|
|
|
for cultural, economic and social relations
|
|
PEACE II and Beyond Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. It is a privilege to be here and to be invited to address the Irish Association in your series on cross-border co-operation. I am grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to reflect a little on what we are doing and where we are going in order to prepare my speech - a luxury that the day to day pressures often push onto the back burner. I look forward also to some discussion with you, and to hear your views from your experience, as a long-standing cross-border institution. In looking at PEACE II and beyond I propose firstly to describe the evolving
context in which the Programme and its predecessor were set. At the heart of the new Northern Ireland context is the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement of 10th April 1998. It set out the framework for the establishment of devolved administration and institutional arrangements within Northern Ireland, between North and South, and between the islands. Implementation has however not been straightforward. The combination of a pathological condition of the hiccups, and a work ethic that encourages the building of more tunnel just when we see light at the end, has challenged all of us. What no one can disagree with, whether pro or anti Agreement, is that the product of devolution is positive - that locally elected and accountable Members of the Assembly and Ministers are making decisions. The institutions in respect of all three strands are functioning and the practical interdependence between them is now being realised. The handling of the foot and mouth crisis is a good example. We now have in place a Programme for Government described as the Executive's contract with the people of Northern Ireland. It sets out plans and priorities based on a vision - as set out in the Agreement - for a peaceful, inclusive, prosperous, stable, and fair society, firmly founded on the 'achievement of reconciliation, tolerance, and mutual trust, and the protection and vindication of the human rights of all'. The priorities in the Programme for Government are: Growing as a Community These have been designed not along departmental lines but are cross-cutting, providing scope for both joined-up and joined-in Government. The challenge when converted into the annual budget, presented Department by Department, is to maintain the link to the overarching and longer term goals. In addition there is the provision for Executive Programme Funds aimed at assisting in the development of new policies and programmes, new improved services, and major infrastructure projects. The recently announced Trimble-Durkan 'Reinvestment and Reform Initiative' involving the transfer of former military bases without charge and scope for loans has provided a significant boost to the Executive's self-determined spending capacity helping bridge the estimated £6 billion gap in funding for the region over the coming twenty years. A new strategic investment body will be set up to manage this new source of borrowing and to lever additional private investment. So the new political and institutional context has been set, and the outlook is very positive. In terms of the economic situation the Northern Ireland economy is very dependent on those of its neighbours, south and east. Whilst lagging behind the rest of the UK for some period of time Northern Ireland experienced considerable perennial growth throughout the 90's, along with that in Ireland. Similarly the downturn experienced in the South impacted on Northern Ireland but to a much lesser degree, being held up by continued strong economic performance in the UK. It was only late last year that the first fall in overall employment was recorded in over a decade. Skills shortages and general labour shortages remain a constraint on business growth and the manufacturing sector continues to face uncertainty and difficult trading conditions. Long term unemployment and the continued exclusion of a section of the population from contributing to or benefiting from economic prosperity remain stubborn problems in Northern Ireland as elsewhere. Inequality in particular in income but also more widely in health, housing and educational opportunity remains a feature of society which in a volatile situation can fuel civil unrest. The social situation remains of some concern. There is little evidence on the streets of North Belfast of a peace dividend, of stability, of reconciliation or mutual respect. The reality is that since 1994, community polarisation has increased, rather than decreased, and peacelines are being built, rather than being torn down. The Queen's visit to Northern Ireland last week epitomised the current context. Her presence, without incident, at Stormont, demonstrated the degree of political stability that has been achieved. The garden parties, of a grander scale than ever before, and other public appearances were relaxed and hailed as a success. At the same time however as Golden Jubilee celebrations commenced similar loyalty and more ebullient Union flag waving was demonstrated on the release of Johnny Adair, following a period of incarceration having broken the terms of his early release for directing terrorism. The street festivities in North, and extending to East Belfast, were more sectarian than celebratory in nature. Whilst the conditions for a lasting peace are in place - i.e. ceasefires
and political settlement - the peacebuilding process is on-going and the
journey to conflict resolution continues. This was recognised by Senator
George Mitchell himself, who having brokered the Good Friday Agreement
stated 'Nobody said peace in Ireland would be easy. It will be a long-term
process and it is more than signing peace agreements. The peace has also
to be built, each and every day, on the streets of Northern Ireland and
in the hearts of its people'. I need to go back a little to tell the story of the PEACE Programmes. When the first ceasefires were put in place in 1994, the EU decided that it wished to support the emerging peace process. To aid the region's regeneration and momentum for peace and reconciliation, the Commission created the Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland and the Border Counties of Ireland, commonly known as Peace I. This Programme was highly innovative in its form and content. Decentralisation of delivery through organisations with specific sectoral or local knowledge became integral to the administration to ensure that the Programme reached the people and places most affected by the conflict. It provided many opportunities, in particular for voluntary and community sector organisations to access resources and to start to address both the causes and consequences of division, to promote the inclusion of people who had suffered economic and social marginalisation because of the Troubles; to explore issues of cultural diversity; to identify novel ways of developing mutual understanding and respect and to start to break down the barriers that have been built up though years of conflict. When Peace I was nearing the end of its life and in recognition of what had been accomplished, the European Council decided to continue the Peace Programme for a further five years until 2004. The new Programme, now in operation, is taking place in a new political and institutional context created by the Good Friday Agreement and by the new round of Structural Funds. As you are aware, the Good Friday Agreement included a number of strands; one of them set out the structures for North South co-operation and with that, the North South Ministerial Council with the North South Implementation Bodies. The Special European Union Programmes Body, is one of those cross-border
bodies. It is our organisation that is tasked with managing the new Peace
II Programme and INTERREG III. We are also involved in the administration
of other Community Initiative Programmes on the island of Ireland (LEADER
+, EQUAL and URBAN II). In addition we are responsible for monitoring
and promoting the implementation of the Common Chapter on Cross-border
Co-operation that is set out in the Northern Ireland Structural Funds
Plan and the National Development Plan for Ireland. This is a particularly
interesting aspect of our work as the Common Chapter provides a strategic
framework for co-operation on a north-south and east-west basis across
all structural fund programmes. The INTERREG III Programme is specifically aimed at addressing the economic and social disadvantages due to the existence of the border. It provides opportunities for activities that could not be funded under the CSF and PEACE II, for example where innovative cross-border approaches are required. Most notably it provides scope within a dedicated priority (worth almost €70m) for the implementation of Integrated Local Development Strategies through the INTERREG III partnerships which are to be based on the cross-border groupings that have existed for some time between local authorities along the border corridor. I would like to focus now on PEACE II and to highlight some of its features. It is a single integrated cross-border Programme, built into the respective Community Support Frameworks in Ireland and Northern Ireland. The total contribution from the EU in Structural Funds between 2000 and 2004 is €531 million (€ 425m NI and €106m Border Region). Adding national co-financing the total Programme value comes to €742m. I know in the context of the National Development Plan and the exchequer transfer to Northern Ireland, this is small change. All the more reason for its distinctiveness. The Programme is shaped around five priorities: · Economic Renewal (32%) Peace II offers the possibility of building on the experience of PEACE I. Many lessons have been learnt in relation to administration and more importantly in relation to what works and why, what doesn't and why not. PEACE II does not necessarily mean more of the same. It does mean addressing need and in particular making a specific and positive contribution to peacebuilding, bounded by the parameters of the new structural fund regulations; a different Programme architecture; and an evolved social, economic and political context. The utilisation of decentralised delivery structures including Intermediary Funding Bodies, Local Strategy Partnerships (in Northern Ireland), and County Council-led Task Forces (in the border counties) was a feature of PEACE I continued into PEACE II. Together they have responsibility for delivery of more than half of the Programme. Incidentally Intermediary Funding Bodies in the North were required to tender for this work which whilst not changing the landscape radically did force some new thinking and brought about the establishment of consortia that might not otherwise have emerged, notably that involving ADM/CPA, Co-operation Ireland and NIVT in respect of some of the cross-border Measures. The new Programme is characterised by its 'distinctiveness'. The European Commission has been determined from the outset that projects supported should clearly address either the legacy of the conflict or take opportunities arising from peace. In the light of the various reviews of PEACE I and the Court of Auditors report some conditions have been applied, most notably a common application procedure and database, and guidelines for project selection in the form of a universal scoring matrix that requires demonstration of how the activities/sectors, geographical areas, and groups/individuals most affected will benefit. Peace II should therefore be more focused on its unique objectives and as a consequence we hope more effective in achieving the goal of 'Reinforcing progress towards a peaceful and stable society and promoting reconciliation'. Whilst building on PEACE I there are new elements - notably the Outward and Forward Looking Region Priority to enable Northern Ireland and the Border Region participate in European networks to disseminate the lessons learned in areas such as conflict resolution whilst learning from international best practice, and to help overcome the region's negative external image. Other new elements include the recognition of the potential of the social economy in areas where there have been market failures in the private and public sectors often as a consequence of the conflict e.g. through lack of mobility of labour, the creation of boundaries, lack of investment, mis-match between service provision and particular local need, and so on. Local Strategy Partnerships offer the potential beyond the scope of the Programme to enhance the capacity of local authorities, the statutory sector and social partners to work collectively for longer term sustainable regeneration. The grant assistance from the Peace Programme comes 'matched at source' so in most situations 100% aid is available. Some would argue that this creates grant dependency but this gesture by both Governments, demonstrating the full additionality of the funds, does help streamline the award process. It requires electronic application in part (either directly by the applicant or with assistance from an implementing body), thus ensuring that we have a real-time overview of applications and can readily analyse reach in respect of areas and communities. Finally, it does offer the prospect of highly targeted and lasting impact. Let me now look ahead. Just as the context for PEACE II was set by the Belfast Agreement, the context for the future will be determined to a large degree by continued political stability and operation of the devolved administration. The enormity of the political challenge ahead cannot be neglected however I will set that aside for now and reflect on social and economic issues. On the Northern Ireland domestic scene a review of public administration is to be undertaken which could transform local government, health and education management. As I mentioned earlier the Reinvestment and Reform Initiative will provide a significant boost to infrastructure investment. Social and economic stability and cohesion will only emanate from policies and practices that promote equality and inclusion. That is recognised in the Programme for Government and the New Targeting Social Need and Inclusion strategy. Let me concentrate on key challenges in relation to our domain of activity i.e. cross-border co-operation and European funding. There are three inter-linked factors in relation to European funding. Firstly the position of the UK viz a viz the Euro; secondly how our relationship develops as a region with the EU institutions; and thirdly the prospects for 'special' European funding after the current round. It is impossible to look ahead without thinking about the Euro. Sceptics said it would never happen. Opponents to the deepening of the bond between Member States of the European Union fought to scupper the process and pick at the detail of the convergence criteria. Economists could not agree whether it would be good or bad for us. Meanwhile the citizens of Europe were fed a cocktail of pros and cons, truths and half truths, leaving them bewildered and euro-dizzy. Now the Euro has arrived there must be a shift from the academic debate to a practical one. What ever position you come from, Europhile or Europhobe, the reality remains the same - L'euro est arrivé, at least for 11 Member StatesÎ. For the remainder, outside Euroland, the impact is inescapable, if not now, in the coming few years. Whilst the economists continue to agrue their respective macro-economic cases the decision will ultimately be political (subject to Gordon Brown's five economic tests) and a referendum which as you well know is subject to the vagaries of the day, and which in Northern Ireland will reveal some interesting political alignments in both the pro and anti camps. From the perspective of a Managing Authority (involved like many businesses in international transactions) dealing in one currency not two would remove exchange rate risk and make our job simpler. Let me turn to the issue of representation at European level, and our links with the EU institutions and other regions. The emphasis of regional representation must lie within the domestic context and on improving the conditions and mechanisms through which the EU membership impacts on the region. The room for manoeuvre lies within the Member State and on the new relationships between the regions and its representation to the European Communities. Prior to devolution the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe pioneered in creating a presence for Northern Ireland in Brussels, along side other regional representations. It set out to forge a direct link and open a communication channel, listening, and most importantly interpreting, and relaying information to Northern Irelands and acting as a voice for a wide range of local interests. As it evolved it became more pro-active, encouraging and assisting organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors to identify how, individually and collectively, they can relate to the European Union and its institutions in order to ensure that Northern Ireland derives maximum benefit from UK's membership of the European Union. Through its facilitation of social partners in the Concordia project it entered the arena of the promotion of dialogue within the region on the social and economic challenges faced by the region and the identification of lessons of relevance to European Policies and Programmes and Practice. Concordia has survived but the Northern Ireland Centre in Europe office in Brussels has not. The organisation now focuses, within the region and more specifically with District Councils, on promoting their understanding of the issues involved in the developing agenda of the EU. The Northern Ireland Executive, recognising the inter-dependence between Northern Ireland and the EU, and the need for a permanent presence has established the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels. The new architecture of links fits in the context of multi-layered governance and the policy network that exists between the region, the UK permanent representation and the EU institutions. The Executive's Office will play a major role in articulating the needs of the region and applying the Northern Ireland 'spin' to the UK position. What are the prospects for future funding from the EU. The EU has been a facilitator and enabler in the peacebuilding process. The resources deployed have been both visible and effective. There is a need to convince the Commission that the process is long-term and that further funding for the region may require a continued specific focus on peace and reconciliation. How that might emerge as part of future structural funds plans, although some way off, will be influenced by the impact of the current programme. We in the Special EU Programmes Body have a critical role to play in laying the foundation for further EU funding. Of course the case for the funding will have to be made by the two Member States. However I am convinced that our unique cross-border structure as a Managing Authority will go some considerable way towards winning the argument against the competing bids coming from the enlarging European Union. The Common Chapter provides the basis for building on and developing co-operation in all its forms. This has far reaching implications for the border economies in particular, and for the island as a whole. It embraces the cross-border aspects of the European Programmes (PEACE, Interreg and other Community Initiatives); the work of the other all-island implementation bodies covering trade, inland waterways, acquaculture, food safety, and language; other areas where co-operation is particularly relevant including energy, education, communications and e commerce, agriculture, tourism, health, transport, training, and the environment. Promoting and implementing the Common Chapter will be fundamental to the impact of cross-border development. Our challenge will be to develop the framework for monitoring activities - the resources deployed and outcomes achieved, and to undertake work to identify and alleviate constraints which affect cross-border co-operation. We are uniquely placed to carry out this strategic role (being a member
of the Community Support Frameworks, all Operational Programmes, and Community
Initiatives Monitoring Committees north and south) and will develop knowledge
and expertise of value in the longer term to the North-South Ministerial
Council and indeed further afield to other areas where cross-border co-operation
is of relevance. Now that PEACE II is operational and INTERREG III well on its way, with systems and procedures in place for administration, including application, selection, and payments, we will be turning our attention to monitoring. Assessment of progress in relation to financial, physical, and impact indicators as well as qualitative aspects of implementation will be our guide to the effectiveness of the respective Programmes, informing us and the Monitoring Committees whether they are on track or in need of adjustment. This, combined with more detailed evaluation (and the mid-term review is looming large) will be the proof of the pudding answering the big questions. Have we reinforced progress towards a peaceful and stable society and promoted reconciliation? And have we enhanced cross-border co-operation to our mutual benefit? We have an exciting and busy future ahead in PEACE II and beyond.
|