EPAG response to a Peace II extension

EPAG, the European Progammes Advisory Group, welcomes the opportunity to respond to the consultation on the EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation in Northern Ireland and the Border Region of Ireland.

The following paper broadly outlines the themes that EPAG feel respond to the three questions asked at the Consultation, namely:

1. What type of activities should the Programme fund?
2. Who should benefit from the Programme?
3. How should the Programme be implemented?

EPAG members, following detailed discussion, agree the following.

1. The recommendations of the 60 Days Action Team should be fully implemented.
2. The shift in emphasis towards a more economic focus in Peace II meant many organisations suffered, which resulted in peace and reconciliation money supplementing mainstream government spending programmes. Extended funding to support peace and reconciliation should be directed to projects which can deliver on peace and reconciliation and, if such monies are to be truly additional, they must not duplicate or compensate for programmes that are the responsibility of government.
3. Questions around the distinctiveness criteria often proved the most difficult to answer for many applicants and only projects which address this criteria should be considered, although what it entails must be thoroughly explained to applicants.
4. It is difficult to measure peace and reconciliation. There needs to be much more debate and research on what builds peace and how we can measure the change. Additional Peace II money could facilitate this debate in preparation for a possible third programme. Also the field of grassroots leaders involved in peace building needs to widen.
5. Funding needs to reach young people, women, properly defined areas of weak community infrastructure, people with disabilities and learning difficulties and people from minority ethnic communities.
6. Rurality is another key issue, with rural interfaces often being hidden and there is a need to continue peace building work in rural areas undertaken by the Rural IFB that does not focus purely on farming.
7. The voluntary and community sector has vast experience of including hard to reach people, developing projects, delivering results and learning from the things that don't work, and this should be utilised.
8. It is important that the addition to Peace II makes the most out of any good practice and learning already developed by the Programme. Existing projects applying for extensions should have a simplified but rigorous application process focusing on why the project needs to be extended for another two years and what is achieved thus far.
9. There are too many delivery bodies and there must be a more uniform delivery and standardisation of criteria and procedures among IFBs to simplify the complicated and bureaucratic application procedure. Government departments should only act as a delivery body if they are funding actions which have a direct impact on peace and reconciliation.
10. Small grants of up to £25,000 can have large benefits for voluntary and community organisations. This should be made more widespread but the application process, letters of offer and monitoring procedures should reflect the more flexible and accessible nature of the grant.
11. The application process must be made simpler with decisions made quickly and letters of offer sent out promptly and any complaints and appeals procedure must be clear and accessible and implemented by all IFBs.
12. Monitoring should be proportional to the amount of funding received and recommendations of the 60 Days Action Team regarding this should be implemented.
13. Monitoring should also be about assessing if the money was well spent and if it helped meet the aims of the programme. A directory of learning should be drawn up highlighting the successful and not so successful aspects of the programme. This will provide an opportunity to focus on the projects which are the real work of the Programme.

EPAG meets on a regular basis and would be pleased to discuss further any issues raised in this response.

Reponse date: 10 September 2004