Government lacks 'Transparency' on Peace Fund spending EU Special Programme for Peace & Reconciliation Mid-Term Review

The West Belfast Economic Forum has published its submission to the Monitoring Committee of the Programme. Ruth Taillon, WBEF Director and author of the WBEF submission, is a member of the Programme Consultative Forum.

The operation of EU Special Programme for Peace and Reconciliation is currently under review. European Commission decisions on additional monies for the Programme, proposals for refocusing Programme priorities and changes to the delivery mechanisms will be based on the outcome of this review.

Speaking on behalf of the West Belfast Economic Forum, Ruth Taillon said,

"The EU Peace Programme is one of the most important initiatives yet taken to address the social and economic problems at the root of the conflict. There can be no successful political settlement unless economic disadvantage, social exclusion and marginalisation are effectively addressed in tandem with constitutional issues."

The Peace Programme has given invaluable support to thousands of community-based projects on both sides of the border. Many of these - often highly innovative - projects can have a clear and demonstrable impact on behalf of those communities and social groups which have suffered most from the conflict. Calling upon the EU Commission to approve the 'second tranche' without delay, Ruth Taillon added: "Additional Peace Programme funds are vital to ensure that the long-term benefits of the work now being done are to be consolidated and maximised. The two governments, however, must take responsibility to ensure that the positive work being funded through the Peace Programme is sustainable in the long-term. Equally important - Peace funds must not be used to replace central government funds which are being cut from both mainstream budgets and community sector funding."

Approximately 40% of Peace Programme funds - 49% in N. Ireland - have been channelled directly through central government departments. Unlike the decentralised bodies, there has been little accountability about how this part of the Programme has been implemented. Complete and accurate data has not been made available, even to the evaluators commissioned by the Programme Monitoring Committee. From the findings of the official Mid-Term Evaluation, it is clear that there are many questions to be answered about how much of the spend by central government and its agencies has contributed to the Programme's core objectives of underpinning the peace and promoting reconciliation.

The West Belfast Economic Forum has studied the draft Mid-Term Review of the Programme and other documents available which assess the impact and implementation of the Programme to date. These have formed the basis of the WBEF submission. The WBEF opinion has been published as a Briefing Paper and includes the Opinions of the Consultative Forum of the Peace Programme on the Mid-Term Review and the 1996 Annual Report of the Programme

Key points from the WBEF submission to the Peace Programme Monitoring Committee include:

• The peace and reconciliation impact is most in question in relation to those areas of the Programme implemented by central government and its agencies.
• Transparency at the core of the Programme has been non-existent. Not only are there serious gaps in the information provided by the funding bodies - with the government departments being the most culpable - there are many inconsistencies in the data which is available.
• It is important for the credibility of the Programme that accurate, comprehensive and comprehensible Annual Reports are published and publicly available. The centralised database, when established, must be open to interrogation by independent researchers.
• Evaluation of the Programme must be as rigorous in relation to the practice of government bodies as it is in relation to the practice of the decentralised funding bodies.
• Each project funded under the Programme - including Government-led projects - should be able to demonstrate how it will specifically contribute to the promotion of peace-building and/or reconciliation.
• The evidence indicates that Catholic/nationalist areas have received a less than proportionate share of approvals, after allowing for population size and levels of deprivation. Spend must be allocated according to objective criteria such as targeting social need, and not be subject to political pressure.
• The Programme is very unclear about how investment promotes the core objectives of peace and reconciliation. There is a danger that even those sections of Sub-Programme 5 such as the Seed Capital Fund which are targeted at disadvantaged areas, will not be accessible to applicants from the most disadvantaged areas or those whose disadvantage results from the conflict.
• It is vital that social inclusion remains at the core of the Programme.
• The EU Commission's intention that it be a unitary programme has been undermined. The cross-border integration of the Programme should be a key element in any evaluation of the Programme.
• The composition of the Task Forces should be reviewed with the objective of ensuring greater community and voluntary sector participation. The Task Forces should be assisted to draw on examples of good practice from the District Partnerships; their action plans must be based on genuine consultation and ensure that social inclusion is prioritised.
• The complexity of the Programme has caused delays and confusion for both applicants and implementing bodies. This should not, however, be used as an excuse for reverting to a more centralised model, which would lose much of what has been most valuable about the Programme.
• The two governments should explain in more detail exactly how and why steps were not taken to avoid the loss of a considerable proportion of the Programme allocation through currency fluctuations.
• There are important questions about the genuine additionality of many projects being funded through central government; it would appear that the Peace Programme is substituting for cutbacks in the T&EA budget in particular.
• Government departments should have to substantiate how the actions which they have supported have met the criteria in relation to peace and reconciliation impact, additionality, complementarity and transparency.
• Participation is intrinsic to the Peace Programme in ensuring that it delivers its core objectives. It is essential that the work of the people working to deliver the programme is recognised and resourced accordingly.

For further information please contact Ruth Taillon at Belfast 300040