The E.U. Programme for Peace & Reconciliation 2007 – 2013.

Consultation Document

Response to SEUPB/BOOOUEP by the Border Minority Group.

 

 

 

Sectoral employment: We would agree with the view that the regions over dependence on agriculture and the current changes in the sector is a potential problem for those involved in that sector. This would be an ideal opportunity to target supports in to rural areas to help with developing new skills to assist with people accessing new employment/business avenues. Use of varied and non-traditional venues for this training could be a good way of breaking down barriers and also developing increased trust between traditions.

Security situation and crime: While not specifically mentioned or excluded we feel it is worth highlighting that the quote of “sectarian crimes and incidents are a significant problem” is also extremely relevant to some Protestant communities in the Republic of Ireland. There have been numerous sectarian (or at least perceived as sectarian) attacks on Protestant owned property in counties Cavan, Monaghan & Leitrim. The effective singling out of Orange halls in particular for the majority ofattacks during the height of the conflict and in the so called post-conflict period suggests that there is lesser level of tolerance for groups that wish to preserve their distinctive culture and traditions. This point should becarefully considered in defining those who were most excluded and marginalised and therefore prioritised for future supports. Most of these attacks were not solved and some believe that their investigation was not a priority with the authorities. Because of this perceived inaction many were not even reported. It should also be noted that the fear of attack has as much of an impact as the fact of attack. Following on from these attacks and the resultant lack of trust, isolation and marginalisation these communities are often slow to participate in recognised civil networks, preferring to keep to their own civil and social networks where they feel safer.

Community Relations: The statement that Northern Ireland remains “a divided society” seems to carry much greater importance than the “problems of isolation and lack of participation and integration” which in the border region remains “an issue”. Surely it is no wonder that some communities feel isolated and are reluctant to participate and integrate when they are faced with the problems highlighted in the previous section. It follows that many of them feel they live in “a divided society. We feel that this situation needs to be recognised initially before it can be addressed. We are concerned that even the Belfast Agreement seems to have failed to recognise it, “We are committed to partnership, equality and mutual respect as the basis of relationships within Northern Ireland, between North and South, and between these islands”, “The participants recognise and value the work being done by many organisations to develop reconciliation and mutual understanding and respect between and within communities and traditions, in Northern Ireland and between North and South, and they see such work as having a vital role in consolidating peace and political agreement. Accordingly, they pledgetheir continuing support to such organisations and will positively examine the case for enhanced financial assistance for the work of reconciliation. An essential aspect of the reconciliation process is the promotion of a culture of tolerance at every level of society, including initiatives to facilitate and encourage integrated education and mixed housing”. It is blatantly obvious and worrying to us that there is no mention of relationships within the Republic in this whole section about developing reconciliation andmutual respect. It is a reality, that until those marginalised within the Republic of Ireland border Protestant communities also gain mutual respect and parity of esteem for their traditions then many of them will continue to choose to remain outside the recognised civil networks.

 

Cross-border co-operation: We believe that the border road closures had a severe impact on the Protestant communities in the border region of the Republic as many of the social and family links were made more difficult. In many cases they did not even have the option of their family members visit home if they were in the police or army. Uniquely, they were cut off from the majority of their co-religionists and this moved them from being a sizeable part of the community to being very much a minority. They were also cut off from many of their social and cultural activities. Many people from these communities could benefit greatly from supports aimed at rebuilding linkages between them and their cross-border neighbours. A targeted approach to rebuilding these cross-border relationships would be seen by many of those affected as a very positive move. 

Progress towards peace and reconciliation goals: We welcome the recommendation to support activities increasing engagement on a cross-border “or” cross-community basis as we believe that the insistence on cross-community involvement has been, and still is, a barrier to engagement for some minority Protestant communities. There can be a conflict of interest in promoting cross-community participation becausewith any action there is the inevitable re-action and in some cases this can be to the detriment of their own community. Supporting border Protestant communities in cross-border projects involving their own cultural traditions can be useful in developing their confidence to engage with other traditions at home.   

Community uptake of the PEACE II Programme: The variation in uptake by differing community backgrounds is recognised and while the criteria are being met it is apparent that either the criteria or the prevailing circumstances are not conducive to some communities benefiting, including some of those most marginalised. We strenuously believe that it is totally inadequate to state that “continued efforts need to be made in terms of encouraging the full participation of all communities in the Programme”. Your own publication Inform in the November 2004 issue stated that “Specifically the Committee recommends that applications be pro-actively sought from groups currently under represented in the Programme” It is not continued efforts but enhanced and effective efforts that are needed and needed quickly. It was obvious years ago and the time for research and studies is over, now is time for delivery. Even now in mid February there is yet another survey being prepared. This survey is to assess the impact of Peace II on Protestant communities in the border region and make recommendations for Peace III. Considering the stage we are at in the development of Peace III it seems very late to be starting yet more surveying. Despite the lateness of this work we are encouraging participation and assisting the research team in their study. 

 

 

Programme Strategy: The section about specific problems that are barriers to social progress raises some important points. Specifically “the key underlying issues (e.g. sectarianism, isolation, marginalisation, mistrust, lack of citizenship and participation in civil networks)” are not individual but are inextricably linked. It is clear that if you ask why these issues arise many of the answers will be the other issues listed and it is not a simple case of choosing which one is the cause but trying to address them all in a sensitive and respectful manner, easier said than done.

It should also be taken into consideration that many people that may be thought to have a “lack of citizenship and participation in civil networks” may in fact be very active citizens in their own communities or participate in civil networks that are outside the stereotypical perception. This could have a negative effect on those communities in two ways. Not only have they failed to access financial supports (for whatever reasons) but the good work carried out by them, in their own communities, fails to be recognised as citizenship.

 

 

Promoting strategic project development:

 We believe it would be very important for any Steering committee to be diverse in its membership and to recognise that differing communities have differing needs. It will not be enough to merely try and replicate “good” or “established” projects but the situation merits new vision in the pursuit of innovative projects or programmes with sympathetic criteria that may help to address imbalances in the past and spread the benefits to some of our most marginalised communities.

We also maintain that support should be directed to communities like ours that did not resort to violence, despite the provocation highlighted in the first section. The much talked about peace dividend and the allocation of funds by both the British and Irish governments into so called “interface areas” is needed but is regarded by many as a reward for violence. A strategic targeting of support towards communities that resisted the use of violence could surely be seen as a positive image for any peace programme. The often quoted “keeping our heads down” could be turned into a positive statement of restraint, control and a desire forpeace. Much is made of the need to work with young people but there is a need to show young Protestants that peace-building is not about giving up their culture but about developing mutual respect for differing traditions. An excellentway to do this would be to support sports clubs and bands that include many young folk from these most marginalised communities.    

Building positive relations at the local level: We believe it is fundamental in building a peaceful society to challenge not only attitudes towards sectarianism but also sectarianism itself. We should recognise that by definition some reasonable activities could be termed sectarian e.g. meetings of church groups (vestry, session or equivalent). We need to be focused on addressing sectarian activities or actions that have a negative or harmful impact on others. The process should include education that some emotions and feelings about past conflicts are not taken as being necessarily appropriate now. This applies equally to both traditions.

 To remember history is good but it’s good to remember it is history.

Creating shared public spaces: When relating to any space/area we believe that it is essential that all communities and individuals have equal opportunities to undertake their (legitimate) activities. Unfortunately some communities may find it very difficult to use some so called shared spaces that are under unsympathetic (perceived or real) control or ownership. There is a very real need especially in the border counties of the Republic for culturally sensitive facilities that are welcoming to the minority Protestant communities.

A recent comment by a Church of Ireland rector in the border region suggests that a sense of ownership or having rights to communityfacilities is sometimes lacking   “Thanks to the committee of the community centre for their continued willingness to accommodate us” This implies that they are receiving a series of favours and that it is not part of their rights as part of the community.

 We hope that this priority could be flexible enough to enable minority Protestant communities and their facilities to be regenerated and make the sharing of space a two way process.

 Key institutional capacities are developed for a shared society: “this aims to develop capacity, knowledge, culture and mechanisms of key institutions (including those in the public sector) to deliver a shared society within Northern Ireland and on a cross border basis”. This is the most alarming and worrying statement within the whole consultation document. We are extremely concerned that this section, like the Belfast Agreement, also fails to recognise the need for a shared society within the Republic. This omission and we presume it is an omission rather than a deliberate choice of phrase, is a regular occurrence and to us highlights a lack of understanding of the difficulties faced by some communities in the Republic. Designing a programme around the ideal of a shared society in one region and between regions without recognising that the same need exists in the other region is highly flawed, discriminatory and insulting to those who have experienced or witnessed inequalities in the Republic.

 

 We believe that small grants should play a role in the new programme as there are communities, groups and organisations that have been severely marginalised as a result of the conflict who have not yet felt the impact of any Peace programme funding. The benefit to those groups of a small grant, (which in terms of their needs may actually be substantial) delivered in a strategic and sensitive way without the need for excessively restrictive application or administrative processes could have a substantial impact on the uptake of the programme by heretofore underrepresented communities. Neither should there be any requirement to seek approval from neighbouring facilities as has been reported in previous efforts to access support. This was viewed as an extra obstacle placed on our community which was not deemed necessary in the reverse situation.

Question 7 What are your views on the indicative budget proposals? These are presented as potential range of budgets. In your view, what is the correct funding balance between the two main priorities?

   We are not too concerned about the balance between the priorities but we are concerned about the perception at community level that a substantial portion of the budget for creating shared public spaces has already been earmarked for a number of large “flagship” projects. If this is the case it is at variance with the whole concept of consulting with the communityon the design of the programme. 

 

The partnership approach for local programmes remains unclear but we have concerns around groups forming partnerships solely to access Peace funding. The potential exists to exclude groups who don’t yet have the capacity for joint projects or those who don’t have easily identifiable partners with compatible aims and objectives. There is also the potential to rekindle the issue of “the token Protestant” with a modern equivalent i.e. “the token Protestant group”.

The proposal for calls for applications and the identification strategic projects to be undertaken by Steering Committee(s) is an aspect that appears to give that/those committee(s) a very significant role in the programme. We believe it is fundamental that it/they are comprised of individuals that are willing to be take risks for peace and ensure that “applications be pro-actively sought from groups currently under represented in the Programme”.

 

 

Our major concern is the regional inequality regarding the desire for a shared society as highlighted under question 5.

 

 

 

 

We are disappointed that we will not have an opportunity to study and assess the finding from the ongoing survey to assess the impact of Peace II on Protestant communities in the border region prior to making this submission. In relation to that survey we feel that the questionnaire was poorly designed as the list of groups for the respective counties does not include our group in either the Cavan/Leitrim section or the overall list so many people that are aware of or actively involved our project activities will not have the opportunity to acknowledge this. 

We would also draw your attention to the lack of capacity of representatives from some Protestant community groups. This is apparent from the incomplete filling in of some questionnaires and would deter them from even attempting the complex application forms that have been part of the Peace programmes to date.  

We also think that the recent survey undertaken by Orange Community Network (as yet unpublished) should be reviewed. We believe there is considerable support and willingness for increased usage of Orange halls in the Republic for a wide range of community activities. This willingness could and should be encouraged as the need to work with the loyal orders was highlighted in a number of the independent studies.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

·        Protestant communities in the border counties of the Republic are specified as a target group for support.

·        Measures are put in place to ensure that resources are targeted to Protestant communities and not merely to communities that include Protestants.

·        Procedures are designed to ensure that resources are not only available to Protestant communities but are actually delivered to Protestant communities. This needs to be prioritised and monitored from the outset.

·        Appropriate and sensitive supports are in place to ensure that these communities are encouraged, empowered and assisted, where necessary to make viable applications.

·        Supports are provided for organisations with an advocacy or lobbying role for Protestant communities. This would require substantial trust, empathy and understanding of the issues involved. In terms of community development principles, this initiative would preferably come from within the specified community.

·        SEUPB/BOOOUEP and other key institutions should specifically and publicly acknowledge the need to deliver a shared society in the Republic of Ireland.