Sinn Féin is committed to the elimination of poverty and deprivation on the island of Ireland. We feel that a meaningful approach to eliminating poverty will, by necessity, have to adopt a human rights based approach and draw all sectors of Irish society closer together.
Contents:
-
An Introduction: Social, Economic and Spatial Inequality
– A Question of Human Rights
-
The Rationale: Developing Integrated Area Plans for the
Border Corridor
-
The Policy Context: Matching Areas of Need with Relevant
Funding Priorities
-
The Pooling of Sovereignty: Promoting a Cross-Border
Multi-Agency Approach for the Development of Integrated Area Plans
-
The Need for Training: Understanding and Promoting
Sustainable Integration
-
Participation and the Stakeholder Process: Ensuring
those who experience Poverty and Social Exclusion participate in the
development process
-
Conclusion: Developing ‘a Community’ to Eliminate
Deprivation and Promote Reintegration
-
Appendix 1: An Explanatory Framework for Addressing
Attitudinal and Systemic Constraints
An Introduction: Social, Economic and Spatial Inequality – A
Question of Human Rights
“…we declare that the nations sovereignty extends not only to all the men
and women of the nation, but to all its material possessions, the Nations
soil and all its resources, all the wealth and all the wealth producing
processes within the Nation and with him we affirm that all right to private
property must be subordinate to the public right and welfare.” (Democratic
Programme of the First Dáil 1919)
This affirmation has yet to be realised.
The material resources of the nation have not only been amputated and
stunted by partition; but remain unfairly distributed, with the right to
private property and enterprise superseding public right and welfare.
Nowhere is this more evident than within operational commitments of regional
and spatial development strategies North and South.
Within these strategies it is the market place that determines the
allocation of resources. The very same forces that create wealth create
poverty and inequality.
Wealth creation on this island is concentrated within the largest cities,
more specifically Dublin and Belfast. Development and growth using this
model is reliant on the radial expansion (often uncontrolled) of the
metropolis and will always be accompanied by impoverishment of the periphery
– as can be seen in the historic neglect and stagnation of the Border
Corridor.
The discrimination that has underpinned regional development in Ireland is
compounded and stimulated by the existence of the border.
Social, economic and spatial deprivation brought about by the dislocating
resonance of the border impacts detrimentally on the life chances of the
people who live adjacent to it. In individual and communal terms this
represents a denial of human rights.
Therefore strategies that seek to redress social, economic and spatial
inequality along the Border Corridor must recognise this relationship and
work from that premise. Integrated Area Plans that promote integration and
participation on the basis of equality puts the needs of the people before
private capital.
The Rationale: Developing Integrated Area Plans for the Border
Corridor
The Proclamation of the Republic declares
“The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal
opportunities to all it citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the
happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts,
cherishing all of the children of the nation equally and oblivious to
differences fostered by an alien government” (Proclamation of the Republic,
1916)
This principle has yet to be realised.
The communities within those counties along the Border are interdependent
and suffer from similar types of social, economic, and spatial deprivation.
It must be recognised at the outset that insular regional development will
not work.
Republicans have always insisted that Partition and by extension the
existence of the Border has distorted the political, social and economic
life of the people of Ireland. However the functional reality of the Border
is that it impedes development and impacts detrimentally on the quality of
life of those communities and businesses sited adjacent to it.
The Border is an artificial construct and has been independently
acknowledged as an impediment to the social and economic development in that
geographical area.(1)
Life in the Border Corridor is defined by low wage culture, high
unemployment, low educational attainment, the debilitating duality of
services and service providers, poor roads, inadequate transport systems,
insufficient energy supply and ICT (broadband) networking, and undeveloped
environmental opportunities. In fact 68 per cent of the wealth created in
the 6 Counties and the 26 Counties in 1998, was located in the Belfast and
Dublin areas.(2)
The diffusion of wealth, economic opportunity, administrative control and
social development is clearly influenced by spatial regionalism that is
blatantly discriminatory and represents a denial of human rights.
In this regard - it is of paramount importance that the strategies we put in
place seek to tackle and eliminate these historical imbalances.
The promotion of self-contained regional development is at variance with the
commitments within ‘the Common Chapter’ and the rationale, measures and
priorities of the European Unions INTERREG III fund.
Only co-ordinated integration that creates common systems, mechanisms of
delivery for services and programme work will deliver the balanced
development needed for the people that live within the Border Corridor. As
such the most appropriate frameworks for regional development are Integrated
Area Plans.
Integrated Area Plans should be developed in each of the three border
corridor zones (North West, Central and Eastern) and should take account of
the interdependent relationships between the social, economic, environmental
and the spatial in a dynamic and mutually reinforcing way.
The developmental logic that informs the Integrated Area Plans is based on
the premise that it is simply not good enough to promote a purely economic
driven process at the expense of a social or spatial initiative to the
detriment of the environment. All of these essential considerations are
interlinked and cannot be divorced one from another – and so the regional
development framework must be an integrated one.
In terms of geographical remit ‘Integration’ as a regional development
concept must be considered in relation to all counties within the corridor
area given the shared experience of deprivation between the communities that
live adjacent to the border.
The Integrated Area Plans are best informed and needs orientated if all the
stakeholders (the social partners and target constituencies) are involved at
all stages of development on the basis of equality – this is the fundamental
premise of real participation. There is a need for change in the development
of the border corridor that is both integrative and participative. The
foundation stones for the realisation of both these imperatives have already
been laid in specific policy commitments and relevant funding conditions.
The Policy Context: Matching Areas of Need with Relevant Funding
Priorities
Within a regional policy context both spatial
strategies recognise the need to develop the border corridor on a collective
basis. Also in the 6 counties and the 26 counties the respective development
plans explicitly state the centrality of participative and needs based -
community regeneration and social inclusion initiatives.(3)
Both strategies share a ‘Common Chapter’ that highlights the fact that
within the context of North South Co-operation it is recognised that the
areas immediately adjacent to the border are some of the most disadvantaged
areas of the North and South.(4)
The ‘Common Chapter’ makes very specific time bound commitments in relation
to cross-border co-operation and integration of services and infrastructure
in the following areas:
-
Energy
-
Communications and Electronic Commerce
-
Human Resource Development
-
Agriculture and Rural Development
-
Tourism
-
Transport
-
Environment
-
Education
-
Health
This list should not be considered exhaustive as there are many more areas
of informal co-operation.
The ‘Common Chapter’ also states that the primary fund for addressing this
and other issues of ‘Cross-Border Co-operation’ will be the EU Community
Initiative Programme – INTERREG III.(5) The Governments, in
the 6 counties and 26 counties, gave a clear commitment to use INTERREG III
to promote ‘a framework for an integrated approach to common problems,
which should create opportunities for genuine and practical benefits.’
(6) The geographical remit of INTERREG includes those counties that interface
with the border or are considered to be in a border area, such as county
Sligo. INTERREG as an independent fund - views the existence of the border
as an impediment to social and economic development.(7) INTERREG states that:
“The Rationale for the INTERREG Programme is, ultimately, that the eligible
area suffer disadvantage as a result of the existence of the border. In
particular, it has been noted that the border areas of both jurisdictions
remain relatively disadvantaged and are still characterised by relatively
high unemployment, low incomes, an over-dependence on agriculture, a low
level of industrial activity and an over-dependence on declining
manufacturing activity […]
In general, borders can constrain economic activity by limiting market
areas, preventing optimal allocation of resources and preventing
competition. The N.Ireland/Ireland Border has certainly thus affected
economic relationships in the past. [the border] remains a social and
psychological barrier which is an impediment to the exchange of ideas and
information and a barrier to effective co-operation and the development of
effective local policies/strategies.[…]
The economic weaknesses of the Border area are characteristic of rural areas
outside the dynamic growth centres on the island…Moreover, the existence of
the border is an obstacle to the remediation of economic problems.” (8)
The prime directives of INTERREG are to facilitate the creation of intensive
systemic integration (social, economic and spatial) along transnational
border regions within the EU.(9)
The border in Ireland is considered transnational and therefore eligible for
all three strands of the INTERREG fund. Only networks, projects and systems
that are fully integrative can be funded under INTERREG.
Many types of initiatives that promote social, economic and spatial
development on an integrative basis within the border corridor can be funded
under the priorities of INTERREG III (A, B & C).
The socio-economic conditions, relevant policy contexts and associated funds
exist to facilitate the development of Integrated Area plans for the Border
Corridor.
How then can we make sure that the various departments within the local
structures of Governance buy into participation on the basis of equality and
integration given their hierarchical methods of working?
If the integrated area plans are to be participative and premised on intense
integration then local government and other stakeholders are going to have
to become comfortable with working in a cross border ‘power-sharing’
environment.
The Pooling of Sovereignty: Promoting a Cross-Border Multi-Agency
Approach for the Development of Integrated Area Plans
Because
of the inter-jurisdictional complexity of deprivation along the border,
regional and local government councils and departments cannot work in
isolation from each other or the social partners and so the strategic
response in developing and implementing Integrated area plans need to be
cross-border and multi-agency.
In this regard the Cross-Border Multi-Agency approach will require a
‘pooling of sovereignty’ on issues of departmental remit locally and
regionally (North South) in order to comprehensively address the requisite
levels of social, economic and spatial integration - fulfilling the
strategic aims of the Integrated Area Plans for the border corridor.
In practical terms this means dynamic inter-sectoral and inter-departmental
co-operation between:
-
Local and Regional authorities/government departments,
-
Local and Regional authorities/government on a cross-border basis,
-
Local and Regional authorities/government and other stakeholders including
the community and voluntary sector,
-
Dedicated cross-border agencies such as, the INTERREG III partnerships and
other Implementing Bodies (IB’s) and SEUPB, (10)
-
The three Cross-Border Corridor Groups and attending secretariats.
While it should be recognised that the development d reps and social partners.
Sinn Féin fully recognises the systemic impediments for the comprehensive
implementation of INTERREG and we will work with others to ensure social,
economic and spatial impacts of this fund are maximised.
However, the Cross-Border Corridor Groups are strategically positioned to
play a pivotal role in the process of tackling deprivation. Their powers and
relationships with the social partners, government departments, local
council and all-Ireland bodies can ‘potentially’ transform the scope of
integrated development, delivery and decision making for the benefit of all
the communities living adjacent to the border
The Cross-Border Corridor Groups should build on the co-operative
relationships developed through the INTERREG IIIa partnerships – fostering
sectoral and spatial integration, facilitating balanced regionalism and
economic enterprises that have progressive social impacts.
Participative association for the integrated development of the region is
the best way forward.
The developmental capacity and skills of the
Cross-Border Corridor Groups should be supplemented and enhanced. The
creation of an EU exchange programme on balanced integration and
social-inclusion to allow the members to network, learn and impart best
practice with contemporaries in other EU border groups should be developed.
The Cross-Border Corridor Groups and the social partners need to be given an
even more strategic role in the criteria for setting, ring fencing,
allocation and distribution of EU and Central funds. Decentralising the
process and locating decision-making to promote balanced integration at the
heart of a participative democratic framework along the border corridor.
The Need for Training: Understanding and Promoting Sustainable
Integration
Securing the commitment to the idea of developing
Integrated Area Plans for the border corridor from Local Government and the
various Government departments is critical to ensure the initiative gets off
the ground at the outset. The development process for the Integrated Area
Plans, as previously indicated, should be participative involving all the
stakeholders.
The difficulties that this type of process will have for Local Government
civil servants and council workers especially at a department head or
management level, in order for it to be overcome, should not be
underestimated.
It should not be assumed by the community and voluntary sector or by Sinn
Féin that inclusive participation (on the basis of Equality) will be an easy
concept and working methodology for Council and Government Officials to
grasp and feel comfortable with.
Neither should it be assumed that Council Officials or the other pillars of
social partnership would have an advanced working knowledge of the
principles and functional objectives of Cross-Border Integration.
Both regions have highly centralised government, in spite of the attempts at
developing social partnership approaches. The very nature of Local
Government in both the 6 and 26 Counties (especially under periods of direct
rule in the north) is one of hierarchical structures with delineated remits
that have little scope or experience of inter-departmentalism never mind the
potential of cross-border participative processes to promote systemic
integration.
The stylised and rigid local and regional government frameworks are not the
fault of those who labour within them but the responsibility of elected
politicians in positions of executive power.
Those involved in the drafting and implementation of the integrated area
plans must be given the support and training needed to fulfil their
operational requirements and mandates as integral stakeholders in the
development process.
The training should focus on the need to address attitudinal problems and
systemic constraints/impediments developing responsive and flexible working
methodologies that will allow them to work in concert with the community and
voluntary sector (urban/rural), business and others on the basis of
equality. In a development process defined by – the identification of real
needs, inclusive participation, intensive integration (social, economic and
spatial).(11)
In relation to long term capacity building and creating a sustainable
culture of participation and need for integration – ‘laying all your eggs in
one basket’ will not suffice.
Local authority/government departments frequently send one staff member to
training workshops with the intention of using this person as a conduit for
training needs for the whole department/organisation. While this approach is
better than nothing it is by no means satisfactory and can facilitate a
capacity crisis should the person leave their post for another job.
Training schemes need to involve participants from a broader catchment
including heads of department. Training needs to include ongoing support and
continuing skills development. The impact of skills acquisition on work
methodology and outputs should be monitored and steps taken to adjust
training programmes to ensure more effective results.(12)
Participation and the Stakeholder Process: Ensuring those who
experience Poverty and Social Exclusion participate in the development
process
Opportunities for participation for the poor and
socially excluded in the policy development process that will affect them
are few and far between. In relation to the ethical advancement and
practical implementation of Integrated Area Plans for the border corridor
those sections of our community that are living in poverty and/or socially
marginalised must be directly and sensitively consulted.
Building an inclusive community for reunification also means ensuring that
the voices of the most marginalised are heard and acted upon.
Sinn Féin believes that those in poverty and the groups that advocate on
their behalf are better placed than anybody to vitally contribute to the
reconstructive shaping of support services that address their needs within
the context of anti-poverty and social inclusion strategy for the border
corridor.
In many instances communities living in poverty can be experienced in
negotiating services and explaining physical (infrastructural), financial,
and social constraints. However, they may not have extensive familiarity
with participatory processes; either through lack of knowledge or lack of
practical opportunity. This lack of opportunity to participate is no longer
acceptable from a human rights perspective as well as from a practical
policy development perspective.
Poverty and deprivation represent first and foremost a fundamental denial of
human rights. The needs of the poor and socially excluded must be assessed.
Actual Needs Identification is critical to the development of Integrated
Area Plans that will have tangible benefits for the poor and socially
excluded living within the border corridor.
Commitments to processes that are participative and needs based to tackle
poverty and social exclusion have been openly affirmed within the regional
development strategies of the 6 counties and 26 counties.(13) Participatory
Needs Assessments will involve direct engagement between target
constituencies, and service providers to discern actual and not perceived
need and could be defined by the following criteria:(14)
-
Mapping the Characteristics of Poverty and Social Exclusion along the
Border Corridor
-
Identifying the Specific Needs and Priorities in Local Neighbourhoods and
Localities (urban/rural)
-
Identifying the Specific Needs of Vulnerable and Marginalised Groups
-
Mapping the Connections between Gender Inequality and Poverty (Urban and
Rural) and Identifying Needs
-
Mapping and Assessing the Impact of Spatial Deprivation within the Border
Corridor.
Who are the participants - the Stakeholders?
In order
to facilitate Participatory Needs Assessments, which will become the
backbone of the primary data collated, we must first identify the
‘stakeholders’.(15) This can be done simply by pulling together a focus
group that includes regional and local strategic development partnerships as
well as regional anti-poverty groups and representatives of the three
Cross-Border Corridor Groups. The identification of a comprehensive profile
of stakeholders is an essential first step for the development of Integrated
Area Plans that meet the actual needs of a broad range of groups adversely
affected by poverty and social exclusion.
For example key stakeholders include the following:(16)
-
Constituencies experiencing poverty and social exclusion: the homeless,
small farmers, older people (urban/rural), women (urban/rural), single
parents, people with disabilities, ex-POW’s, unemployed, people suffering
from mental illness, ethnic minorities, asylum seekers and refugee’s etc.
-
Local Government/Authorities
-
Political Reps
-
Trade Unions
-
Other Social Partners (employers and farming and fishing groups)
-
Policy Makers
-
Anti-Poverty Groups (regional and local)
-
Local Strategic Partnerships
-
Community Development Partnerships
-
Community Groups
-
Schools
-
Health Boards
-
Education Boards
-
Housing Associations/Authorities/Executive
-
Other Statutory and non-Statutory Organisations
After identification of the 'stakeholders' who will be engaged in
participatory bodies, the development process needs to move onto the
establishment of Participative Fora. This process can be managed through a
range of stakeholder seminars that can be constructed within an agreed time
frame and should be held on a sectoral (target constituency) and collective
basis.
In the first instance the stakeholder seminars can be used to introduce and
mainstream the idea of promoting anti-poverty and social inclusion
initiatives as part of a wider process balanced integration and regeneration
along the border corridor.
The stakeholder seminars could then agree key definitions, principles, aims
and objectives and terms of reference for research to develop a coherent
data profile on social, economic and spatial deprivation within the border
corridor. Developing these features is crucial to facilitate mutually
beneficial working relationships between the stakeholders.
The stakeholder seminars should be seen as a useful vehicle to access
primary data and promote constructive working relationships. Building
awareness of the extent of poverty, and developing a common analysis that
ascertains why poverty levels in the Border regions are so high, and how
disadvantage has come about, is integral to the process of developing
Integrated Area Plans that will tackle real need.
The composition of the stakeholder groups should act as a central point of
contact – helping to indicate what relevant studies have been already
carried out in this field (local, municipal, regional). Because the
geographical area is cross-border there will be dissonance and lack of
uniformity in some areas of information provision. This incongruence should
be seen as an opportunity to fill the gaps in the data profile.
The data collated in this regard should be both quantitative and qualitative
developing a more holistic picture of the material conditions and quality of
life consequences of social, economic and spatial injustice. Data collation
using these considerations helps to not only highlight the extent of social,
economic and spatial deprivation but also links in shared experiences and by
extension the interdependent features of peripheralisation. This can help
fill the gaps between the two different systems of measuring poverty based
on the premise that poverty is a human experience not merely a mathematical
calculation.
Ultimately the seminars can be used as a mechanism to develop more
substantial and enduring spaces for participation on integrated policy
development and implementation along the border corridor.(17)
As
part ‘Creating Community for Reintegration’ and promoting an ‘Ireland of
Equals’ Sinn Féin wants to see the development of co-operative platforms
that will emancipate the poor and socially excluded on the basis of equality
– pushing the ‘stakeholder’ seminar process to its developmental conclusion
by creating permanent co-operative platforms for social and economic
development and integration along the border corridor promotes that
imperative.
Conclusion: Developing ‘a Community’ to Eliminate Deprivation and
Promote Reintegration
Sinn Féin is committed to the
elimination of poverty and deprivation on the island of Ireland. We feel
that a meaningful approach to eliminating poverty will, by necessity, have
to adopt a human rights based approach and draw all sectors of Irish society
closer together. In a very real sense, there is an unbreakable link between
the eradication of poverty and inequality and the full self-determination
and democratisation in our society.
It is of critical importance that social partners recognise the
infrastructural debility created by the border and engage in a broad
campaign for rational approaches to integrated cross-border development and
planning. In terms of balanced regional development on a 32 county basis -
if the geographical areas that incorporate the border corridor are socially,
economically and spatially interdependent – so too are the adjoining regions
that interface with the border corridor.
The development of the Integrated Area Plans for the border corridor can
facilitate the construction of a framework that is multi-agency and seeks to
break patterns of regional peripherality from the ground up – interfacing
more prosperous areas (Eastern Seaboard) with less prosperous areas (Border
Corridor, West and South West) in a balanced and mutually beneficial
developmental framework for the island as a whole.
Ultimately, the generation of the Integrated Area Plans will require
partnership and inclusive participation. This process will necessitate
dialogue with the requisite stakeholders in a process of sustained
engagement – this strategy document is part of that engagement. We all have
a responsibility to ensure that the long term patterns of regional
discrimination experienced by the communities living in the border area is
eradicated – this can only be achieved through the pragmatic integration of
social, economic and spatial networks
Given the comparable and
interdependent nature of deprivation within the border corridor we believe
that this strategy document presents a logic for integrated regional
development that everyone irrespective of social or political grouping can
invest in.
(1) INTERREG III, Programme 2000-2006, Ireland/Northern Ireland Operational
Programme, pp.53-54
(2) Indicative Area Plan for the North
West, Community Worker Co-operative/North West Community Network, 1999, p. 6
(3) See ‘National’ Development Plan 2000-2006, promoting social
inclusion, chapter 10, p.188 and the Northern Ireland Structural Funds Plan,
2000-2006, Chapter 7, Priorities 2,3 and 5
(4) ‘National’ Development
Plan 2000-2006, ‘the Common Chapter’ (9.20), p. 180
(5)
Ibid, p.180
(6) Ibid.
(7) INTERREG III Programme 2000-2006,
Ireland/Northern Ireland Operational Programme, SWOT Analysis, pp. 53-54
(8) INTERREG III Programme 2000-2006, Ireland/Northern Ireland Operational
Programme, SWOT Analysis, pp. 53-54
(9) See INTERREG IIIB, North West
Europe, Programme Complement, pp. 13-15
(10) As outlined in the ‘Common
Chapter’ the SEUPB will act as the overall management authority for INTERREG
III and also be responsible for the monitoring and promoting the
implementation of the “Common Chapter”, see ‘National’ Development Plan
2000-2006, ‘the Common Chapter’, (9.52, 9.53) p. 186
(11)
See Appendix 1 An Explanatory Framework for Addressing Attitudinal, Systemic
Constraints, adopted from Janelle Plummers, Municipalities and Community
Participation: A Source Book for Capacity Building, p. 116, 1999, Earthscan
Publications Ltd
(12) Capacity building training programmes to help
create and sustain integration can be funded through INTERREG III –
development officers within the Border Corridor Groups would be best placed
to identify the most appropriate measure.
(13) Northern Ireland
Structural Funds Plan 2000 –2006, pp. 52-53 and ‘National’ Development Plan
2000-2006, p. 196
(14) See Janelle Plummers Municipalities and
Community Participation: A Source Book for Capacity Building, pp. 29-31,
1999, Earthscan Publications Ltd
(15) See Community Worker
Co-operatives Developing Methodologies and Strategies to Combat Social
Exclusion, p. 41, 2000.
(16) The above mentioned list is not exhaustive.
(17) These spaces could be developed into co-operative platforms within a
two-tier system based on a mutually negotiated separation of power and
jurisdictions with one tier acting as strategic collective
(umbrella/regional) while the second tier would be more sectoral
(thematic/cross-border) and grassroots. Both tiers should operate on the
basis of equality not authority.