The Centre for Cross Border Studies Submission to the Committee on - - PDF document

1

Submission to the Committee on the Implementation of the GFA 26 June 2014

The Centre for Cross Border Studies Submission to the Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement

26 June 2014

Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of the Centre for Cross Border Studies. The Centre was established in 1999, specifically in the context of the GFA with the aim of providing a non-governmental vehicle to support and promote cross-border cooperation on the island. Just to introduce the Centre briefly: the Centre, which is based in Armagh, researches and develops cooperation across the Irish border and works with similar cross-border research bodies in other parts of Europe. We are an independent company limited by guarantee, founded by Queen’s University Belfast, Dublin City University and the Workers Educational Association. The core funding we have received over a number of years from the Department of Education and Skills is an essential element of our organisation’s continued sustainability and it is important that we acknowledge here that we are very grateful for it. Our role as Secretariat for two cross-border networks: Universities Ireland and the Standing Conference on Teacher Education, North and South – both of which are partially funded by the Department of Education and Skills and the Department for Employment and Learning in Northern Ireland jointly – also provides a crucial revenue stream for the Centre. Our primary source of income in recent years has, however, been time-limited project funding from the EU: mainly through the INTERREG programme; with additional LEONARDO funding for our work in a project with European partners in other border regions. Details of the work we do are included in the documentation you will have received and our comments here are based very much on our experience promoting and supporting cross-border cooperation on the island and at European level.

2

Submission to the Committee on the Implementation of the GFA 26 June 2014

While working with other border regions has been an increasingly important element, the context for the Centre’s work has always been, first and foremost, the policy imperative for cross-border cooperation enshrined in Strand 2 of the 1998 Agreement. Thus, we are very conscious that we are now 16 Years On – and it is 20 years since the ceasefires. We are also very conscious of the fact that

• nly a minority of peace agreements survive more than a decade. In the absence of comprehensive

efforts to transcend social divisions, armed conflicts frequently reoccur.1 Certainly in recent years we have seen an escalation in ‘post-conflict violence – in particular sectarian, racist and other hate crimes, but also other types of crimes, anti-social behaviour‚ and crime within communities. The residual paramilitary violence also provides a portent of how truly terrible a resurgence in politically- motivated conflict will be if the fragile political structures atrophy or break down. The dangers of allowing the Agreement to become unravelled – or for some elements to be allowed to wither away – should be very clear to all of us. It was reassuring, therefore, that the Tánaiste, in his remarks at the launch of the Government’s Reconciliation Fund Strategy, recognised the corrosive effect that legacy issues continue to have

• ver the daily lives of people on the island, and the responsibilities of both Governments towards

finding political and societal mechanisms to deal with these legacy issues. We very much welcome the Irish Government’s clear and unambiguous statement that its “foundational framework” is the Good Friday Agreement and the Agreements which have flowed from it. Our focus is, of course, on cross-border cooperation. The Centre for Cross Border Studies works very closely with the NSMC Joint Secretariat and we recognise that cooperation at that level has been very effectively embedded. We would of course, like to see the areas of cooperation extended and

• deepened. We think that the GFA provides an interesting model for institutionalising cross-border

cooperation that should be more widely shared; and the Centre is currently seeking funding to do a comparative study of the Agreement and the Treaty of Valencia between Spain and Portugal – both bilateral treaties for cooperation – and other approaches such as European Groupings for Territorial Cooperation (EGTCs). Below this level, however, cooperation is not so securely embedded. The Centre for Cross Border Studies is deeply concerned that the political stability and the progress made towards increased cross-border mobility and cooperative relationships across social, economic and cultural life will be eroded without continued support; both financial and in public policy. We are also disappointed that

1 Paddy Hillyard, Bill Rolston and Mike Tomlinson, Poverty and Conflict in Ireland: An International Perspective,

Combat Poverty Agency, Dublin, 2005, p. xxi.

3

Submission to the Committee on the Implementation of the GFA 26 June 2014

although there was a positive ‘efficiency and value for money’ review of the North South bodies as a result of the St Andrews process, there has been little visible progress on the review of the case for additional bodies and areas of cooperation. It would certainly help to build greater political endorsement for the bodies if a more proactive approach was taken to ensuring that the tangible benefits of their work was better understood by the voting public in both jurisdictions. This could be done through more robust communication strategies. But also, we would suggest, commissioning social and economic impact evaluations would provide a firm evidence base to support the case for continued public investment in the North South bodies. Cross-border cooperation among other public bodies – and between public bodies and civic society – is still fragmented and weakly institutionalised. The economic crisis since 2008 has to some extent provided a rationale for a de-prioritisation of cross-border cooperation where budgets are tight. Indeed, as we can see from the current proposals for the new PEACE and INTERREG programmes, even the most mainstream of transport infrastructure projects will now be looking to the EU for funding to support their cross-border linkages. The potential efficiencies of delivering public services

• n a cross-border or all-island basis should be starkly obvious to anyone. However, cross-border

cooperation requires capacity, skills and resources. Even more important, it requires leadership and clear and unambiguous direction from policy-makers. Since the demise of the Common Chapter, the limited but nevertheless important references to cross-border cooperation have dwindled and all but disappeared from major policy documents. Unless there is a clear policy imperative supported by resources – and it is made clear to civil servants and other public officials that it is part of their job – even the most motivated people will, with the increasing pressures of austerity, see cross-border cooperation as an unaffordable luxury. The EU PEACE and INTERREG programmes have made a tremendous contribution to normalising cross-border cooperation networks among local authorities, public agencies and community and voluntary organisations. Cross-border cooperation provides opportunities for dialogue and building cross-border and cross-community relationships. The PEACE Programme, in particular, helped to sustain the peace process at times when formal structures were stalled or suspended.2 The programme validated work between former combatants and promoted their social and political

• integration. Channels of communication have been opened on community, business and economic
• levels. Cross-border work became more normalised and less threatening to Loyalists and Unionists.

2 Channel Research, Peacebuilding and Reconciliation Across the Border: Evaluation of the Impact of the Cross

Border Measures 5.3 and 5.4 of the European Union Peace and Reconciliation Programme 2000-2006, p. 98.

4

Submission to the Committee on the Implementation of the GFA 26 June 2014

Indeed, cross-border cooperation has sometimes provided a ‘stepping stone’ for individuals from Loyalist backgrounds to engagement in cross-community initiatives with people closer to home. The availability of EU funding has in the past facilitated people and organisations to take risks in cross- border cooperation that they would not otherwise have taken. Cross-border working brings added value to peacebuilding. Cross-border cooperation addresses a number of core conflict issues and problems that are a direct legacy of the conflict: the breakdown in cross-border relationships, and the isolation and the social and economic decline of border communities.3 Cross-border cooperation has the potential to develop better understanding across

• communities. Cooperation in work, education, youth, cultural activities or business leads to social,

cultural and economic regeneration. Cross-border cooperation provides a mechanism whereby some

• f the most difficult core conflict issues and legacies of the conflict can be addressed in an holistic

way, leading to peace and reconciliation.4 Individuals have been taken out of their comfort zones – whether through an economic agenda or

• ne directly focused on reconciliation. The programmes have provided both a structure and the

incentives for people to engage with difference. Some programme participants reported that the benefit of cross-border cooperation was not so much the cultural exchange or projects based on identity, but in cooperation on practical issues such as access to essential services for people in isolated border areas. Often through such projects relationships of trust have been established that provided a safe and structured environment in which it has been possible to have meaningful discussions about the conflict and its legacies – discussions that, while painful, have contributed to both individual and collective healing. Perhaps one of the most valuable outcomes of the EU cross-border programmes has been the facilitation of multi-level cross-border networks. The requirement built into the programmes for partnership working has effected a real change in culture for civil society organisations, giving them a new access to decision-making. At the same time, it has been a challenge and a steep learning curve for Local Authorities, public agencies and government departments who have responded to the needs of new ways of working. A study commissioned to draw the lessons from the first two PEACE Programmes and inform the PEACE III Programme stressed the important impact that the programmes had had on local

3 Ibid, p. 2. 4 Ibid, p. 141.

5

Submission to the Committee on the Implementation of the GFA 26 June 2014

governance and putting cross-border cooperation at the heart of the policy debate; and importantly also made a major contribution to encouraging and supporting active citizenship.5 The Peace Programmes established institutions that realised partnership, brought civil society organisations into the delivery process and catalysed a much higher level of participation by ordinary citizens.6 However, the most recent PEACE and INTERREG Programmes (2007-13) were considerably less accessible, particularly for civil society organisations. And the fact remains that cross-border cooperation in Ireland has been highly dependent upon the EU Territorial Cooperation Programmes (PEACE and INTERREG). The only other significant sources of public funding for cross-border cooperation have been the International Fund for Ireland (EU and USA) and the DFAT’s Reconciliation Fund. So we do very much welcome the commitment in the new Strategy for the Reconciliation Fund to building a strong civil society through the continued implementation of the Agreements and the promotion of a rights-based society; the explicit inclusion in the Fund’s criteria

• f support to projects that build North-South links with sustainable relationships and connections;

and the development and strengthening of meaningful and lasting cross-border links. As the Strategy states, there has been significant progress since the Good Friday Agreement in building peace on this island, but this progress cannot be taken for granted. We agree with the Strategy that it is essential that funded projects address the issue of their sustainability in this changing context. It is important that reconciliation is mainstreamed in community work and social policy. Likewise, it is essential that cross-border cooperation be mainstreamed within public policy – and budget lines – on both sides of the border. It is clear from the draft PEACE IV and INTERREG V programme documents now out for consultation, that not only will there be the usual gap between the closure of the programmes in 2015 and the availability of funding for new projects, but there is clearly an intention that the focus of the programmes will be significantly narrower than the previous programmes. Even many high quality and potentially important projects led by Local Authorities will not be eligible; and it will be even more of a challenge, if not impossible, for many community sector projects to meet the programme criteria. We are very concerned and disappointed that there is no specific allocation within the proposed PEACE IV Programme for cross-border projects. An evaluation of cross-border projects in the PEACE II Programme concluded that cross-border projects were able to engage in a deeper level of

5 Building on Peace: Supporting Peace & Reconciliation after 2006. ADM/CPA, Monaghan, 2005, p. 10. 6 Ibid., p. 15.

6

Submission to the Committee on the Implementation of the GFA 26 June 2014

reconciliation through building in processes and structures to facilitate learning, developing different cultural relationships including developing a shared history of the conflict that would not have been articulated or heard; developing a shared language that acknowledges different cultural values and understandings; and developing a shared vision that is more inclusive and challenging of traditionally held beliefs than would otherwise have been possible.7 We think that it is essential that a specific proportion of PEACE IV – 15% – be ring-fenced for cross-border projects. (In both PEACE I and PEACE II, 15% of the overall programme was specifically allocated for cross-border projects. There was no such ring-fenced allocation in PEACE III and the consultative document for PEACE IV indicates a similar approach is intended.) Another critical difference in both programmes is the proposed change to the matching funding

• allocation. In previous PEACE and INTERREG Programmes, the EU allocation was 75% and the two

governments provided 25% matching funding. In the new programmes the EU will provide 70%, the two governments’ allocation will be reduced to 15%, with projects required to secure 15% from

• ther sources.

2007-2013 2014-2020 INTERREG IVA PEACE III INTERREG VA PEACE IV

ERDF Allocation €192m €225m €240m €229m National contributions €64m €108m €42.4m €40m TOTAL FUND €256m €333m €282.4m €269m

It is essential that the reduction in the national contributions in 2014-2020 programmes does not simply revert into central funds. Cross-border work has particular challenges and difficulties. It requires new skills and additional resources. We propose that the two governments establish a new cross-border funding programme targeted at civic society, but also available to partnerships between public bodies and the social partners (business, trade unions, community and voluntary sector). We suggest that a fund of approximately €40 million over seven years would be appropriate. Finally, as many members of the committee will be aware, the Centre of Cross Border Studies published a major study on the Border Region economy in 2012, Cross-border Economic Renewal: Rethinking Regional Policy in Ireland (by Dr John Bradley and Professor Michael Best). More recently, with the support of the EU INTERREG programme, we commissioned and published additional

7 Channel Research, op. cit., p. 141

7

Submission to the Committee on the Implementation of the GFA 26 June 2014

studies that explored the potential of a joint economic development approach across the whole Irish and Northern Irish cross-border region.8 These studies were launched at our conference in January

• f this year, on the theme Towards a Border Development Zone. Since then, we have been

supporting a steering committee chaired by Mr Padraic White and involving the cross-border local authority networks, the Border Regional Authority, IBEC and InterTradeIreland. The Irish cross-border region continues to be characterised by multiple disadvantages relative to the rest of the island and the UK, and continues to lag behind the EU average on a number of social and economic indicators. This multi-faceted disadvantage has been detailed in the social and economic analysis of the INTERREG Operational Programme and other key policy documents. The wider economic crisis has, if anything resulted in the exacerbation of the underlying weaknesses of the Irish cross-border region. Core economic and social weaknesses9 include a low-value economic sector; higher than average unemployment levels and a poorly qualified workforce; low business formation rates; lower tourism levels; poor educational performance; under-developed science, technology and innovation; areas of significant poverty and deprivation; health inequalities; the legacy of the conflict in Northern Ireland; environmental problems; and numerous barriers to cross-border cooperation. The EU has introduced a new mechanism – Integrated Territorial Investment – that is specifically intended to address such social and economic disparities and promote territorial cohesion. That is, to bring regions such as the Irish border region closer to the levels of prosperity and development of more affluent regions. The Centre strongly supports the concept of Integrated Territorial Investment for the Border Region. This would ensure that not only the smaller dedicated cross-border funds, but also the main ERDF and ESF funds and other mainstream funding programmes, would prioritise the Border Region. Conclusion Cross-border work has particular challenges and difficulties. It requires new skills and additional

• resources. Most importantly, it needs a supportive policy framework. There has not been an
• verarching and strategic framework to give coherence to the many valuable cross-border initiatives

that have been implemented in the past two decades. Too often, the EU programmes have

8 Scoping studies – see www.crossborder.ie 9 For an up-to-date review of the region’s economic weaknesses in particular, see Cross-Border Economic

Renewal: Rethinking Regional Policy in Ireland, by John Bradley and Michael Best (Centre for Cross Border Studies, 2012)

8

Submission to the Committee on the Implementation of the GFA 26 June 2014

compensated for a lack of leadership and investment, rather than complementing a strategic cross- border intervention. Sustainable peace and development on the island requires new ways of thinking and new ways of doing business that means public officials and representatives as well as the social partners thinking and working beyond their traditional jurisdictions. Recommendations  There is a need for a new 'Common Chapter‘ that explicitly incorporates an imperative for cross-border cooperation in public policies and development strategies in both jurisdictions;  A new cross-border funding programme should be established focused on civil society projects, with a minimum investment of €40m over seven years;  A specific proportion (15%) of the PEACE IV Programme should be ring-fenced for cross- border projects;  An Integrated Territorial Investment strategy for the Border Region should be developed, targeting the Structural Funds in both jurisdictions and combined with the European Territorial Cooperation programmes and national government contributions. The Centre for Cross Border Studies 39 Abbey Street Armagh BT61 7EB Tel: +44 28 3751 1550 Fax: +44 28 3751 1721 Email: crossborder@qub.ac.uk www.crossborder.ie