REPORT on the evaluation of the PEACE Programme and strategies for the future

7.4.2008 - (2007/2150(INI))

Committee on Regional Development
Rapporteur: Bairbre de Brún

MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION

on the evaluation of the PEACE Programme and strategies for the future

(2007/2150(INI))

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to Article 158 of the EC Treaty,

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions for the Structural Funds[1],

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their effectiveness and on the coordination of their activities between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments[2],

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments[3],

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 214/2000 of 24 January 2000 on Community financial contributions to the International Fund for Ireland[4],

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2236/2002 of 10 December 2002 concerning Community financial contributions to the International Fund for Ireland (2003-2004)[5],

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1105/2003 of 26 May 2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds[6],

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 173/2005 of 24 January 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds concerning the extension of the duration of the PEACE programme and the granting of new commitment appropriations[7],

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 177/2005 of 24 January 2005 concerning Community financial contributions to the International Fund for Ireland (2005-2006)[8],

–   having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1968/2006 of 21 December 2006 concerning Community financial contributions to the International Fund for Ireland (2007 to 2010)[9],

–   having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on a European grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC)[10],

–   having regard to the Commission's Communication entitled A Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland (COM(1994)0607),

–   having regard to the Commission's Communication entitled Report on the International Fund for Ireland pursuant to Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 177/2005 (COM(2006)0563),

–   having regard to Court of Auditors’ Special Report No 7/2000 concerning the International Fund for Ireland and the Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland and the border counties of Ireland (1995 to 1999), together with the Commission’s replies thereto (paragraph 58)[11],

–   having regard to the public hearing on evaluation of the PEACE programme and strategies for the future organised by the Committee on Regional Development of the European Parliament on the 20 November 2007,

–   having regard to the Task Force for Northern Ireland (TFNI) created after the visit of Mr Barroso, President of the European Commission, to Belfast in May 2007,

–   having regard to Rule 45 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Regional Development (A6‑0133/2008),

A. whereas the EU programmes PEACE I and II, funded under Council Regulations (EC) Nos 1105/2003 and 173/2005, were aimed at securing peace and included two main elements: taking the opportunities arising from peace and addressing the legacy of conflict and violence,

B.  whereas the EU's participation in the PEACE programmes was and is of great positive value and the EU connection with such peace-building projects, in addition to providing a financial instrument, further demonstrated the EU's importance as a neutral authority with the expertise and long-term vision necessary for designing the programme,

C. whereas the reconciliation process operates at various levels, and whereas it must be actively encouraged but cannot be imposed[12],

D. whereas peace-building and reconciliation are by their very nature precarious but are essential in overcoming the political, economic and social problems in the region, and whereas projects for building confidence should therefore be given room for experimentation and for innovation in order to get started,

E.   whereas the conflict in Northern Ireland created segregated communities, leading to deep social, economic and political divides,

F.  whereas contact and confidence-building can result in changing negative views and whereas fostering mutual understanding among young people helps future leaders to understand the history and culture of both communities,

G. whereas working in partnership with local communities may take more time as it involves more participants and procedures, although it is evident that the extra benefits obtained are essential, since delegating to a lower level of management and raising the level of participation increases awareness of both the programmes and the EU,

H. whereas previously marginalised groups and people greatly affected by the conflict and violence have been empowered by the PEACE programmes to contribute to actively building peace; whereas projects under the PEACE programmes are serving the most marginalised segments of society by developing activities for individuals and groups such as victims of conflict, older and vulnerable people, the disabled, victims of domestic violence, ex-prisoners and unemployed young people[13],

I.   whereas many people who have worked in peace-building and reconciliation projects have done so on a voluntary basis,

J.   whereas it is vital that peace building programmes, in particular those involving community and voluntary groups, continue to be financially supported when tPEACE funding come to an end,

K. whereas the voluntary and community sectors are renowned for their achievements in confronting social decline and deprivation and are well-placed to develop and provide frontline services for the most disadvantaged in society, and whereas women have a very positive role in peace-building,

L.  whereas the PEACE programmes have assisted in the development of economic projects in deprived areas by establishing new enterprises,

M. whereas many community and voluntary initiatives funded under PEACE II are operating on an ongoing basis providing essential community services for marginalised groups in particular and are awaiting confirmation of funding so that they can continue providing these services,

N. whereas one aspect of the economic development resulting from the support granted under the PEACE programmes, was that it benefited both urban and rural areas,

O. whereas funding under the International Fund for Ireland (IFI) is often complementary and both programmes, IFI and PEACE, made it possible for projects to reach a stage where they could access other EU funding, such as Interreg,

P.  whereas many of the actions in the PEACE sub-programmes, the International Fund for Ireland (IFI) programmes and the Interreg initiative, have nevertheless showed a high degree of similarity and some degree of duplication of activities in certain areas,

Q. whereas accountability and transparency, participation, recognition of the interdependence of all people, successful elimination of inequality, promotion of diversity and attention to vulnerable groups and equal opportunities are important elements in peace-building and reconciliation,

R.  whereas the report of the Interim Commissioner for Victims and Survivors¹ stated that support groups for victims and survivors have a dependency on non-recurring PEACE funding and found a lack of clarity as regards how projects for victims and survivors would proceed when PEACE funding is no longer available, and whereas four new commissioners for victims have recently been appointed by the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland[14],

S.  whereas the protection and promotion of human rights are an integral part of peace-building and the rebuilding of post-conflict societies,

1.  Stresses that local empowerment is an essential part of peace-building and that the participation of civil society improves policy-making and the way in which society is governed;

2.  Points out that the development of various implementation mechanisms together with the voluntary sector, non-governmental organisations and local authorities has provided wide-ranging experience of dealing with EU funds; hopes that such bottom-up provision mechanisms may be used in the implementation of other funding programmes;

3.  Welcomes the contribution made by the PEACE and IFI programmes to economic and social development; notes that one enterprise centre established, before the implementation of the IFI, in a deprived area developed with the support of the IFI and the local district council into a network of thirty two enterprise centres, which helped boost confidence and hope amongst those involved;

4.  Emphasises that the cooperation between participants in programmes financed by PEACE and IFI should not cease when the programmes comes to an end; calls on government departments to maintain that work, which proved to be effective, and ensure that funding continues for this invaluable work once all PEACE funding finally comes to an end;

5.  Calls on the governments of both the United Kingdom and Ireland specifically to put in place temporary funding arrangements for community and voluntary groups in order to bridge the gap between the end of PEACE II funding programmes and the beginning of PEACE III funding programmes;

6.  Calls on the Commission and the governments of the United Kingdom and Ireland to engage with the Commissioners for Victims and Survivors with a view to finding a way for victim and survivor support groups to continue to receive financial support after the termination of all PEACE funding;

7.  Calls on the Commission, in relation to the TFNI, to replicate the active citizenship approach of the PEACE I and PEACE II programmes, when structuring future initiatives; recalls the importance for the stabilisation of the peace process of balanced regional development including attention to infrastructure which is underdeveloped in comparison with that of other regions in the EU, and calls on the TFNI to be more positive in its support for infrastructure improvement;

8.  Calls for the further development of cross-border work, given that cross-border work has been central to the regeneration of urban and rural communities in the border areas; urges the further development of co-operation between local chambers of commerce and public sector bodies as well as forums for the voluntary and community sectors on both sides of the border and for voluntary organisations that already work on a cross-border basis;

9.  Calls on the Government of Ireland to implement Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 immediately;

10. Urges the widespread use of consultation, both large and small-scale and with a local focus, within the funding programmes and emphasises the importance of securing schemes that allow for the approval of small grants to fund work that is needed at short notice and work where its results cannot be easily quantified as well as schemes that ensure long-term sustainability and can make a contribution to local communities;

11. Calls for a reduction in bureaucracy to ensure that small projects are not overburdened;

12. Recognises that peace-building is a long-term, evolutionary process and that robust development towards peace and reconciliation takes time; calls for a longer time-frame for individual grants in order to allow projects to make a difference; recognises that not only economic initiatives but also cultural and sporting initiatives can make a significant contribution to peace and reconciliation and should therefore continue to be promoted;

13. Notes that the social economy sector is a sub-sector of the voluntary and community sectors the consultation of which is important in order to develop local strategies and areas; considers that other local businesses are also influential participants;

14. Emphasises that development in rural areas requires greater synergies between agricultural, rural and regional development funding and between nature conservation, ecotourism and the production and use of renewable energy than has been the case to date;

15. Emphasises that people should have easy access to information on the success stories of projects funded by PEACE I and PEACE II as well as the IFI; believes that the experience gained from such projects should be shared with those engaged in other international peace-building work; calls, in this connection, for the establishment of a database as a learning tool for peace and reconciliation work at home and abroad; calls, in addition, for every level of participation to be included in the creation of regional and metropolitan networks;

16. Recommends that comprehensive strategies be put in place to ensure not only that examples of good-practice are available, but also that they are used at every stage of the project cycle, i.e. project design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation;

17. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Committee of the Regions, the European Economic and Social Committee and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

• [1]  OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.
• [2]  OJ L 193, 31.7.1993, p. 5.
• [3]  OJ L 193, 31.7.1993, p. 20.
• [4]  OJ L 24, 29.1.2000, p. 7.
• [5]  OJ L 341, 17.12.2002, p 6.
• [6]  OJ L 158, 27.6.2003, p. 3.
• [7]  OJ L 29, 2.2.2005, p. 3.
• [8]  OJ L 30, 3.2.2005, p. 1.
• [9]  OJ L 409, 30.12.2006, p. 86.
• [10]  OJ L 210, 31.7.2006, p. 19.
• [11]  OJ C 146, 25.5.2000, p 1.
• [12]  Reconciliation after Violent Conflict, International IDEA, 2003,Stockholm.
• [13]  The EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation - The impact, SEUPB.
• [14]  Support for Victims and Survivors - Addressing the Human legacy, January 2007.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

BACKGROUND

The EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation (PEACE II) was the programme which followed the Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation 1995-1999 (PEACE I). The current PEACE III (2007-2013) follows the structure of the previous programme and its objective is to strengthen the Peace Process in Ireland in order to reinforce a peaceful and stable society and promote reconciliation in the region.

The programme benefits a wide range of sectors, areas, groups and communities that were particularly affected by the conflict and encourages cross-community projects. Local partnership structures and non-governmental organisations managed the greatest portion of the funding under PEACE, which aimed to give various sections of the community the opportunity to come together and work at community level.

The Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB) is the Managing Authority for the programme. The Monitoring Committee is made up of the key regional partners (equally selected from north and south of the Border).

Table 1. Overview of PEACE I and PEACE II                          

PEACE I	EUR 750 000 000 allocated	15 000 projects
PEACE II	EUR 994 000 000 allocated	7 000 projects

This own-initiative report seeks to describe the experience gained from this EU programme regarding positive results and best-practice, and emphasise what may be improved, the challenges yet to be faced and the lessons to be learned.

It is also worth mentioning that the EU, since 1989, has been one of the main contributors to the International Fund for Ireland (IFI).

Table 2. Overview of the International Fund for Ireland since its establishment, 1986, to date.

IFI → EUR 849 000 000 → 5 700 projects → 55 000 jobs

Peace and Reconciliation

The European link to a peace-building project is important and the Union recognises the connection between poverty, good governance and conflict[1]. In addition to some present Member States, many new candidate countries, such as the Western Balkans[2], have a history of conflict. By setting the conflict in Ireland in the wider European context, valuable external reference points could be provided

Under measure 4.1 of the PEACE II programme, there was an exchange of experience at project level between areas across Europe and further afield, including Albania, Belarus, Moldavia, Serbia, the Ukraine and Bosnia. Discussion is underway as to the possibilities of creating a Europe-wide network of regions and cities that are coming out of conflict or that have experience in coming out of conflict or that are living with conflict and exclusion.

In relation to conflict prevention and developing and building peace, there is increasing awareness that economic development in itself, important as it may be, cannot secure sustainable peace. A most important factor in this area is equitable development, as well as actions to promote effective governance and a stable society.

The understanding of reconciliation in relation to the development of PEACE is rooted in the five inextricably linked and overlapping strands of the Hamber/Kelly model[3]:

•          developing a shared vision of an interdependent and fair society:

•          acknowledging and dealing with the past;

•          building positive relations;

•          significant cultural and attitudinal change; and

•          substantial social, economic and political change.

The concept of many international practitioners is that peace-building and working towards reconciliation is a long-term process in which the participation of vulnerable groups is most important.

It may take more time to work with local communities but the benefit received is essential. PEACE shows that awareness of the programme and the EU, and also of the EU’s contributions, is increased when financial allocation mechanisms at a local level are used and when participation occurs at a local level.

The European Union’s PEACE programme

The structure of the consultation procedures and the design of the PEACE programme are as important as the programme itself.

PEACE provided opportunities for participation and dialogue and brought decision-making and responsibility for community development closer to the people. PEACE I fostered cooperation between the civil society and political leaders at community level. Some community organisations and political leaders participated for the first time ever with economic actors in planning policies for investment in their own areas under the PEACE programme.

Despite the major difficulties, both communities accepted PEACE I due to the work of community-based funding bodies, and thereby contributing to the overall objective of improving social and economic conditions through direct contact with local communities.

The PEACE programmes funded a wide range of projects, including childcare and after-school projects, enterprise parks and small business enterprises in both urban and rural areas. Many of the projects funded under PEACE were established to serve local requirements. They built confidence and capability and helped foster better visions for the future. The affect these projects had on peace were just as great as the affect of other projects traditionally described as “peace projects”. They laid down strong foundations for reconciliation.

The range of projects funded under PEACE helped foster an environment where political agreements had a reasonable chance of succeeding.

PEACE funded transport infrastructure, including bypass schemes and rural transport initiatives, which contributed to economic renewal and regeneration and facilitated accredited training and other learning schemes. The PEACE programme funded support projects for immigrant workers as well as projects celebrating the diverse ethnic mixture of society as a whole.

Ex-prisoners projects, funded under PEACE, formed part of local networks of voluntary and public organisation, including regeneration partnerships, enterprise centres and public forums. Some projects worked directly with groups they once opposed, including traditionally hostile political groups or state agencies that the groups would not have been in contact with previously.

Cross-community aspects worked towards achieving the programme’s target. What is of importance here is that the programmes attracted a wide range of diverse participants to seek a common aim or benefit, and they assisted in developing models for public engagement in policy development. Women’s groups performed well and they have a very positive role in peace-building.

Many social, economic and cultural activities common elsewhere in Europe have not occurred in a cross-border dimension in Ireland. Other activities have been interrupted for years. The cross-border aspects – normal cross-border social, economic and cultural activities as well as projects designed to examine future visions for society – were important to achieve the programme’s targets.

PEACE I was designed and created with a lot of input from people at the community level. The voluntary sector learned a great deal from the process and the statutory sector learned how to work in partnership with the voluntary and community sectors. Stronger emphasis was placed on the economy and economic viability in the PEACE II programme. Unfortunately, some of the ‘bottom up’ approach was lost in the design of PEACE II. Nevertheless, a wide range of groups benefited from PEACE II as they took the opportunities arising from the progress of the peace process.

The future

When the EU decided to extend PEACE II until 2006 and to draw up a PEACE III programme for the years 2007-2013, it was a strong positive signal of the support given at Community level to the peace process and of the confidence in the progress towards a stable peaceful society.

The emphasis is on reconciliation in the PEACE III programme and it seeks to employ the work of Hamber and Kelly on the definition of reconciliation. The designers and implementers of PEACE III, when selecting projects for funding, must have a sound understanding of Hamber and Kelly’s work.

It was also decided to be more strategic in the funding of projects and not to call for applications by public notice. It is yet too early to say how this more strategic approach will fare but it is most important that we do not lose local partnerships and participation at local level. It is also important that this will not be lost either in other EU programmes for the years 2007-2013. The voluntary sector is well-known for its achievements in confronting social decline and deprivation and is well-placed to develop and provide frontline services, particularly to the most disadvantaged in society. More use should be made of this experience in the various regional development programmes. Some of the lessons we have learned from PEACE I and II about participation at local level must be implemented in the EU Structural Funds in general.

To improve on the enormous achievements accomplished with the aid of PEACE I and PEACE II, best-practice must be acknowledged, recorded and made available to others. This best-practice must also be mainstreamed.

During his visit to Belfast on 1 May 2007, Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, announced the creation of a task force at the Commission to look at how to improve the region’s access to and participation in Community policies and programmes. The Commissioner for Regional Policy, Danuta Hübner, was asked to take political charge of the task force. This could considerably enhance progress in the regions. It would be most beneficial if the members of the task force were aware of the experience gained from projects relating to the PEACE programmes and the IFI and of the good practice observed in them.

• [1]  See, for example, the Communication from the Commission on Governance and Development (COM(2003)615).
• [2]  As acknowledged in the Thessaloniki Declaration of the EU-Western Balkans Summit of the 21 June 2003.
• [3]  Paper by Gráinne Kelly & Brandon Hamber: ‘Coherent, contested or confused? Views on reconciliation in Northern Ireland’, Presented at “Reconciliation: Rhetoric or Relevance? A roundtable discussion on concepts and practices of reconciliation”, Belfast 9 June 2004.

RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE

Date adopted	27.3.2008
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	45 1 1
Members present for the final vote	Alfonso Andria, Emmanouil Angelakas, Stavros Arnaoutakis, Jean Marie Beaupuy, Rolf Berend, Victor Boştinaru, Wolfgang Bulfon, Antonio De Blasio, Bairbre de Brún, Petru Filip, Gerardo Galeote, Iratxe García Pérez, Eugenijus Gentvilas, Ambroise Guellec, Pedro Guerreiro, Jim Higgins, Filiz Hakaeva Hyusmenova, Mieczysław Edmund Janowski, Rumiana Jeleva, Gisela Kallenbach, Tunne Kelam, Evgeni Kirilov, Constanze Angela Krehl, Sérgio Marques, Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez, James Nicholson, Markus Pieper, Pierre Pribetich, Wojciech Roszkowski, Elisabeth Schroedter, Grażyna Staniszewska, Dimitar Stoyanov, Margie Sudre, Andrzej Jan Szejna, Kyriacos Triantaphyllides, Lambert van Nistelrooij, Oldřich Vlasák, Vladimír Železný
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Bernadette Bourzai, Jan Březina, Emanuel Jardim Fernandes, Francesco Ferrari, Francisca Pleguezuelos Aguilar, Zita Pleštinská, Samuli Pohjamo, Christa Prets, Richard Seeber