International Review of Waste Management Policy - Department of ...

928
� Rules regarding the split between capital and revenue spends are often rigidly
applied;
� Rules regarding the timing of spend are often unrealistic and put bidders off;
� In the case of hypothecated, or ear-marked revenue streams, there may be a
tendency to engender inefficiency in the projects sponsored. This is
particularly the case where projects become ‘favoured’ under a fund;
� In the case of projects supported by hypothecated tax revenues, care has to
be taken, when tax revenues increase, to ensure that funds do not simply
support ‘more of the same’. This can lead to funds being wasted through
duplication and inefficiency;
� It probably makes sense to ensure that grant awarding bodies who are seeking
to support a specific sector are well co-ordinated, and preferably, one and the
same entity. This can prevent duplication, as well as helping to build up
expertise in the evaluation of bids and awarding of funds;
� Grant awards are often poorly monitored, and evaluations tend to be selfserving.
Some experience in the UK suggests that different ‘delivery bodies’
have sought to publicise claims of their efficacy which are not obviously
substantiated by robust evidence, principally as a means to create the case for
further funding support. Care needs to be taken to make evaluation processes
clear and meaningful so that lessons can be learned to improve value for
money in subsequent funding rounds;
� Evaluation is crucial. This is public money, and as such, should be accounted
for properly. The evaluation should take place against clear criteria. Cases of
quality, independent evaluations of schemes are relatively rare. There has, as
far as we are aware, been no evaluation of the Environment Fund, though
some schemes within it have reported on their activities. It goes without saying
that fund evaluation should not be undertaken wholly by those whose
schemes have been supported;
� There may be a tendency for grant funds to ‘over-support’ projects, especially
where a general pool of bids is rather poor, or where those making the award
are insufficiently knowledgeable to judge the likely costs of projects (and what
represents value for money). Where awards are being made, it is important to
involve people who have an understanding of costs and value for money
issues;
� Those making grant awards frequently allow private sector partners to be less
than open with their accounts, even though, in some cases, the principle of
the funding might be that the project would not have been viable without
support. The cloak of ‘commercial confidentiality’ should not extend to the
accounts of projects which rely on public support for their existence, at least
where the awarding body is concerned. Grant awarding bodies need such
information to improve their understanding of costs in the areas they seek to
make awards;
� Grant funding can be too ‘ad-hoc’. Some services, which might appear
‘superfluous’, but which are actually essential and good value for money,
29/09/09