Successive reports on the reform of local government have highlighted the need to re-focus the structures of local authorities to meet the needs of their communities through area-based organisation. As far back as 1991 the Barrington Report identified, among other concerns with the then system: a poor level of integration of public services at local / regional level; a narrow range of functions being delivered by local government; the lack of a structured regional level and a poorly developed municipal level; poor linkage between the local authorities and non-government organizations and a central government policy role which was poorly linked with meeting local expectations.
The Devolution Commission in 1995 identified the need to develop a four level policy system based on national, regional, county and, critically, sub-county arrangements, through which public service delivery could be enhanced and citizen-centred. Better Local Government also sought to enhance the processes of local development and local democracy through establishment of area committees to oversee service delivery. The reforms also allowed for the co-ordination of local development and its agencies with the creation of community and enterprise groups to facilitate the co-ordination process. The Task Force for the Integration of local government and local development similarly called for an area-based focus to underpin the re-organisation of local development and the renewal of local democracy. The Task Force also was key in the ultimate decision to establish the City and County Development Boards across the country.
More recently, the Programme for Government has highlighted the need for a fundamental re-structuring of local development and local government. It envisages a programme to align community and local development processes alongside a reformed local authority system. This, it is suggested, will ensure the sustainability of local initiative within an overall cost effective framework. In doing so, the re-configuration process is seeking to meet the broad objectives of the IMF/ECB/EC Memorandum of Agreement which has been agreed with the Government. The Programme for Government also acknowledges that the local democratic process must be a central aspect of the re-configuration process. In light of the Programme, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government has committed to a renewed focus on the role of towns and other sub-county structures in the local government system. The challenge, as highlighted by the Minister in a recent statement on the reform process, is to ensure that the vitality of local democracy and local development are sustained in the overall reform process and that the necessary efficiencies identified in the Efficiency Review of the local government system provide a long-term resolution to the need to have a self-reliant system of local democracy.
This thinking marks a shift away from the limited perspective on local development set out in the McCarthy Report on public expenditure. The McCarthy Report took the view that the burden of future financing of local development should fall on local government. This view failed to acknowledge the existing EU rural development policy framework and the obligations on the Irish government as a consequence. The Minister is clearly conscious of the current obligations on Ireland and on possible likely obligations arising in a post 2014 EU rural policy environment. The decision to move towards an alignment of both local government and local development therefore must be placed within the Minister’s perspective rather than that of either the Local Government Efficiency Review or the earlier McCarthy Report.
There is therefore long-standing recognition that an area-based approach to local service planning and delivery is a valid framework within which local democratic and community development processes can be sustained. Indeed this thinking is increasingly common in other OECD members with, for example, the UK Government now placing localism at the heart of its public service reform programme. In Ireland, there are plenty of good practices around the country which demonstrate the advantage of local government working alongside a wide range of both public and voluntary bodies to deliver more effective services.
Among the more notable of these are community based planning processes which are or have been rolled out in several counties. The community planning processes in Mayo for example, provide a clear demonstration of the community based initiatives highlighted by An Taoiseach at the recent Global Irish Forum. Based on a substantive collaborative model, the Council has worked with the local development companies in Mayo to deliver integrated plans for some sixteen communities(with more to follow) across the County. These plans have, in turn, helped to inform the business planning of both the statutory authorities in the County as well as those supporting community and rural development. Equally, experience from Counties Offaly, Limerick and Cork provide ample evidence of the effectiveness of integrated planning at local level. With the support of, among others, the Tipperary Institute, UCC and UCD, the local authorities and the local development companies have worked together to deliver working models of collaborative planning where active citizenship is complemented by active local governance. The use of planning models such as ADOPT and Integrated Area Planning suggests that there are a variety of approaches to community engagement which can, as in the Community Futures Programme in Mayo, supplement the business planning of both local authorities and local development companies.
These initiatives suggest that community engagement can continue to be a feature of sustainable planning at local level in Ireland. They may provide useful, as no doubt other examples would elsewhere, approaches to meeting the expectations of communities across the country even in the restricted economic conditions which all public services are now obliged to address.
A remaining challenge is to examine the different models now available and informed through real experience. Can any one or all be mainstreamed throughout the country to underpin area based service planning? Is it possible that some models might work better than others given the differing economic conditions being confronted by the wide variety of communities in the Ireland. Whatever the answers to these questions one thing is certain and that is that if the level of community engagement and participation is to be enhanced against the backdrop of considerable local governance re-configuration, a very real focus on mainstreaming the best practice is now required. The good news is that this best practice has already been amply demonstrated in many parts of the country.
