Delegation to Brussels on the Subject of LEADER

Liadh Ní Riada MEP S i n n F é i n

18 November 2014

Rapporteurs:

Ryan Howard CEO, South and East Cork Area Development

Conor McGuinness Political Advisor to Liadh Ní Riada MEP Dé Máirt, 26 Samhain 2014 a chairde,

I would like to thank and congratulate each one of you for taking part in our delegation to Brussels on the subject of LEADER last week.

I was delighted to welcome and host such a broad array of stakeholders in the field of rural, local and community development. I must commend and thank you all for your participation, your contributions and for helping to make our delegation a success.

We had a fantastic opportunity to raise our very serious concerns about the future of the LEADER programme with Ms. Josephine Loriz-Hoffmann. I believe that she was impressed by our contributions, and I hope that our engagement with her will lead the European Commission take a critical view of the Irish Government’s proposed changes.

I believe that together we brought significant information and analyses to her attention that had hitherto been overlooked on the Commission’s part, or kept from their view by the Department of Environment. I think this has been the major success of our delegation.

I was also pleased to welcome representatives of most of the Irish MEPs to hear your concerns. I think you will agree that my colleague Matt Carthy MEP did a great job in facilitating your engagement with them. I hope that they too will take your concerns on board, and join in defending the bottom-up approach that is so central to LEADER in Ireland.

The delegation is neither the beginning nor the end. I will continue to work with you, and alongside my colleagues in Sinn Féin, to push the Government to enter into dialogue with all stakeholders and to find a genuine solution that defends the bottom-up ethos, capitalises on the experience and expertise of local development companies, defends jobs and conditions of rural development workers, and puts community leadership at the centre of this vital programme.

I have asked Minister to meet with us as soon as possible, and will be in touch shortly with an update on that request.

Is mise le meas,

Liadh Ní Riada MEP 1. Roundtable meeting with Commission, Irish Government and NI Executive representatives

Chair: Liadh Ní Riada MEP

Attendance: Ms. Josefine Loriz-Hoffmann Directorate-General Agriculture and Rural Development Head of Unit – Consistency in Rural Development Geographic Director – Ireland

Mr. Pat Fenton Permanent Representation of Ireland to the European Union Environment Attaché

Mr. Brian Smart Office of the NI Executive in Brussels Deputy Head of Office

1. Experience in the 6 counties

1.1 Brian Smart, Deputy Head of Office at the Office of the NI Executive in Brussels outlined the new system for administering LEADER in the 6 counties, with the introduction of 10 new LAGs. Each will be an independent limited company, and contiguous with the new local authority structures. Each LAG will enter into a contract with its respective local authority in respect of administration support and financial services. LAG contracts will come from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.

1.2 Damian McGenity, former director at the Newry and Mourne Local Strategy Partnership expressed the view that under the system described by Brian Smart the LEADER programme will in fact be managed and staffed by the Local Authority. He explained that there is a fear locally that the councils will shape strategy and administer the majority of investment. He also spoke of a concern that crucial cross-border investment and funding will be lost. Damian identified the possibility that these new LAGs will make decisions, which will then be brought to the Local Authority layer and from there to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for amendment and final decision-making, thereby disenfranchising ordinary local LAG volunteers and leadership.

2. Background to current changes in the 26 counties.

2.1 Jim Finn, chairperson of North Tipperary Leader partnership stated that there is strength in diversity and that each LAG will have different experiences, methods and priorities depending on the needs of communities in their respective areas of operation. In County Tipperary, there have been and currently are two LAGs. This represents the real on-the-ground nature of the county, where there is a pronounced difference between the realities, experiences and needs of communities in both parts of the county.

2.2 Máire Uí Mhaoláin, Rural Development Programme Administrator, Comhar na nOileán Teo, spoke of the need for rural development practice to respect and acknowledge the different needs and capabilities of different areas. She explained how a project that on the mainland might not qualify as ‘innovative’ could very well be an innovative, novel and experimental initiative on an island. Genuine community control rather than centralised local authority administration allows for greater understanding of local variances and needs. Máire also mentioned the difficulty with communications faced by island communities and pointed to a potential exacerbation of these by placing control of rural development programmes such as LEADER in the hands of local authorities that are headquartered many hours away.

2.3 Stephen Walsh, chair of Clare Local Development Company gave an account of his experience as a community development volunteer and spoke passionately in defense of the ethos of LEADER and how this translates into responsive, area- appropriate and successful programme implementation. He stated that LEADER works so well in Ireland because of its from-the-ground-up approach; that someone with an idea is entertained and facilitated, and that ideas for local development often come from within the community itself. Stephen spoke of the need to empower individuals and communities, and refrain from imposing a top- down or overly structured approach. He asked if the Commission would respect the right of local groups to take the lead in local initiatives and development, and if they would be afforded equal access to the opportunity.

3. Commission Response: Ms. Josefine Loriz-Hoffman

3.1 Ms. Loriz-Hoffmann, representing the rural development unit of the Directorate- General Agriculture and Rural Development said she was well aware of the subject and that she sees the current LEADER approach as a valid approach. She states that although mainstreaming has caused challenges it is still key ‘principle’ and a model for fisheries, regional development and social policy funds. This is accepted in principle. She acknowledged that there is diversification across EU, and that there is flexibility but within guidance. The private / public partnership, the bottom-up approach still applies but that there are different ways to do LEADER, with some more prescribed than others.

3.2 Member States should select ‘fair rules and should not exclude opportunities for different systems to be considered and best one chosen, keeping in mind that the process should be open and the existing groups should be allowed participate. She also stated that there is also a need for new participants to be brought on board and she spoke of the need for opportunities for new and old to compete, creating a new mixture and new ideas. The regulation are clear in terms of the selection of projects but with the principle that the Paying Agency be allowed to look in more detailed way but not to question the strategies that are applied by the LAG or the eligibility of a project witth in the LDS.

3.3 Josefine Loriz-Hoffmann acknowledged that there is an attitude amongst some Member States to allow Public Part to take over some of the administrative tasks especially where there are a lot of ‘new’ funds and ‘new’ structures, and that for a bottom-up approach there needs also to be a top-down support to work. The LAG, she said, does not operate outside the overall vision and plans for the region and country.

4. Community-Led Local Development

4.1 Noel Giles stated that the Irish Partnership Agreement response to the Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) opportunity was not suitable for the delivery of any structural and social funds.

4.2 Josephine Loriz-Hoffmann responded that CLLD was an offer to Member States but each Member State can choose to accept or reject this offer, and that CLLD is not an obligation. She acknowledged that Ireland has taken a bottom-up approach and had experience in multi-fund approach. Member States had said that items such as Structural Fund Projects are too big for the bottom-up approach. The Rural Development Programme is the only fund that requires CLLD be in place. 4.3

5. Issues arising from Irish Government Changes

5.1 Sinn Féin Senator, Trevor Ó Clochartaigh spoke of his experience as a partnership manager and spoke of the key principle of subsidiarity. Without this key concept informing our work, and with the attitude of the current and previous governments, we may see rural regression instead of rural development. We must aim for the latter and not the former.

5.2 Senator Ó Clochartaigh stated that Irish LEADER groups had a proven capacity in leveraging funds from several other sources and operated a principle of complementarity in rural development practice, with a good local and general overview, and holistic and strategic methodology. Cohesion forms part of their remit and a bottom-up, community-led approach is critical for the delivery of social incusion elements. He juxtaposed the community, locally derived and inclusive nature of Forum Connemara with the top-down, city-based and removed nature of the new County Galway LCDC. 5.3 The undermining of local community development companies will, he said, lead to the loss of vital local experience and corporate intelligence.

5.4 Maura Walsh, CEO of IRD Duhallow spoke of how badly treated the local action groups hade been in the current process. The document outlining the changes had only been released to them in September this year, and already it is being changed; not, unfortunately at the request of the local action groups, but by the local authority managers. There has been a dirty-tricks campaign against the local action groups in order to undermine their credibility, reputation and ability to lead rural and local development in their areas.

5.5 The Department of the Environment’s plan includes a reduction in responsibilities assigned to local action groups, and crucially a reduction in groups from 35 to 28. This, Maura explained, will adversely and disproportionately affect the the more westerly and remote counties, and move services, access and control further away from these communities.

5.6 Existing local action groups will face two more layers of bureaucracy, with the inclusion of an Administration Committee in the Local Authority, which will be controlled by State Bodies. The Local Authority will be able to claim the outputs as their own, and the local action group will be left with only minimal results to show.

5.7 Maura Walsh asked how the state can be allowed to pre-determine the 28 foot- prints, and queried if that meant that it could state its preference for the removal of the existing and replacement with a ‘new’ model based on Local Authority.

5.8 She finished by acknowledging the tremendous support received by the existing local action groups from the community and private sector, most visible through a series of local and national protest rallies, and by expressing shame that LEADER is being seen by the Department of the Environment as a ‘fund’ as opposed to a ‘development strategy’. 5.9 Kerry County Councillor Damien Quigg spoke in support of the existing model for LEADER in terms of local business opportunities and praised the understanding of the local groups, which he credited to their bottom-up approach. He stated that rural diversification, enterprise supports, and a holistic approach to rural development were predicated on the continuation of a community-led model.

5.10 Ian Dempsey, CEO of West Cork Development Partnership, pointed to the undermining of LEADER in the Fisheries Programme as an example of where the LEADER Rural Development Plan may go in the future. The LEADER model under local authority control will not take any account of the principles of LEADER; Rural Development will be based on the vision of the local authority-led model, with which no one is happy, including the local area groups and the local authorities.

5.11 He stated that Local Authority input in terms of local development is welcome but questioned the accountability of the proposed LCDC structures. He spoke of a need for an open and transparent process, but the behaviour of the department heretofore does not breed confidence in this occurring. In closing he mentioned that the changes will result in massive losses of skills and capacities in the rural and local development sector.

5.12 PJ Cleere, South East area Support Officer with Disability Federation Ireland spoke of the importance of the bottom-up approach in serving marginalised communities. he said the previous cohesion process undermined the social inclusion aspect, and this current process will further degrade the focus. Rural and local development cannot only be about economic growth and diversification; it must also have a strong social foundation based on access, equality, inclusion and justice.

5.13 Barry Curtin, community representative on Avondhu / Blackwater Partnership’s board of directors spoke of how the LEADER Programme had served Ireland and its rural communities very well. He stated that LEADER had been the main investor in the sustainable development of rural areas, and brought with it a deeply ingrained community and social ethos. The current economic crisis is forcing a grab for the ‘fund’, to the detriment of the capability of rural areas to lead their own development. As an example of where the current process might lead, he related the experience of Avonsdhu/Blackwater Partnership’s sister organisations in the Netherlands. Their dependence on the local authority and state sector has introduced unecessary and unhelpful layers of bureaucracy, leading to a much slower turnaround on projects. Many funding opportunities arrive too late, or not at all due to delays. There is a huge level of responsiveness and accountability in the current Irish system.

6. Irish Government and European Commission Responses

6.1 Pat Fenton, Environment Attaché with the Irish Permanent Representation to the EU indicated that he will reflect strongly the views of the meeting to the Department of Environment.

6.2 Josephine Loriz-Hoffmann explained that she had not attended any of the meetings to date where this has been discussed and stated that as far as she is concerned LEADER has always been an arrangement between private people and public people in the area. She stated that the rules in terms of the balance of the Private (51%) and Public (49%) are clear and unambiguous, and exist to allay fears that the public part of the body will have too much power. She acknowledged that this is difficult to assess from Brussels level, and that in the future there will also be rules in terms of what LEADER Projects can do ie. not have public projects only. She explained that there needs to be an equilibrium and that the private element is critical in the mix. To this end the European Commission have put in place protections to ensure that this is not taken away.

6.3 She mentioned that there are negotiations currently underway between the Irish Government and the European Commission and that there are in the region of 400 outstanding questions relating to the Partnership Agreement. She suggested that some of these may relate to the Rural Development Programme and stated that the Commission will take on board the points raised during this meeting with regard to its discussions with the Irish government.

7. Local Community Development Committees

7.1 Cork County Councillor Rachel McCarthy spoke of the confusion that exists amongst local authority members of the new local community development committees, and of their top-down and badly organised nature. She related how instructions from Local Authority management were disjointed, confused and subject to change without consultation. She also mentioned the situation faced by some members that were deemed to have a conflict of interest being forced to leave the meetings during certain discussions, leaving those with least experience to make important decisions. She said that it is clear that the LCDC model is far from ideal.

7.2 Noel Spillane, CEO of South Kerry Development Partnership, spoke of delays in the processing and referred to mismanagement of funding by the Department, including the slow release of the funding, and of making claims that the local action groups were unable to spend. He identified the removal of funding from local areas near the end of the programme at a time when projects were being put in place as a particular issue of concern and frustration. The rationale used for this was that the LCDC needs to be in place to ensure the use of funding. The current situation is that there has been a loss of over €100m from the LEADER Programme and the plan for €250m will serve to massively remove investment to rural areas.

8. Commission Response

8.1 Josefine Loriz-Hoffmann stated that she was not aware of restriction of levels of commitment applied by the Department for the first years of the current progamme, and that the key impacts of restriction of investment was a slow- down in investment opportunities. She noted that reducing ‘animation’ had a negative impact on the downstream development potential for the area. 9. Impact on Workers

9.1 Sectoral Organiser with SIPTU Eddie Mullins stated that his union represents approximately 80% of workers in the sector, and that the decision to change is already being determined by the Department without any analysis of its impact, not least its impact on rural development and associated workers. Citing the ILDN's Value for Money report he noted that despite a huge reduction in funding there has been a continuation of service levels by employees of local development companies. He also pointed out that although the Department is happy to make decisions that will impact on employment in the sector, they are unwilling to participate or contribute to any remedy, and are refusing to engage in a meaningful way with the workers' representatives. He contended that workers should follow the funding, and if the Government persists in its plans and moves funding to other organistions then Transfer of Undertakings priciples should apply.

9.2 Senator , Sinn Féiin spokesperson on Workers' Rights and Political Reform spoke of a clear attempt to back away from community development by Government, and of their plan to move control away from local communities and into local authorities, the impact of which will be a reduction of bottom-up approaches and systems. He noted that ‘footprint’ being determined by the Local Authority and not by the local communities will further devalue of the LEADER approach, and the stripping away of input and funding is impacting negatively on the confidence of the employees within these areas.

9.3 Trevor Quinn, Organiser with SIPTU pointed to the fact that the potential job losses in the sector was part of wider trend of a massive reduction of support to the community and voluntary sector by the State, that will have far-reaching longitudinal repercussions.

10. Commission Response 10.1 Josefine Loriz-Hoffmann explained how the Commission will have an influence in terms of application and interpretation. There cannot be a bottom-up approach without a top-down leadership, and that both must work together. She expressed confidence that a solution exists, and explained that as guardian of the treaties, the Commission will ensure that the rules are adhered to.

10.2 With regard to resourcing the LEADER approach, Josefine Loriz-Hoffmann noted that in the 2007-2013 period local action groups in Ireland were given Axis 3 and 4, which she claimed was a far-sighted decision, but she counselled that member states can decide to reduce the resources that can be employed in the LEADER approach and the Commission will have very little influence in this regard. She stated that she did not know of the ‘ceilings’ placed in terms of commitments during the current period.

11. Wrap-up

11.1 Liadh Ní Riada MEP asked if the Commission would put pressure on the Irish Government to negotiate and work in partnership with existing groups.

11.2 Josefine Loriz-Hoffmann relplied that yes, the programme has to be developed in partnership and spoke of an obligation top enter into discussion with existing groups. She will seek assurance from the Irish Managing Authority (Department) to positively and strongly support the local dialogue. She expressed an interest in reading the ILDN's evaluation document.

11.3 Liadh Ní Riada MEP thanked Ms. Josefine Loriz-Hoffmann, Mr.Pat Fenton and Mr. Brian Smart for their attendance and participation at the meeting. She commended the delegation on their engagement, and thanks the contributors for making their points strongly and eloquently. She stated that the commitment by the Commission to feed the issues raised into their negotiations with the Irish Government was a positive outcome, and noted that the fact that so many questions remain over Ireland's Partnership Agreement illustrates that the case is not closed, and the battle is still worth fighting. 2. Meeting with Irish MEPs

Chair: Matt Carthy MEP

Attendance: Ms. Liadh Ní Riada MEP

Ms. Marion Harkin MEP

Mr. Seán Kelly MEP

Representatives of Máiread McGuinness MEP, , Luke Ming Flanagan, and were also present.

1. Summary of Issues

1.1 Maura Walsh gave a summary of the main issues facing the sector, and related the major points raised in the previous meeting.

1.2 She stated that the alignment process was not as transparent as it should have been, and that the first document was only provided in September 2014 and already it was being unraveled by submissions made by the CCMA.

1.3 She outlined the history of the current programme and detailed major mismanagement by the Department, including the loss of 2 years, and restrictions in the following years, the loss of budget at a very late stage in the programme , and the undermining of one third of existing local action groups.

1.4 Maura Walsh explained how there will be a ‘call’ for proposals, but that it will be restricted to 28 local community development committees, therefore prescribing the footprint and removing potential for at least existing local action groups, primarily in the Western part of Ireland. She highlighted the Commission's earlier response that four hundred questions were still outstanding in relation to Ireland's Partnership Agreement.

1.5 Con Ryan, member of the board of directors of South Tipperary Development Company spoke of his role in community, local and rural development spanning 30 years, and of his role in both the IFA and local development initiatives. He stated that from a community perspective, the positive changes brought about in rural areas over the preceding decades were immeasurable, and that LEADER was chiefly to thank for that. More precisely he noted that the bottom-up approach and community-model were to thank for the success of LEADER..

1.6 John Loughry, Rural Development Officer with North and East Kerry Development gave the perspective that Government actions are proactively slowing down local rural development and leaving hundreds of local projects on the shelf. He noted that nobody in the community sector has suggested that the move to a local community development committee-led local action group makes any sense.

1.7 Cork County Councillor and member of the board of IRD Duhallow Melissa Mullane spoke of councils having niether the expertise nor the staff to deliver LEADER. She made the point that if its not broken, then why ‘fix’ it.

1.8 Pat Condon, board member of Ballyhoura LEADER Parnership and West Limerick Resources how both local companies had worked well for County Limerick and had attracted vital investment and funding for the area. He noted that budget cuts, delays, uncertainty and financial stipulations are putting local development companies under major financial strain and at risk of bankruptcy.

2. MEP Responses

2.1 Sean Kelly MEP mentioned that he had some idea of the work of LEADER and e specially the impacts in local area, and he noted that reports show Ireland is seen as an examples of best practice when others are failing in standards He cautioned that reform takes time and spoke of a need to bring people along.This, he stated, seems not to have happened here. If you rush something and make decisions its very hard to go back on it. He committed to raising the issue with Government.

2.2 Marion Harkin MEP said that despite rarely getting angry, she was extremely angry at Phil Hogan and his Putting People First document, and its claims about a democratic deficit. She congratulated the delegates on their positive engagement with the Commission. She stated that the blame lies with Government, and criticised the delays and uncertainty that marred the process. She stated that she is adamant that LEADER must retain the Community-Led Local Development model.

2.3 Matt Carthy MEP traced the origin of many of the difficulties faced by LEADER local action groups to the Putting People First document and pointed to an apparent trade-off between the Department and local authority managers. The removal of control from community-led development companies and its investment in the local authorities was the crux of the issue, and he noted that it is telling that the only group to be given input into the process was the CCMA. He stated that there is a battle ahead on this issue, and placed it in the context of a wider conflict over values, priorities and direction. He welcomed the invitation extended by Liadh Ní Riada to all the MEPs, and noted their contributions. Party politics he said, should not come before saving the vital and valuable of local development companies.

2.4 Liadh Ní Riada MEP brought the meeting to a close by thanking the delegates and MEPs for their contributions, and noting the sense of unity, common purpose and determination that the two meetings had created amongst the group.

Please see attached files for details of the presentations from the European Investment Bank – Microfinance Unit and Michael Gregory and Urzula Budzich-Tabor of the European Rural Development Network.