1 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. 26 June 2014 Submission to the Committee on the Implementation of the GFA
2 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 only 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 Tá naiste, in his remarks at the launch of the Government’s Reconciliation Fund Strategy, recognised the corrosive effect that legacy issues continue to have over 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. 26 June 2014 Submission to the Committee on the Implementation of the GFA
3 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 on 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. 26 June 2014 Submission to the Committee on the Implementation of the GFA
Recommend
More recommend
