|
|
|
|
A Major Investment in Peace
‘The EU Peace Programme has made a crucial contribution to reinforcing progress towards a peaceful and stable society in Northern Ireland and to promoting reconciliation,’ declares the UK’s Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Dr. Marjorie ‘Mo’ Mowlam. She and others feel that the programme may serve as a useful model for other trouble spots, where deep divisions in society have persisted and development has stagnated as a result of both the conflict and the resulting lack of those cohesive structures which would, ordinarily, take the lead in investing for future prosperity.
With the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in the spring of 1998, the people of Northern Ireland took a significant step towards ending nearly three decades of violence. Of course, political violence has affected the social fabric of Ireland for far longer, dating back some four hundred years. The conflict has, in many ways, fed on itself over all those years, with division, exclusion, misunderstanding, poverty, resentment, nationalism, and fear all feeding the oft-repeated cycles of violence.
During the 29 years of what have been rather euphemistically referred to as ‘The Troubles’, more than 3,500 people have died - primarily in Northern Ireland but occasionally elsewhere - and 20,000 have been seriously injured.
| ‘The EU Peace Programme’s twin objectives of promoting social inclusion and, at the same time, making the most of new opportunities to boost economic growth and advance social and economic regeneration have been central to its success.’ |
This most recent and most hopeful peace initiative was painstakingly brought to its successful conclusion following twenty-two months of difficult negotiations under the chairmanship of former United States Senator George Mitchell. Those negotiations began some two years after paramilitary organisations first issued cease-fire declarations in 1994. Though those cease-fires were subsequently suspended during 1996 and 1997, they had important effects at the time, in stimulating hope among the weary people of Northern Ireland, and spurring parties outside of Northern Ireland to take concrete actions to secure what was then a very fragile peace.
Among the significant actions from outside that grew out of the 1994 halt in the sectarian violence was the European Union’s Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland and the Border Counties of Ireland (1995-1999), which entailed a total expenditure of 691 million ECU (about $750 million). It aimed ‘to reinforce progress towards a peaceful and stable society and to promote reconciliation by increasing economic development and employment, promoting urban and rural regeneration, developing cross-border co-operation and extending social inclusion.’ About seventy-three percent of the funding over the five-year period of the programme was provided by the European Union, with most of the remainder coming from the governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. While the majority of the funding was earmarked for Northern Ireland, twenty percent of the funds were allocated to projects in the border counties within the Republic of Ireland. Programme guidelines also stipulated that a minimum of 15 percent of the funding should go to ‘cross-border’ activities.
That the EU was prepared to act quickly to ‘maintain the momentum for peace’ may have been an important factor in changing the psychology in Northern Ireland, for an important motivation behind the entire programme was to encourage all of the people of Northern Ireland, and particularly those most marginalised, to invest in their futures. Basically, the programme presumed that people with something to lose would be far less likely to risk their prosperity in a fight than those with little to lose, and that it was therefore essential to exploit the opportunities for economic and social reconstruction that peace presented.
With the inclusion of the most marginalised members of the community as one of the programme’s highest priorities, it was essential to create an organisational model that would lend itself to the realisation of this goal.
‘From the start,’ notes European Commission member Monika Wulf-Mathies, ‘it was clear that an innovative approach would be crucial to the Programme’s success. The Commission operated on the belief that stability and prosperity are mutually reinforcing, but understood that creating this virtuous circle would require the widest consensus and participation of the local population.’
This meant, in essence, setting up a decentralised structure ‘to operate as closely as possible to the ground and to encourage the involvement of local people and organisations in the direction and control of spending.’ Significantly, funds were channelled to groups with little experience in administering large scale programmes or large amounts of money - a risk that was recognised and accepted.
Connecting to the gras roots has been achieved by channelling more than half of the programme’s funds through organisations operating independently of the government. In Northern Ireland, for example, 26 District Partnerships were established, with oversight in the hands of a 22-member Northern Ireland Partnership Board whose members included representatives of political parties, trade unions, business and rural communities, and voluntary organisations. A conscious effort was made to assure balance in terms of religion, gender and political affiliation. At the local level, each District Partnership included elected officials, representatives of voluntary and community organisations, and the business, labour, and public administration sectors. Each District Partnership followed a six-stage process to develop a strategy for the use of the available funds ending with submission of an Action Plan to the Partnership Board. 16.6 percent of the 691 million euro was allocated to these District Partnerships. Across the border in the Irish Republic, six task forces at the county level fulfilled similar functions.
A variety of other administrative bodies were used to facilitate the effort to channel funds to the grassroots. Eight already existing organisations were designated as ‘Intermediary Funding Bodies’ with responsibility for selecting projects and disbursing funds to target groups. Nearly 30 percent of the programme’s funds were passed through these Intermediary Funding Bodies. In addition, government agencies entered into contracts with five ‘Sectoral Partners’ to handle support for young children, women and adult education.
Just what has $750 million dollars bought in terms of concrete programmes? Programmes have enhanced business and cultural links between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, provided technical and leadership training as well as childcare facilities to women wishing to enter the labour market, established pre-school playgroups and afterschool clubs for young children, offered retraining to individuals previously employed in the security sector, and provided development assistance for the tourist industry. In areas where communities suffered long-term, endemic poverty, comprehensive community development programmes have been launched, and community organisations have been established. Derelict parks have been refurbished to restore recreational facilities in areas where few alternatives existed. The priority given to adult education has been reflected in job counselling, guidance and training, especially for members of disadvantaged groups and the long-term unemployed.
| ‘Reconciliation leading to lasting peace would ... have to be founded in those communities which had been marginalised from mainstream society. This meant addressing the root causes of exclusion through social reconstruction in order to create a just and inclusive society in which everyone could participate.’ |
With the recognition that poorly educated, underprivileged, alienated young people are prime candidates for membership in paramilitary organisations, various programmes have been set up to engage them more positively. For example, at a youth and technology centre in Londonderry called Powerhouse, young people have been given hands-on experience with high-tech equipment. In engaging these young people, issues such as drug and alcohol abuse are addressed, and the self-esteem and confidence of participants can be enhanced.
Although many of the projects funded under the Peace and Reconciliation Programme have been traditional ‘reconciliation programmes’, the great majority of the projects have had far more to do with strengthening the social and economic structures in the region. In so doing, the strategy of ‘social inclusion’ has functioned as a pathway to reconciliation.
The establishment of the District Partnerships helped to forge relationships across the political divide that had rarely existed in the past and may yield benefits extending far beyond the life of the programme. One close observer, Quintin Oliver, Director of the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action, observes, ‘The unique architecture of the partnerships is peculiar to the situation in Northern Ireland and was intended in itself to address conflict and encourage broad participation - based on principles of equality, where there was no ‘lead’ partner. All political and sectoral parties are still involved in District Partnerships and continue to develop the capacity to work together. The partnership members share views and use the expertise around the table in a constructive consensus building manner. People are becoming involved in positive decision making, many of whose previous experiences were based in opposition. The commitment shown by the individuals involved is an endorsement of the partnership approach. This process is part of the product of peace and reconciliation and should be valued.’
When prisoners are released from jails, the risk is always great
that they will be unable to adapt to life outside, and will return
to prison. In the polarised environment of Northern Ireland, where
paramilitary organisations retain important influence, ex-prisoners,
whether they were members of a paramilitary organisation in the
past or not, may be inclined to affiliate with these organisations.
But numerous projects funded by the Special Support Programme
have been designed specifically to address the needs of ex-prisoners,
and to re-integrate them into their communities as productive
members of society.
Reintegrating ex-prisoners
In Belfast projects which were assisted include those designed
to help prisoners adapt to life outside. Belfast Self Build, for
example, provides training in construction industry skills for
former political prisoners. And LINC Resource Centre has received
funding for two projects for ex-prisoners - one to provide training
in computer skills, and one to provide ex-prisoners with a variety
of social skills to assist in re-entry into life outside prison.
‘If we’re going to salvage anything out of this Peace Process,’
says LINC Development Officer Billy Mitchell, ‘it’s the paramilitaries
we have to work with ... and we have to stick at it to keep building
confidence, building trust.’ LINC has focused on building bridges
and promoting dialogue at the community level.
Northern Ireland’s Members of the European Parliament (Dr. Paisley, mr. Hume and mr. Nicholson) said in a 1997 ‘mid-term report’ on the Special Programme, ‘There can be no doubt that the partnership element of the Special Programme has been a major success. The concept had been conceived of as an experiment, initially in the economic development context, later extended to other social spheres, with the objective of stimulating co-operation between communities and between different interest groups, including District Councils, at local level. It is an experiment which has worked. Indeed it is no exaggeration to say that the partnership concept is the element of the Special Programme which ... has made the most obvious contribution to the programme’s basic objectives of Peace and Reconciliation.’
With an awareness that impatience and frustration have tended to undermine reconciliation efforts following the cessation of hostilities or civil conflicts, the European Commission, as well as the governments of the United Kingdom and Ireland all agreed that chances for success of the Special Support Programme would be significantly enhanced if the programme had an ‘immediate and visible impact.’ That has meant, quite understandably, that difficulties have been experienced in administering a programme where much of the infrastructure for implementation had to be created rapidly, but it has also had the desired effect. People have seen that peace yields concrete results.
Still, the EU has recognised that the Special Support Programme can’t be a ‘quick fix’ but is, rather, simply the beginning of a long-term process, with important progress made ‘in developing relationships at all levels and establishing new ways of working together.’
Monika Wulf-Mathies observes hopefully: ‘The decentralised approach... may help inspire other regions wishing to adopt similar methods to strengthen local involvement in programmes [supported by the European Commission].’ Naturally, the parties to a conflict have to first commit themselves to put aside their differences and work to rebuild society, but the example of the EU’s Special Programme is both an incentive for them to do so, and proof that if they do, the tangible results will ensure greater security and prosperity.
This article is mainly based on the following two publications:
• European Commission: Peace and Reconciliation - An imaginative approach to the European programme for Northern Ireland and the Border Counties of Ireland. Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1998.
• Paisley, Hume, Nicholson: Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland and the Border Counties of Ireland - Revisited. Report to Jacques Santer, President of the European Commission, 1997.
All quotes have been taken from these publications.
Feedback please to
j.verhoeven@euconflict.org