“I have to admit to being more than slightly disappointed with how bureaucratic community development has become,” said Mr Quinn. His concerns were echoed by Councillor Geraldine Cassidy, the Chairman of Fermanagh District Council, who referred to the forthcoming structural funds, and the delay caused by negotiations between Europe and Stormont: “We can only hope that those deserving projects on the ground can benefit from the gap monies recently announced and that bureaucracy does not get in the way of real progress.”

    Representatives of the various funding bodies, community development associations from around Northern Ireland and other prominent community figures were invited to attend the conference, which consisted of a number of speakers sharing their experiences of community development work, and also three workshops entitled “Towards an effective strategy”, “The statutory response to WCI”, and “Learning for good practice”. The conference, entitled ‘Progress Through Participation’, followed a two year programme to employ a worker for the development of a Weak Community Infrastructure Programme within the Fermanagh District Partnership main strategy which was begun in April 1999 as a response to the Quinn audit on community development and relationships in Fermanagh. Since its inception two years ago, the Programme has provided guidance and has instilled confidence where little existed before. Last week’s conference contained reflections of three Development Associations who have benefitted directly from the Programme. Yvonne Graham, of Clabby Development Association highlighted the success of her group in convincing Northern Ireland Electricity to replace the electricity pylons in the village with an underground supply, and pointed to the increased likelihood of a group succeeding in these areas more than an individual. The common thread of the reports of each Development Association representative was the tribute paid to Mr Armstrong, described by Roy Murray of Killyfole Development Association as “a tower of strength”. Another common thread outlined was the need for each community to work together to achieve their aims, and overcome suspicions. “A split and divided community can only fail,” said Noelle Walker of Lack Development Association. Mr Quinn highlighted the considerably higher uptake of community development work by Catholic groups than Protestant groups, remarking that at the time of the Audit his company produced in 1998, only two predominantly Protestant areas had one or more community projects completed or in place, compared to over half of Catholic areas.

    He put the disparity down to integral differences between the two religions, including the more “individualist tendency” of the Protestant church, compared to the more “communal” approach of the Catholic church, which is based on collectivism. In addition, Catholic areas had the necessary pre-existing groups and organisations required to begin community development work, which meant they had a shorter learning curve for setting the necessary wheels in motion. The Catholic capacity to react to the funds that became available was matched, said Mr Quinn, by a reluctance on the part of some Protestant denominations to accept funding from some bodies, particularly the International Fund for Ireland, and the National Lottery. He said that “most of the Unionist community is in some way intimidated by community activity, in particular cross-community activity,” and added that if this trend was to continue, areas of weak community infrastructure would only fall further behind.

    However, Mr Quinn also added that if a change in funding was to occur to the benefit of areas that needed development most, the funding bodies had to drop their pre-occupation with cross-community activity. Each community is capable of achieving things for themselves, and the insistence on cross-community ventures sometimes promotes “tokenism”, and raises unnecessary hurdles for development. Funding should instead be targeted at those areas most in need of regeneration, and the funding bodies should be prepared to “take risks” in their decisions, said Mr Quinn. “Risk and failure is an occupational hazard,” he continued, and it is time for the tendency to award funding to ‘safe’ projects to stop, making way for some “pump priming” in areas where they have previously not ventured.