funds, " actions supported [should] include measures to promote entrepreneurship, local employment and community development". The Guidelines also point to the importance of contributing to plans for urban regeneration within the designated areas. This is recognised in the two key challenges associated with urban regeneration:

• Programme challenge 5: supporting enterprise development - including entrepreneurship and local employment growth - in the most disadvantaged urban communities; and
• Programme challenge 6: improving the ability of the most disadvantaged urban communities to link to areas of enterprise and job opportunity to support local employment growth.

UK and Scottish Levels

In the National Reform Programme, the need to target areas of particular deprivation is acknowledged with a commitment to an integrated policy approach to addressing the problems of the most disadvantaged areas. The NRP makes special reference to Closing the Opportunity Gap, the Scottish Government strategy aiming to prevent individuals and families from falling into and to provide routes out of poverty (discussed below). Taking forward the third of the outcomes in FEDS, the strategy sets a relevant targets to tackle poverty and disadvantage.

The National Strategic Reference Framework points to community economic development as an important element of the Structural Funds strategy in Scotland, not least as part of the urban dimension to regional development as a whole, particularly through the priority action for 'promoting community regeneration'.

Closing the Opportunity Gap is the Scottish Government strategy aiming to prevent individuals and families from falling into and to provide routes out of poverty. It sets two relevant targets to tackle poverty and disadvantage:

• to promote community regeneration of the most deprived neighbourhoods, through improvements in employability, education, health, access to local services and quality of the local environment; and
• to improve service delivery in rural areas so that agreed improvements to accessibility and quality are achieved for key services in remote and disadvantaged communities.

In 2004, this was translated into a set of six objectives with a particular focus on areas of particular deprivation:

1. to increase the chances of sustained employment for vulnerable and disadvantaged groups - in order to lift them permanently out of poverty;
2. to improve the confidence and skills of the most disadvantaged children and young people - in order to provide them with the greatest chance of avoiding poverty when they leave school;
3. to reduce the vulnerability of low income families to financial exclusion and multiple debts - in order to prevent them becoming over-indebted and/or to lift them out of poverty;
4. to regenerate the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods - in order that people living there can take advantage of job opportunities and improve their quality of life;
5. to increase the rate of improvement of the health status of people living in the most deprived communities - in order to improve their quality of life, including their employability prospects; and
6. to improve access to high quality services for the most disadvantaged groups and individuals in rural communities - in order to improve their quality of life and enhance their access to opportunity.

The ERDF Programme embodies - directly as well as indirectly - these Closing the Opportunity Gap objectives. The strongest links are through the fourth of these objectives and Programme challenges 5 and 6.

In 2006, Closing the Opportunity Gap was supplemented by the Scottish Government's People and Place: Regeneration Policy Statement, which states that regeneration is central to achieving the main goal of sustainable economic development. The Regeneration Policy Statement integrates public, private, voluntary and community sector activities to sustainable regeneration. It defines the regeneration challenge for Scotland:

Regeneration is a crucial part of growing the economy and improving the fabric of Scotland… Our aim is to turn disadvantaged neighbourhoods into places where people are proud to live. To turn places that have been left behind into places connected with the opportunities around them. To create areas of choice and areas of connection, rather than inward-looking places excluded from the wider successful Scotland around them. To build mixed and vibrant communities that sustain themselves.

The Regeneration Policy Statement recognises that this can only be achieved through an integrated policy approach that goes beyond investment in the physical infrastructure of these areas: the economic, social, physical and environmental aspects of regeneration requires an integrated approach which 'joins up' planning and delivery across these aspects, so that change is mutually reinforcing. At the same time, it must be an approach based on partnership, as no single organisation can deliver all of these outcomes.

Again, the analysis underlying the Regeneration Policy Statement fits neatly with challenges 5 and 6 outlined above.

One key instrument to take forward this and other strategies are the Community Planning Partnerships ( CPPs). The CPPs, established at Local Authority area, set out how the relevant partners at local level intend to combine their activities to achieve regeneration outcomes, which are set out in Regeneration Outcome Agreements. The CPPs consist of partnerships of the key partners involved in local regeneration including the Local Authority, voluntary sector organisations, local Health Boards and other relevant bodies. Another important delivery mechanism in this context is the Urban Regeneration Companies, which have been charged with taking forward local regeneration initiatives in some of the deprived parts of the region.

There are also strong policy links to the National Planning Framework for Scotland, particularly with respect to urban regeneration requiring an integrated policy approach and the importance of making full sustainable use of environmental and cultural assets.

Rural challenges

EU Level

The Community Strategic Guidelines recognise the distinctiveness of rural development challenges: as the document notes, " cohesion policy can also play a key role in support of the economic regeneration of rural areas". It specifies the importance of Structural Funds support for services of general economic interest that can improve conditions in rural area, an integrated approach to supporting tourism and the development of development poles in rural areas, particularly around economic clusters based on local assets. This is reflected in two of the Programme challenges identified in the socio-economic background:

• Programme challenge 7: central to rural competitiveness in the LUPS region is the dual approach of strengthening traditional activities, supporting their adjustment to new global competitive conditions, and encouraging the development of new growth sectors and activities; and
• Programme challenge 8: improving some of the underlying sources of competitiveness to the rural economy - notably the provision of some critical services - would facilitate wider economic regeneration of the region's rural areas.

UK and Scottish Levels

A focus on the rural development challenges set out above is also consistent with the UKNational Reform Programme approach to addressing the specific productivity challenges of different regions. In addition, it is essential that ERDF funding in support of rural development is fully complementary with the Scottish Rural Development Programme. This is discussed in detail in Section 6.3.

Similarly, the National Strategic Reference Framework specifically draws attention to the special needs of the region's rural areas and the importance of addressing them in the ERDF programme, fitting with the third priority area of action, 'Supporting rural development'.

From a Scottish strategic perspective, Rural Scotland: A New Approach sets out four key objectives for the development of rural areas: developing a strong and diverse rural economy; harnessing traditional strengths with an appetite for change in order to provide opportunity to young people; building a rural Scotland where everyone can enjoy a decent quality of life; developing a rural Scotland where people enjoy public services that are accessible, high-quality and with the greatest choice; and maintaining a rural Scotland where the natural and cultural heritage flourishes in all its diversity.

The Scottish Sustainable Development Strategy establishes five main priorities for sustainable development: sustainable consumption and production; climate change and energy; natural resource protection and environmental enhancement; sustainable communities; and learning to live differently (as discussed in more detail below). The Securing a Renewable Future paper sets out Scotland's approach to meeting its renewable energy commitments, particularly a target of 40% of its electricity needs from renewable sources by 2020 . For rural areas, the National Transport Strategy sets out Scotland's plans through three strategic outcomes: improving journey times and connectivity; reducing emissions; and improving access and safety. Both strategies suggest a number of areas where complementary support from Structural Funds can have a more strategic impact.

3.2 Lessons from 2000-06 Programming

Structural Funds programming in Scotland has always built on the experience of 2000-06 programmes, maintaining the good practice while adapting to new circumstances. In developing the ERDF Programme for the LUPS region for 2007-13, the lessons of the 2000-06 use of European Regional Development Fund in Scotland were examined from a number of different perspectives. This section summarises the key studies drawing on those lessons:

• the mid-term evaluation updates of the Scottish Objective 2 programmes for 2000-06;
• the 2005 report of an internal Value Added Group on how to increase the value added of future Structural Funds programmes; and
• the 2006 Hall Aitken report on options for delivering Structural Funds programmes.

Mid-term evaluation updates

For the 2000-06 programming period, mid-term evaluation updates were conducted on the three Objective 2 programmes: the Western Scotland, the East of Scotland and the South of Scotland. While the reports are very specific in their analysis, several of their conclusions and recommendations have informed the development of the ERDF Programme for the LUPS region in the new period.

With respect to mid-term evaluation update for the Western Scotland programme, the evaluation had a wide-ranging number of recommendations, but those with strong relevance to the current programmes are noted here. First, the evaluation pointed to Programme successes in mainstreaming Structural Funds projects into standard national projects that have progressively relied less on Structural Funds interventions. It also recognised where Structural Funds could make significant future contributions, including working with the new Community Planning Partnerships to maximise the mutual benefit of domestic and EU funding streams. Similarly, the report pointed to the value of supporting projects that address national policy goals in a local context. Both of these conclusions are reflected in the approach to using CPPs under Priority 3 of the new Programme, as set out in the Chapter 4 priority description and the Implementing Provisions chapter.

Second, the evaluation concluded that the urban targeting approach of the community regeneration aspects of the West of Scotland programme remained a useful tool for delivering the Funds and focusing them on the areas where their impact would be greatest. It notes that the identification of a number of priority areas for urban regeneration support could provide substantial value added for the limited resources available to the Programme. Again, under the Urban Regeneration priority of the new programme, the recognition that funding should be targeted on a limited number of areas to achieve maximum impact has been developed with the new Programme.

For the East of Scotland, the mid-term evaluation update drew attention to a number of areas. In risk capital the Programme was seen as having had notable successes in a range of complementary and very successful risk capital products, ranging from the large Scottish Co-Investment Fund (with its novel and innovative co-investment model) to the relatively small Genomia fund (supporting proof of concept and early proto-enterprises). The role of start-up and development loan/equity financing is set out in Priority 2 for the new Programme, having been informed by the experience of Structural Funds support for venture capital initiatives in the 2000-06 programme across the three Objective 2 programmes.

The East of Scotland update also noted the role of spatial targeting in reconciling the balance between need and opportunity. This was reinforced by the overlay of focusing support on key strategic growth sectors such as bio-technology and life sciences. This balance between spatial and sectoral targeting has influenced the targeting of funding in the new Programme's priorities, not least with respect to the national focus of Priorities 1 and 2, the urban focus of Priority 3 and the rural focus of Priority 4.

Lastly, the East of Scotland update underlined the continued commitment to deliver the combined economic social and environmental benefits of a genuinely integrated approach to sustainable regional development and regeneration as being at the forefront of the Programme's approach to sustainable development. The new Programme embraces this approach and builds on the extensive range of practical guidance and support mechanisms for equal opportunities and environmental sustainability.

Lastly, the mid-term evaluation update of the South of Scotland Programme made several important points:

• the need to focus on competitiveness, with greater attention paid to rural competitiveness and supporting ambition (which underpins the approach taken in the new Programme to Priority 4);
• greater access to risk funding for priority sectors as well as increases in generic capital support (the former is set out in Priority 2, but given the reductions in funding, significant increases in generic capital support for enterprises through the Structural Funds has not been possible);
• more emphasis on exit strategies for community regeneration and the delivery of those strategies (which will be built into the review of Priority 3 projects); and
• flexibility to ensure the changing needs of the regional economies can be addressed (a feature reflected in the spatial targeting of the new Programme's priority structure).

These points were reinforced by the Hall Aitken (2006) study on the impact of Structural Funds done for the programme's labour market intelligence service.

Value Added Group: 'Adding Value, Keeping Value'

As part of the preparations by the Scottish Government for developing Structural Funds programmes for the 2007-13 period, a short-life internal working group was set up in 2005 to draw lessons on the value added of the Structural Funds from the 2000-06 Scottish programmes. The specific objectives of the Group were the following:

• to identify the types of projects that have provided the highest added value in the 2000-06 programmes;
• to consider the characteristics of those projects which have made them particularly successful;
• to define added value in the context of Structural Funds programmes; and
• to assess how best to encourage development of such projects within the regulations governing future Structural Funds.

The Group was drawn from the European Structural Funds Division and the Programme Management Executives for the 2000-06 programmes. It concluded the following.

• In future, a greater premium should be placed on qualitative value added in project selection. This was not to suggest that value added should not have a strong quantitative dimension, but that qualitative value added should be a priority. In practice, this meant that Structural Funds could usefully support pilot, innovative projects.

• The importance of an innovative approach to projects is reinforced in the priority descriptions in Chapter 4.

• Consideration should be given to providing a greater time limit on project funding in future. If the focus is on supporting qualitative projects, Structural Funds should have the role as a major lever for the early stages of a project's development. 'Repeat' projects or longer-term continuations should be discouraged unless there are strong operational reasons for doing so. As a result, project awards would be for a minimum of two years, though with annually-set targets and reviews.

• This conclusion will be reflected in the new guidance to be issued to applicants and in the priority descriptions in Chapter 4.

• Partnership has been a critical factor in supporting value added, particularly when applied in particular ways. Partnership at a local/regional level in project development is important, often acting as 'brokers' for development activity (a role that has been supported through Structural Funds support). Where projects and activities have been developed through a networked, inter-agency approach, project quality appears to have been driven up.

• Chapter 7 sets out the role of partnership in delivering parts of the Programme, especially Community Planning Partnerships.

• The continuing promotion of major shared policy goals should continue, particularly the horizontal themes. The Structural Funds have played a pivotal role in promoting equal opportunities and sustainable development as wider policy goals and should continue to do so.

• This is reflected on the continuing emphasis on the mainstreaming of these three horizontal themes, as set out in more detail in Chapter 8.

Value added has also been apparent where funding has been coordinated through a series of activities targeting a common goal. Whether the coordination is of different types of funds ( ERDF, ESF and other sources of EU funding) or different types of projects (through project clusters), their impact is strongest when geared towards a specific development goal. In Structural Funds, these goals have been most readily achieved when defined in terms of local geography (especially through community economic development) or niche sectors (particularly through targeted enterprise development activities). The focused approach is reflected in the targeted nature of the priorities described in Chapter 4.

Hall Aitken: 'Making Every Euro Count'

As part of the preparations for developing the 2007-13 programmes, the Executive commissioned a report of Hall Aitken Consultants in 2006 with several objectives:

• to identify a series of delivery options for single-stream funding of Structural Funds and other domestic policy resources, based on 2000-06 practice elsewhere in the EU;
• to draw out comparative lessons with a view to setting out options for Scottish delivery; and
• to set out options for Scotland.

On this basis, the report concluded that any approach should achieve as many of the following criteria as possible:

• minimise the administrative costs of operating projects;
• direct funds to where they will make the most difference in terms of economic need, opportunity and delivery capacity and quality;
• build on existing structures, partnerships and systems where possible and be developed with the support of stakeholders;
• shift effort from project selection to effective delivery and monitoring;
• integrate Structural Funds actions more closely with related domestic policy actions;
• retain sufficient flexibility to respond to changes in need and opportunity during the programme lifetime and ensure that projects address both issues;
• promote the horizontal themes; and
• spread learning and good practice.

The delivery mechanisms for the programmes - set out in detail in Chapter 7 - were developed with these conclusions in mind. They have also been designed to make use of the following range of elements, set out by Hall Aitken as mechanisms that could be used in delivering the programmes:

• single-stream funding: this principle lies behind the use of Strategic Delivery Bodies, as set out in Chapter 7;
• area and local outcome agreements: the partnership-based approach to delivery for parts of the Programme set out in Chapter 7 reflects this;
• competition between single-stream funding bodies: again, as Chapter 7 details, competition is anticipated between Community Planning Partnerships for delivery of part of the Programme;
• a more negotiated decision process: the projects to be carried out by the Strategic Delivery Bodies will be negotiated with the Managing Authority and the Programme Monitoring Committee; and
• thematic partnerships: in line with the second and third bullet points, projects will be encouraged to develop partnerships and show thematic complementarity in the supported activity.