Progress amid community carnage

24May 2015

EVELOPMENT and change at local authority

level continue apace. We have had the formation

of the Local Community Development Commit-

tees (LCDC), as part of the largely unpopular process of

alignment of community development and local devel-

opment with local authorities, which many believe

undermines local participatory structures. We have

had the very unpopular process of tendering for the

new Social Inclusion Community Activation Pro-

gramme (SICAP), as if the achievement of social

inclusion is something that can be tendered out to

bidders.

Now we have more planning with Local Economic

and Community Plans (LECP) to be prepared by each

LCDC in all local authority areas. These could be

better. There is no doubt that these new LECPs have

the potential to provide a road-

map for the economic and

community development of the

local authority area. However,

the ﬂaws of the past need to be

addressed if there is to be mean-

ingful engagement from all

sectors and there is no evidence of any evaluation of

the past that might lead to this.

The Local Economic and Community Plan will be the

primary strategy guiding the development of each

local authority area and is to be an important imple-

mentation vehicle for relevant national and regional

policy. The plans are to comprise an economic ele-

ment, the development of which is primarily the

responsibility of the local authority and its Economic

Strategic Policy Committee (SPC), and a community

element, the development of which is primarily the

responsibility of the Local and Community Develop-

ment Committee (LCDC).

Each local authority will establish an Advisory Steering Committee with representa-

tives of the LCDC, the Economic SPC, local authority staﬀ and others deemed to have a

role to play. The Committee will devise a draft socio-economic statement for the city or

county with high-level goals for the plan. This must be based on socio-economic evidence

to be gathered by the local authority.

While this sounds promising, experience suggests that it is the local authority, and not

the democratically selected LCDC or even the Advisory Steering Committee, which is

making most of the key decisions. This is leading to considerable frustration amongst

community and voluntary sector representatives.

Local Economic and Community Plan guidelines stress the importance of consultation

with stakeholders, and that public consultation must take into account the importance of

designing consultation processes to match the needs of diﬀerent stakeholders across the

economic and community sectors. However, there is no State budget assigned for the

development of the LECP and each local authority will have to fund the development of

the Plan from internal resources.

Some local authorities will have the resources and capacity to undertake meaningful

consultation, others will not. One of the keys to the success of the LECP will be the capac-

ity to develop buy-in from a range of stakeholders, including communities that will be the

focus for actions and strategies. The consultation phase of the Plan is

crucial for this. Whether local authorities have the capacity to

achieve this form of consultation is yet to be proven but many com-

munity sector representatives are not hopeful of any meaningful

exercise in participatory consultation and planning.

The LECPs will replace the strategies devised by the former City/

County Development Boards. In most cases, these were ambitious

roadmaps for the economic, social and cultural development of local

authority areas. Communities and community organisations com-

mitted a lot of time and energy to the development of these

strategies. However, in most areas, no proper review or evaluation

was undertaken of what actions were or were not implemented.

According to many community sector representatives who were

directly involved in these bodies, their biggest weakness was in fail-

ing to ensure that local resources were focused on achieving the

strategies agreed.

The funds available to Local Community Development Committees

are small in comparison to the budgets of the key statutory and other

agencies involved. The success of the LECPs depends on convincing

these agencies to focus their funding on the implementation of actions and strategies

agreed. It is not clear whether the Department of the Environment, Community and Local

Government has managed to persuade other Government departments to commit their

funding to the LECP strategies agreed.

Notwithstanding the argument that the local authority is not best placed to manage

and co-ordinate local development and community development, the LECPs have poten-

tial to harness new and innovative ideas for the development of local areas, bring

together social and economic development so that those in the most marginalised com-

munities will beneﬁt, and embed sustainability, equality and human rights in all

development strategies. This needs goodwill, capacity and willingness to do the job

properly. •

Some local

authorities

will have the

resources

and capacity

to undertake

meaningful

consultation,

others will not

“

NEWS Local Development

Progress

amid

community

carnage

After the unpopular alignment of

community with local authority and

tendering of community services,

now the tentative involvement

of communities in economic and

community plan. By Ann Irwin

Ann Irwin is co-

coordinator of the

Community Workers

Cooperative.