Ireland of Equals Sinn Féin -- Building an Ireland of Equals

Expanding the GFA - Current Implementation Bodies

Appendix 6: Expansion of Existing Implementation Bodies

Sinn Féin position on co-operation is quiet clear; it is not an end in itself, but a means to an end, i.e. complete and unequivocal reintegration. Sinn Féin sees beyond the casual and cosmetic appeal of "cross-border" cooperation. Republicans demand integration as an indispensable functional reality of governance and national rights and it is with that in mind that we call for the expansion of the remits of existing implementation bodies.

(1) Foyle Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission (FCILC)

The FCILC implement its functions through two agencies. The function of the Foyle and Carlingford Areas are exercised through the Loughs Agency which has replaced the Foyle Fisheries Commission and which is now responsible for the management and development of the Foyle estuary and Carlingford Lough.

The FCILC is responsible for the sustainable development of the Marine (i.e. fisheries, aquaculture and water quality) and Marine Tourism resources of Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough.

The Loughs agency aims to provide sustainable social, economic and environment benefits through the effective conservation, management, promotion, and development of the fisheries and marine resources of the Foyle and Carlingford Areas.

It was intended that the FCILC would be the General Lighthouse Authority for all of Ireland and when established it would replace the Commissioners of Irish Lights as the General Lighthouse Authority for Ireland. However, given the difficulties that have arisen in terms of pursuing such a transfer of functions, the matter is under review at present.

The enabling legislation required to bring forward the regulation to develop the Two Loughs has not yet been established. The delay in initiating the legislative requirement resides with the Attorney General's Office in Dublin.

Sinn Féin want to see this IB expanded to deal with:

In-shore fisheries.

There is very evident potential for the development of in-shore fishing and fish processing, through small social economy schemes, which offer potential of considerable community gain. Eel fishing on Loch Neagh provides something of a model of such community development, which needs to be considered for expansion on an all Ireland basis. The Shannon lakes as the lakes across the Ulster Border Counties offer considerable potential.

Off shore fisheries.

In recent years there has been strong expansion in off shore fishing, fish farming and downstream fish processing. The development of the mussel industry in for example Kerry or the widespread development of salmon farming or the oyster industries along the Western Seaboard provide ready examples of the economic and community development potential in some of the most disadvantaged areas in the country. The pollution problems which arise from fish farming call out for an all Ireland monitoring and regulatory body. The potential for export earnings and the development of local small scale processing cries out for a national marketing and promotion body. The FCILC could undoubtedly take on this wider most valuable remit for communities across the country.

Marine Tourism Development on Foyle and Carlingford.

The specific remit of the FCILC, as presently constituted, underlines a key area of expansion to enable this body to address what has been, down the years, the appalling neglect of marine tourism development in these areas. Marine tourism is almost non-existent in either Lough, and yet it holds immense potential through the development of boating and water sports facilities, to attract tourists and all the downstream benefits that follow. The example of Shannon, with its multi million euro industry, which has grown up based of marine tourism, points to huge lost opportunities to the people who live beside these lakes, and to the country as a whole. Expansion of the remit of the FCILC to cover developmental opportunities on these loughs would undoubtedly be of substantial benefit to all Ireland - promoted as a marine tourist centre- and to the communities that inhabit their lakesides.

Irish Lighthouse Authority

The FCILC should assume authority over the management of all Lighthouses on the Island as a matter of urgency.

.

Summary:

.

The FCILC remit should be expanded to include:

Development of inshore fishing on these and other Loughs in Ireland;

Development of offshore marine fishing monitoring and promotion agency;

Development of marine tourism on at least these Loughs;

The role of the all-Ireland General Lighthouse Authority, and,

The all Ireland promotion of Ireland as a marine tourism centre and water sports facility.

(2) Foras na Gaeilge (Language)

Foras na Gaeilge has the objective of promoting the Irish language on an all-Ireland basis. As well as taking over the functions of Bord na Gaeilge, a wide range of functions were given to the Agency to add to its effectiveness in the promotion of Irish, for example, in the area of education, dictionaries and terminology. It also took over the functions of An Gúm in relation to publications. The staff of Bord na Gaeilge, An Gúm (Publishers) and An Coiste Téarmaíochta (Terminology Development) and their activities have all been transferred to the new body.

There is an Irish Language revival in Ireland and Foras should be in a position to fund projects that will advance the use of Irish language. The New Strategic Plan for the Foras needs to ensure that the Gaeltacht Areas come under its remit. This process should ensure that the democratic accountability maintained under the Údarás is retained but that Foras will assume a role of funding agency for community-based projects in Gaeltacht areas. Sinn Féin calls for the following objectives to become part of the remit of Foras:

Regional Offices in the North West.

National daily Irish Language Paper based in the North.

Network of Culture Resource Centres across the North.

Co-ordination and harmonisation of major Irish Language Organisations, North and South.

Harmonisation of Irish Medium Sector, North and South.

Development of Irish Television and Radio sector in the North and harmonisation of the Sector North and South.

Extension of proposed Irish Language Bill in the South and into the North.

Development of all-Ireland Language Arts sector.

Increased Budget.

(3) InterTradeIreland (ITI)

InterTradeIreland has a focus on promoting all-Ireland trade and business co-operation by building enterprise capability and competitiveness.

The strategic vision of ITI is "to lead the development of the island economy through distinctive knowledge-based interventions which will produce significant returns in the areas of cross-border trade and business development".

InterTradeIreland aims to add value to the work being carried out by the existing development agencies. InterTradeIreland also has objectives to enhance enterprise competitiveness in a "North-South" context in areas such as skills availability, telecom, information technology and electronic commerce by encouraging information share, joint marketing initiatives, joint research and development and other ventures as well as maximising the potential of e-business across Ireland.

ITI has the potential to be established as a dynamic economic agency and could take over a substantial amount of the work of the IDB and Invest Northern Ireland (INI) and this is ultimately where the agency should develop.

It is Sinn Féin's view that the argument in favour of an all-Ireland economy has been won, but there is a problem about who the new economy being built for.

An expanded ITI could pool knowledge about indigenous business growth and organise economic development on an all Ireland basis.

ITI created an Agency Forum that for the first time brought together all the economic development agencies on the island. It also was the catalyst for the Benchmarking Forum that is a market and business knowledge sharing facility for the development agencies.

Currently, ITI is facilitating an all island link up for the county enterprise boards in the 26 Counties and Enterprise Northern Ireland where they develop common micro business plans and a third forum.

These are small steps and expanded empowered ITI could solidify these small efficiencies and plan for much greater integration.

The immediate benefits would be an end to needless duplication of activities and competition between the agencies.

It could also mean tangible benefits and joint programmes on a cross border and all Ireland basis such as marketing joint business ventures outside Ireland, or developing new economy activities such as the growing bio tech or software sectors.

Proper regional development strategies and more emphasis on social economy and equality projects could also be made part of the formal objectives of a new agency.

Essentially, an expanded ITI would be a one-stop economic development agency for not just Irish business but the communities that are host to them also.

(4) Food Safety Promotion Board (FSPB)

The Food Safety Promotion Board (FSPB) is principally charged with promoting food safety: through public campaigns, conferences, training and advising professionals and the general public.

"Our mission is to foster and maintain confidence in the food supply in the island of Ireland by working in partnership with others to protect and improve the public's health." It aims to "to create an environment where consumers can have confidence in the food they eat. Our approach will be to draw on the best scientific support available, to provide advice and guidance to the food industry and to consumers."

The remit of the Food Safety Promotion Board has been extremely limited. To a large extent its activities have been additional to the activities of other agencies that continue to function as before. There is also an ambiguity as to just where its functions lie in relation to surveillance and promotion. We believe that there should be a clear separation of these functions, and that this should involve the division of the Food Safety Promotion Board into two agencies, one responsible for health promotion, the other responsible for food testing and safety surveillance.

We also believe that the functions of these agencies should replace the functions of extant agencies, rather than merely complementing them.

There is little rationale for having a separate agency responsible for health promotion in relation to food. Given the overlapping nature of health promotion activities, the current situation where health promotion is carried out by a number of agencies, which are mirrored in the two jurisdictions, is irrational. Effective health promotion requires a co-ordinated approach. Therefore, Sinn Féin is calling for the expansion of the FSPB's role to incorporate the activities of all current health promotion bodies, north and south. Facilitation of this amalgamation is enhanced by the fact that health promotion is already a recognised area of co-operation.

In relation to food surveillance, the fracturing of agencies responsible is even more acute. At least 27 agencies and groups are involved. This multiplicity obviates the possibility of developing a coherent system. There are two issues here:

Different agencies exist to conduct surveillance upon human food borne illness, zoonoses (diseases transmitted from animals to humans) and food contaminants.

All systems and agencies are replicated in the two jurisdictions. Sinn Féin proposes that a unified data collection, collation and dissemination agency with an all-Ireland remit should be formed.

Sinn Féin therefore proposes the amalgamation of the agencies into a unified body, which, in addition to these bodies' current functions, will take over collation and dissemination functions in relation to zoonoses and food contaminants. The new body should also have an oversight remit over those groups and agencies that gather and report data. Those groups, in turn, should be rationalised and amalgamated as much as is practicable. For example, we propose an all Ireland public health laboratory agency be established, having under its aegis all Public Health Laboratories on the island, including a laboratory which can provide a comprehensive and timely enteric reference service.

Restrictions on the remit of the Food Safety Board have meant that the board has been irrelevant to key recent developments in matters of Food Safety, where all Ireland urgently requires a representative body speaking and lobbying on behalf of all Ireland.

These areas include the issue, in EU, of allowing imports of Genetically Modified Seeds, and foodstuffs. To date there has been no consultation or formulation of representative opinions amongst either consumers, or farmer producers. In consequence on the crucial matter affecting everyone's lives as well as our economic future as agricultural producers, Ireland will be driven by default, into accepting EU regulations, without our playing any part in determination of these decisions, or their suitability to us all as one Island.

The issue becomes yet more crucial in the context to the debate within the EU at present in relation to whether to accept meat treated with growth hormones, which the majority of Irish consumers recognise as a major health hazard. As in Agriculture generally, it is very evident that the interests of Six County farmers do not coincide with those of English farmers, and are poorly represented by Britain's Department of Agriculture.

These issues need urgent consideration. There is no more appropriate body than the North-South Food Safety Promotion Board to take up these issues on behalf of everyone in this island.

In addition, the FSPB should expand its remit to address the question of food packaging. At present, there is no all-Ireland monitoring or regulatory agency to stop this wasteful use of scare natural resources, and worse, the unnecessary pollution of the environment through wanton employment of plastics. Expanding the remit of this body to take on this role would be to the benefit of all consumers and our environment in Ireland. All of us have an interest in retaining an image of the whole island as 'clean and green'.

There is a clear need for an all Ireland body to represent consumers and farmers alike in relation to current proposals to introduce regional incinerators across the island. Scientific evidence abounds on the damaging effects of emissions from incinerators livestock, on vegetation, on milk, and on consumers of these products. The potential damage to the already contracting Farming and Agribusiness sectors from incinerators is immense.

By expanding the remit into these fields, the FSPB can become an instance of just how all-Ireland bodies, over and above partitioned governments, can play a part in the development of a new dispensation in Ireland with a commitment to more progressive, far sighted policies which emanate from consultation with all of the people, and treat their interests as of equal weight.

Summary

The separation of surveillance and promotion

Existing Health and Promotion bodies integrated into FS

Establish an All Ireland Public Health Laboratory agency

Expand role to consult with communities and negotiate with EU on import of:

§ GM foods, seeds

§ Hormone treated meats

§ Effects of incinerators of human and animal health

Investigate, introduce and monitor directives to reduce use of packaging.

(5) Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB)

The All Ireland Ministerial Council meets in the Special EU Programmes Sector to take decisions on policies and action to be implemented by the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB).

SEUPB has important managerial functions including a grant making and an oversight role, in relation to the new Community Initiatives under the post-1999 European Structural Funds, INTERREG III, LEADER+, URBAN II, Equal and the new Peace Programme, PEACE II.

A principal aim of the SEUPB is to promote "cross-border" co-operation through the administration of the cross-border element of the PEACE II Programme and the monitoring and the promotion of the Common Chapter in the National Development Plan for Ireland and the Northern Ireland Structural Funds Plan.

There has been a high commitment of investment funds through the different programmes that come within the remit of the SEUPB to administer. And there is little doubt, if only taking in account the percentage of these programme funds which have not been drawn down or taken up by projects, that the SEUPB All Ireland body has failed in important respects.

There is no question that the major opportunities for cross community, and cross border development, have not been fully availed of. The imminent review of the workings of the SEUPB may pinpoint factors that account for these difficulties; however, not wishing to pre-empt the conclusions of this review, there are some broad and relevant considerations.

We would consider two aspects of the SEUPB's role to account for some of the failure to take up these huge opportunities.

1. One factor has been the "lack" of suitable proposals emanating from communities to access these funds. We believe that this arises from common difficulties encountered in mastering complex application procedures, but also in a paucity of innovatory ideas, and a common lack of awareness of how the provisions of the funding allocation can encompass good proposals.

2. There has been a tendency, especially in the allocation of INTERREG funds, for them to be used for infrastructural development, often of a most localised nature (e.g. street light, roads or bridges) in fact to supplement or even replace local authority and government funding. These are projects that are, and should be, quite at variance with the objectives in the allocation of these funds.

3. The tendency of the Intermediary Funding Bodies to require 'tokenistic' cross-community involvement in projects to the detriment of otherwise worthwhile single-identity projects that will Build Peace within communities. And the ease with which statutory bodies and private sector interests have been able to convince funders of the validity of plans to 'bolt on' reconciliation elements to projects without a clear relation to Peace Building.

There is no question that the development of innovatory projects, which offer economic development and community gain, requires special skill, most often found within communities themselves along with advisory agencies, which are in touch with modern technological and scientific developments. Suitable projects need to arise within the reality of the existing communities in the context of modern day needs. (Modern methods of waste management, composting, or alternative energy projects to replace fossil fuels are clear examples).

The potential for the funding available through the different programmes to succeed in building cross community co-operation, reconciliation, and joint development work, rests on the existence of social capacity - which, because of the very nature of the problem between communities, tends often not to exist. It is crucial to recognise that social capital, (involvement, education, engagement of communities in addressing their social economic impoverishment as a community), has to be developed. Education and social capital building projects are intrinsic to any of the funding programmes designed to promote cross community development and partnership.

In consequence we would propose the extension of outreach development workers, working in conjunction with specialist agencies, and each of the communities themselves, proactively seeking suitable projects, with the objective that funding is spread across the disadvantaged areas, and is not allocated on the basis of influence or local political favour.

In consequence we would propose

An increase in the resources available to the SEUPB so as to employ more development and advisory staff, who are skilled in bringing practical innovatory ideas for developments with economic pay off and community gain, and well trained in the nature of social economy agencies.

Accountable to the AIMC the SEUPB be given the managerial latitude and financial autonomy to ensure that it acts as the overall authority for the implementation of all EU initiatives including INTERREG A, B and C.

(6) Waterways Ireland

An increase in the resources available to the SEUPB so as to employ more development and advisory staff, who are skilled in bringing practical innovatory ideas for developments with economic pay off and community gain, and well trained in the nature of social economy agencies

The All Ireland Ministerial Council meets in the Inland Waterways Sector in order to take decisions on policies and action to be implemented by Waterways Ireland.

Waterways Ireland has assumed responsibility for navigable inland waterways across Ireland, as specified in the British-Irish Agreement. It is empowered to engage in promotion, including marketing, and development of the inland waterways.

Waterways Ireland's primary function is the management, maintenance, development and restoration of the inland navigable waterway system throughout Ireland, principally for recreational purposes. Waterways Ireland is responsible for the following navigation systems, which were previously under the control of the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands in the Twenty-six Counties and the Rivers Agency in the Six Counties:

The Shannon-Erne Waterway

The Erne System

The Grand Canal

The Barrow Navigation System

The Lower Bann Navigation System

The Royal Canal

The Shannon Navigation System

Waterways Ireland is also charged with taking forward further studies and appraisals in relation to the possible restoration of the Ulster Canal, and responsibility for Shannon-Erne Waterways Promotions Ltd.

On the 26th June 2002 the All Ireland Minister Council mandated that a permanent headquarters building for Waterways Ireland in Enniskillen should proceed. Since that time provisions have been made for the building work in budgets, including in the 2004 budget of Waterways Ireland, which was approved through All Ireland Ministerial Council Interim Decisions processes on 17 December, 2003. Sinn Fein is calling for this work to get underway.

The scope for the expansion of the remit of Waterways Ireland is huge, in relation to tourism, to the economic development of our waterways, and to the development of marine and water sport recreational attractions.

River Fishing.

There is no doubt that the maximising of Ireland's unique advantages in salmon and trout fishing remain substantially under developed. The remit of Waterways Ireland should expand to an all Ireland body, subsuming the Regional fishery boards, in the overall management of rivers, stocking and pollution control.

2. Lake fishing.

Equally there is considerable scope for the development of coarse fishing in Ireland's many lakes, some of which are un-fished, some of which are inaccessible. There is a clear need for an All Ireland body to take on the development of this popular tourist pursuit, which could bring so many fishing people to visit our shores.

3. Marine tourism.

The potential for developing our waterways as navigatible channels, which often trace a path through the most isolated and disadvantaged areas, through villages currently denied potential economic downstream benefit of tourism, are a clear example of the need to expand the work of Waterways Ireland. The success of developing the river Erne, or the quite unique marine facility provided through the navigation of the Shannon, which draws many tourists from all over the world to Ireland, are examples of the importance of expanding this company's work. The potential of a navigable route from Shannon to Belfast offers inestimable advantages to areas, which are amongst the most disadvantaged in the island.

If the Waterways Ireland body were to take on this expanded remit, its composition would need to broaden to reflect the interests of the communities which are affected and which stand to gain. It needs to input social economy expertise into the design of projects such that the gain accrues to the whole community rather than just to often multinational boat hire companies.