December 2015

by Brian Harvey

F U N D I N G E N V I RO N M E N TA L

N O N-G OV E R N M E N TA L O RG A N I ZAT I O N S I N I R E L A N D

Irish Environmental Network (IEN)

B r i a n H a r v e y S o c i a l R e s e a r c h2 R a t h d o w n c r e s c e n t

Te r e n u r eD u b l i n 6 W, I r e l a n d

Te l 0 0 3 5 3 1 4 9 0 3 0 3 9e - m a i l : b r h a r v e y @ i o l . i e

December 2015

Irish Environmental Network (IEN)

F U N D I N G ENVIRONMENTAL

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS IN IRELAND

by Brian Harvey

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This is a study of the organizational situation of members of the Irish Environmental Network (IEN) over 2011-2015, set in an international context. Funding for Irish environmental Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) fell from €8.2m to €5.5m, down -32.3%. Full-time staff fell from 86 to 41, down -52.3%, while part-time staff rose +39%, scheme staff +129% and interns +38%, with the addition of new unpaid full and part-time staff as well as volunteers. There is a high level of voluntary contribution: the annual value of volunteer staff was €899,392 and full-time volunteers over €2.6m. The loss of 45 full-time posts is valued at €1.575m, with a Revenue loss of €312,075. This is an alarming process not only of defunding, but deprofessionalization, with the exit of skilled personnel, weakening environmental NGOs and making them less and less able to make a meaningful, expert contribution to environmental policy and practice. Overall, membership has fallen -6%. Members report that they find themselves in a vicious circle of declining funding, staffing and capacity, bringing them below a critical mass for effectiveness.

Despite this, 85% of IEN members expect to expand their activities, 15% to stay the same. They outlined a range of policy, research, demonstration, educational and practical activities in which they would like to engage and which would bring the country important environmental gains. To do so requires new skills, especially in fundraising and related marketing and communications skills. The creation of 22 new posts was sketched at an average salary of €35,000, which would cost €770,000, of which €152,570 would return to Revenue.

Studies show that the Irish environmental subsector is quite small both within the Irish voluntary sector as a whole and compared to environmental NGOs in Europe. Government funding in Ireland, now €3.1m, is remarkably low compared to Northern Ireland (band of €12.27m to €21.1m) to the UK (band of €240m to €368m, depending on the system of assessment). For Ireland to match per capita levels of support in Northern Ireland and the UK, Irish government funding should rise by between 5.5 and 17.3 times. Ireland lacks important features of other countries, such as lottery and philanthropic funding.

The case for funding environmental NGOs lies in the broader post-enlightenment narrative of civil society and voluntary organizations working for the good of society. There are nine specific reasons why governments should support NGOs: their contribution to participation, improved policies, expertise, long-term perspective, watchdog role, minority views, ground truth and new issues, communications and buy-in, implementation. Environmental NGOs in Europe and Ireland have a long record of contributing to improved policies and practices. In Britain, well-funded NGOs with mass memberships bring technical expertise into the heart of policy-making, suggesting the gains that could accrue to government from rebuilding their capacity in Ireland to a meaningful level.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Terms of reference ..........................................................................................................6Method ...........................................................................................................................6Acknowledgements .........................................................................................................7

1 Situation ........................................................................................................................8 1.1 Overall situation ................................................................................................9 1.2 Individual situation of members ......................................................................13 1.3 Conclusions .....................................................................................................19 2 Ireland in comparative international perspective .....................................................21 2.1 Evolution of the environmental sector ...........................................................22 2.2 Ireland in comparative international perspective ...........................................23 2.3 Comparisons with Britain, Northern Ireland ...................................................24 2.4 Conclusions .....................................................................................................25

3 The case ......................................................................................................................27 3.1 Backdrop ........................................................................................................28 3.2 Role of NGOs ..................................................................................................28 3.3 Role of environmental NGOs ...........................................................................27 3.4 Conclusions .....................................................................................................34 4 Summarizing the case .................................................................................................36

Tables

1.1 Change in funding, 2011-2015 ..........................................................................91.2 Government funding for IEN, 2011-2015 ........................................................101.3 Staffing changes, 2011-2015 ..........................................................................111.4 Changes in volunteering, membership, 2011-2015 .........................................131.5 Expectation of expansion, contraction or stability ..........................................141.6 Summary of issues on policy, research agenda ...............................................161.7 Summary of areas of practical engagement ....................................................171.8 Salary range of projected posts .......................................................................181.9 Key findings .....................................................................................................192.1 Funding of environmental NGOs in EU (selected states) .................................242.2 Funding of environmental NGOs in British Isles ..............................................26

Annexes

1 Questionnaire to IEN members ..................................................................................382 Environmental Pillar representation ...........................................................................403 List of activities in which members are engaged .........................................................41

6

TERMS OF REFERENCE

The Irish Environmental Network (IEN) has asked for a report that will enable the network to inform the government (and other authorities) of the following:

- The level of funding for environmental NGOs in Ireland over the last five years 2010-15; any job losses; and consequent exchequer loss in taxation (chapter 1);

- The level of funding for environmental NGOs in Ireland in comparison to our British and continental European neighbours, using funding per head as at least one comparator; the reasons for such differences; and an estimate of what would be a comparable level of funding in Ireland (chapter 2);

- The benefits to (1) the environment in both practice and policy (2) environmental NGOs of improved levels of government funding in Ireland, a level which should be indicated, including the extra jobs to be created and their value for leverage; the broader range of benefits to government of funding environmental NGOs, such as assisting the government’s agenda for the environment and sustainable development, especially the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government; benefits that would assist other departments and the social partners; and other arguments which can be marshalled that may be persuasive (chapter 3).

METHOD

This was done by:- Examination of documentation provided by IEN, especially the annual core funding

documentation;- Questionnaire to and enquiry with 31 IEN members (annex) (27 replies were filed)1; - Enquiry to the European Environmental Bureau and other organizations so as to make

it possible to build a profile of funding for environmental NGOs by Britain and other European countries; with search for related European information and documentation2.

1. IEN has 34 members, but the survey was limited to those funded both in 2011 and 2015. 2. The EEB declined to cooperate with the research, so its 111 individual members in the EU members states were

individually requested to provide this information.

7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I acknowledge the assistance of the following and thank them for their assistance, but first in the IEN office, Michael Ewing, Justin Byrne, IEN and Ian Carey.

IEN members who kindly returned questionnairesOisin Coghlan, Friends of the EarthSiobhan Egan, Birdwatch IrelandLiam Reamonn, Na Comhluadair Bheo TeoTom Roche, Just ForestsVanessa Moore, Global Action PlanMark Boyden, CoomholaMarguerite Arbuthnot O’Brien, CrannJohnny Woodlock, Irish Seal SanctunaryRonan Hannigan, Curlew TrustAndy Hallewell, Organic CentreTina Aughney, Bat Conservation IrelandMike Holden, Davie Philip, CultivateLisa Duncan, Irish Seed Savers AssociationCatherine Friedrich, GluaiseachtMindy O’Brien, VOICECatherine O’Connell, Irish Peatlands Conservation CouncilAndrew St Leger, CELTTheresa O’Donoghue, FEASTAMark Garavan, FEASTAKarin Dubsky, CoastwatchLorcan O’Toole, Golden Eagle TrustDermot Deering, Forest FriendsTony Lowes, Friends of the Irish EnvironmentMark McDowell, Irish Hedge Layers AssociationElaine Nevin, ECO UNESCODuncan Martin, The VillageCharles Stanley Smith, An TaisceMark Garavan, FEASTA andJack O’Sullivan, Castlepollard, co Westmeath.

European environmental organizationsBeatrice Stefanescu, Suceava, RomaniaChrister Ågren, Air Pollution and Climate Secretariat, SwedenClaus Jørgensen, Danish Consumer Council, DenmarkChristian Ege, Ecological Council, DenmarkMichael Vendelbo, Nature Research, DenmarkGaja Brecelj, Umanotera, Lyubliana, SloveniaSenka Vrbica, Legal Information Centre, SloveniaMarianne Burchard-Huber, Öko Institut, Freiburg, GermanyJohan Swahn, Swedish NGO Office for Nuclear Waste Review, Göteborg, SwedenJan Šamánek, Arnika - Toxics and Waste Programme, Prague, Czech RepublicAntje von Broock, Bund, GermanyCsaba Kiss, EMLA, HungaryNTM General, MaltaJiri Dlouhy, Society for Sustainable Living, Prague, Czech Rep.Blanche Weber, LuxembourgTina Divjack, CNVOS, Lyubliana, SloveniaMilena Marega, Regional Environmental Centre, Lyubliana, SloveniaMihaela Papazu, Asociatia Planeta Verde, Bucharest, RomaniaHetty Jongbloed, Natuur & Milieu, Utrecht, NetherlandsValentin van t’Riet, Milieudefensie, NetherlandsPauline Walters, European Federation of City Farms.

8

1 SITUATION IN 2015

9

1 SITUATION IN 2015

The purpose of the first chapter is to make a snapshot of Irish environmental NGOs in 2015 as to their funding, volunteering, staffing and membership now compared to 2011, including job changes and their cost (2.1); and then their expectations for future activities, barriers, prospective actions, skills required and costs (2.2). Conclusions are drawn (2.3).

1.1 FUNDING, STAFFING, VOLUNTEERS, MEMBERSHIP

IEN records were analyzed to compare the level of funding and human resources between 2011 and 2015. The 31 voluntary organizations differ significantly in their organizational, funding, volunteering and staffing patterns, ranging from large national organizations to quite small, specialized bodies3. The information was drawn from the annual membership application to IEN. The 2011 information was provided in February 2011, so the information is effectively drawn from 2010 accounts, with 2015 information supplied early that year giving us 2014 accounts, providing us with a five year timespan of 2010-14. Note that government funding comprises a mixture of grants and contracted work which may have been won under competitive tender. Table 1.1 compares the overall funding situation from 2011 to 2015.

Table 1.1: Change in funding 2011-2015

FUNDING 2011 2015 CHANGE

1 Total income for 31 organizations 8,216,516 5,561,447 -32.3%

2 - of which core grant 350,682 353,456 +0.8%

3 - of which other government funding 4,122,781 2,759,071 -33%

4 (Total government funding (lines 2 and 3) 4,473,463 3,112,527 -30%)

5 - of which all other funding (line 1 less 4) 3,743,053 2,448,920 -35%

6 % core grant of government funding 7.8% 3,112,527 +3.6%

7 % core grant of all funding 4.2% 6.35% +2.15%

8 % government funding of all funding 54.4% 55.9% +1.5%

Source: Survey of 31 IEN member organizations. Technical notes: to ensure comparability, organizations

funded in 2011 but not in 2015 are excluded, as are organizations funded in 2015 but not in 2011.

3. Size of these organizations varies greatly. Taking 2015 figures, income ranges from €10,437, the smallest (Irish Seal Sanctuary) to €1,463,775, the largest (Birdwatch), followed by ECO-UNESCO (€620,000), but most are at the lower end of the distribution.

10

This table and chart 1 show that total income fell over the five years from €8.2m to €5.5m, down -32.3%. Total government funding fell -30%, but within that the core grant rose slightly (0.8%) but other government funding fell by -33%. The fall in non-government funding was slightly higher than government, -35%. The proportion of the core grant in government funding rose 3.6%, as did the proportion of the core grant of all funding (+2.15%), as did the proportion of government funding of all funding (+1.5%). The core grant averaged €11,312 in 2011; €11,401 in 2015.

Chart 1: Income 2011-2015

Government funding for core operations is provided through an annual letter from the Department to the Irish Environmental Network. The following table, table 1.2, compares funding in 2011 and 2015 (over).

Table 1.2: Government funding for IEN, 2011 compared to 2015

2011 2015 CHANGECore funding (all organizations) 420,000 415,000 -1.2%

Research 18,000 10,000 -55.5%

Participation in government bodies 15,000 15,000 No change

Participation in meetings 24,000 12,000 -50%

Secretariat 97,000 100,000 +3%

Transport policy, biodiversity web 132,000

Training 8,000 6,000 -25%

Green Economy, Biodiversity policy, vide-oconferencing 21,000

Participation in planning 12,500 5,000 -60%

Total network funding 726,500 579,000 -20.3%

Environmental Law Implementation Group 90,000

Environmental Pillar 215,000 150,000 -30%

TOTAL NETWORK FUNDING + ENVIRONMENTAL PILLAR 941,500 729,000 -23%

0

2 250 000

4 500 000

6 750 000

9 000 000

2011 2015

350 682

4 122 781

3 743 053

353 456

2 759 071

2 448 920

Core Other govt Other

11

Chart 2: Forms of income, 2011-15

This shows an overall reduction of -23%. Within that, the two main constituents are funding for the Environmental Pillar, down -30% and network funding, -20.3%. In more detail, although the budget for the secretariat has risen +3%, there are reductions in core-funding for those organizations of -1.2%; and, the largest heading, the Environmental Pillar, -30%. Smaller funding lines are also down: research, -55.5%; participation in meetings, -50%; training, -25% and participation in planning, -60%. As a result of the cut in Environmental Pillar funding, compensation paid to member organizations for time spent on Pillar activities (representing the Pillar, developing and advocating Pillar policies etc) has been cut by -70%. Day rates were cut from €250 to €75. Table 1.3 compares the change in staffing:

Table 1.3: change, 2011-2015

2011 2015 CHANGE

Full-time paid 86 41 -52.3%

Part-time paid 84 117 +39%

Schemes 17 39 +129%

Interns 13 18 +38%

0

4 500 000

6 750 000

9 000 000

2011 2015

Core Other govt Other

2 250 000350 682

4 122 781

3 769 909

353 456

2 759 071

2 538 920

12

2011 2015 CHANGE

Students 17 2 -88%

Full-time unpaid 0 25 ≈

Part-time unpaid 4 37 +825%

Total personnel 221 279 +26.2%

Table 1.3 and chart 3 (left) reveal some remarkable changes. The number of full-time paid staff has fallen by more than half (-52.3%), while the number of part-time staff has risen significantly (+39%). The use of scheme staff has more than doubled (+129%), with a modest increase for interns (+38%). The number of students has fallen to the inconsequential, one may speculate due to the absence of supervision. Most dramatic is the rise in the number of full-time unpaid staff, from nil to to 25; and in part-time unpaid staff, from 4 to 37. Total personnel has risen, 26.2%, but with a transition from paid work to unpaid work. The imputed value of the unpaid staff work was, in 2015, based on the Living wage, €523,250 for full-time unpaid workers, €347,208 (part-time), total €899,3924. This would be much more if the economic value of interns and students were calculated.

Chart 3: Changes in type of staffing 2011-2015

0

30

60

90

120

2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 20112015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015

84%

117%

86%

41%

17%

39%

13% 18% 17% 2% 0%

25% 37%

0%

4. This is based on full-time workers working a 35hr/week (full-time) and 17hr/week (part-time) over a 52-week year at the Living Wage of €11.50/hour (www.livingwage.ie).

13

Total job losses were 45 full-time paid posts and the loss of 15 students. There was job creation, but this was in the form of part-time posts (33), scheme posts (22), full-time unpaid (25) and part-time unpaid (33). Based on an imputed average value of €35,000 a post, the value of the posts lost is estimated at €1.5755m. The annual value of the loss to the Revenue is in the order of €312,0756. The overall loss to Revenue is actually higher, if we were to add the full consequences of defunding out-lined earlier, such as non-recoverable VAT. We do not know where the lost full-time staff have gone, but granted the distinctive nature of their skills, it is most likely that they will have sought work in NGOs abroad, a considerable skills loss to Ireland.

Table 1.4 compares the change in volunteers. Four organizations have an exceptionally high level of members: An Taisce, Birdwatch, ECO-UNESCO and Irish Seed Savers, all over a thousand. Purely for statistical reasons, there may be some value in taking these outliers out of the equation so as to get an impression of the trend among smaller and medium-size organizations, so we get the figures listed in (b). The figures given here are conservative, based on baseline signed up members, normally paid, while num-bers on free mailing lists - which can be substantial - have been excluded.

Table 1.4: Changes in volunteering and membership, 2011-2015

2011 2015 CHANGEFull-time 39 126 + 223%

Part-time/seasonal849 1,035 +21%

Members (all) 33,694 32,409 -3.8%

Members (b) 5,341 8,239 + 54%

These figures show a significant increase in the level of volunteering, full-time more so than part time (223% and 21%). Overall membership has fallen slightly, if we include the largest four organizations (-3.8%), but risen significantly if we examine the rest (+54%). The value of the work of full-time volunteers was, in 2015, €2.63718m and that of the part-time volunteers possibly substantially more7.

1.2 INDIVIDUAL SITUATION OF MEMBERS

Members of IEN were invited, by questionnaire, to provide information on their individual situation under a number of headings (1.2.1-5). 27 replies were filed from the 31 members.

1.2.1 EXPANSION, CONTRACTION OR STABILITY

First, members were asked did they expect to expand, contract or stay about the same. The outcomes are evident in table 1.5.

5. Members estimated that the current cost of a post is €35,000. 6. For a post of €35,000, prototypical income tax is €3,940; PRSI, €1,400; USC, €1,595, total €6,935. Source: Dail Eireann, Debates, 13th October 2015, 134.

7. Likewise, this calculation is based on a 35hr week, 52 weeks/year, on the Living Wage. Information on the hours of part-time and seasonal volunteers is insufficient to make a reliable calculation.

14

TABLE 1.5: EXPECTATION OF EXPANSION, CONTRACTION OR STABILITY

No. %

Expand 22 85%

Contract

Stay the same 4 15%

26

As may be seen, 85% expected or hoped to expand; 15% to stay the same and none expected to contract. This may seem paradoxical, granted the radical contraction which has taken place and may be a tribute to a spirit of optimism in the environmental sector. Quite a number referred to a general expansion, upscaling of programmes and activities, to major projects coming to fruition (for example BATLAS 2020). Several planned significant policy engagements, examples being peatlands, Special Areas of Conservation, the water framework directive and working with government to help Ireland meet sustainable development targets for 2016-2030. Several planned to be involved in public consultations, one in the new Public Participation Networks. Several planned to expand their educational activities (e.g. training courses, interactive exhibits accredited courses), while others hoped to increase the number of sites they managed and nature centre visitors. Others had specific projects lined up, such as a coppicing programme for landowners and the expansion of tree nurseries. One hoped to get a Green Enterprise grant. One organization explained that it could not expand because it was dependent on volunteers and lacked the capacity to do so.

1.2.2 MAIN BARRIERS

Members were asked to itemise the principal financial barriers that they now faced in building the financial capacity of the organization. They painted a picture of organizations struggling below the critical mass of capacity for them to be effective, which is no surprise granted the figures presented above. One put it dramatically that ‘after eight years of cuts and savings, we still have a life-or-death cash-flow challenge’. Many referred to a chicken-and-egg situation in which they lacked the personnel, time or skills to get in the additional resources necessary to make the organization more self-sufficient. Some organizations were down to only one or two personnel, stretching them to the limits of ensuring that basic governance and administration tasks such as book-keeping were carried out. Even the small sums of money that they did receive had burdensome reporting and recording requirements. Substantial amounts of energy were devoted to survival. Staccato funding meant that staff were laid off and then rehired, but with the risk of losing them to more stable employers. Few were able to attract medium or long-term funding or sponsorship. Because of the economic climate, it was difficult to ask members for higher subscriptions. Reliance on volunteers and servicing them made it difficult to free up time for fundraising.

Many found themselves chasing relatively little sums of money from small funders, while lacking the time or skills to apply for larger, more substantial funders, some of whom required matching funds that were not available (only one spoke of its capacity to do so). Several spoke in frustration of how lack of funding made it ever more difficult to hold on to members, which created a vicious circle of decline in funds and participation. Some organizations, not necessarily all small, appeared to live a precarious existence, of how one had a ‘large bank overdraft, with ever reducing overdraft facility and a long-term loan. No cash flow to reinvest in the business and recruit staff for income generation’. With intermittent cash-flow, it was difficult to plan or be

15

enthusiastic. They were acutely conscious of their lack of fund-raising, application-writing and marketing skills to generate funding and support. Educational work was singled out as an area for which little funding was available, which they ended up absorbing under general costs. Although as IEN members they received some core funding (figures above showed the average to be around €11,000), this was insufficient to maintain core operations in a meaningful way and in effect small funds for individual projects were used to sustain the core. One organization told of the frustration of being able to deal with only a third of the cases coming in that required its attention - organizational deficits impeded its ability to carry out its original purpose. Another referred to how its capacity in research into salmon and pearl mussels had now been lost.

1.2.3 EXISTING ACTIVITIES

34 national NGOs work in fields ranging from economics to bat conservation and from climate change to resource efficiency (a listing is of activities is long, so is summarised in Annex 3). Many of the groups make substantial submissions in response to an increasing and wide ranging list of government consultation calls. There were 124 such submissions in 2014 alone.

In addition to working on their own core objectives, the 28 IEN members that form the Environmental Pillar collaborate on a very wide range of issues. The Pillar was established in April 2009 as the fifth national social partner and operates under a detailed Memorandum of Understanding between the member organizations. Members develop policies and actions through seven working groups:

· Climate and Energy· Law compliance and enforcement· Agriculture· Marine· Resource efficiency· Tree cover· Protection of the Natura directives

The Pillar is regularly requested to nominate persons onto government and international bodies. At present, some 40 people are nominated onto these bodies (annex 2). Member organizations are compensated principally from Pillar funds for this service to the state. The involvement of the Pillar representatives in the National Economic and Social Council is seen as particularly important but onerous.

According to the IEN, despite this very high level of engagement and activity, the government provided a level of funding of about 80% of that given to the Community and Voluntary Pillar, with much tighter control on how it was to be used.

1.2.4 PROSPECTIVE ACTIVITIES

Members were asked to itemise the main activities they would like to undertake in the areas of policy and practical activities. These were divided into policy, research and advocacy; and practical activities. Dealing first with policy, research and advocacy, members spoke of their desire to engage with government over policy issues, ensure that existing policies were more effectively implemented, taking the view that they wished to upskill themselves to do so more effectively.

16

Some wished to improve Ireland’s general response to climate change, while others wished to get involved in specific areas such as support for the development of ecotourism and assisting in the implementation of the government peatland strategy. The most useful way to capture the existing and prospective issues is through a summary table of broad policy issues, specific concerns and research, as follows (table 1.6).

Table 1.6: Summary issues on policy and research agenda

BROAD POLICY ISSUES SOME SPECIFIC POLICY ISSUES RESEARCH

Food securityWaste - zero waste, circular economyPeatlands and bog conservationEU2030 targetsClimate & carbonRenewable energyImplementation of environmental lawMarine environmentSustainable agriculturePublic participation in environmental decision-makingTree-coverbiodiversity

Healthy environment as constitutional rightBiodiversity in Tidy TownsFrackingDecline of the honey beeGlyphosphateCommunity energy cooperativesSection 4 licensingStakeholder group for national wind farm strategyRestoring peatland sitesPeat-free gardeningCommunity-led responses to climate changeUplands - vegetational cover, wildlifeNative tree enhancement in local authority development plansResponsible timber procurement for local authorities and corporate bodiesWildlife crimePromotion of solar energyIncoherence of national, local policies on hedge-layingStandards, qualifications in hedge-layingFoodwise 2025Protection of the EU Natura DirectivesImplementation of the Common Fisheries Policy and the EMFFSpatial planning policies, implementationEnvironmental impact assessmentAccess to informationPublic participationAccess to justice

Low-carbon economyBlight-resistant tomatoesVegetable diversificationPeatland ecosystemsCoastland species mappingCoastal oil spillsMarine litterSubstituting littering materialsMarine litter hotspotsMonitoring permits, licensesClimate change in coastal zones and transitional waterEnforcing wild food harvestingSpecific ecological needs of birdsHedgerow ecology, policies, practices, relationship with bio-diversityEuropean, national and local legislation on hedgerow conservation, managementPreferred habitats for hen harriers e.g. semi-natural or farmed uplandAccess to informationPublic participationAccess to justice

17

This provides a substantial agenda for the engagement of environmental NGOs in the fields of policy and research. Members also listed the practical areas in which they would like to be involved. The most striking aspect was the interest of members in investing in education, especially in schools and demonstration projects. The educational proposals were sophisticated, involving combinations of e-learning and in situ; programme and resource development; improved methodology and evaluation; move to on-line format to promote accessibility; teacher training. Several envisaged educational programmes across a broad range of methods and sites, such as lec-tures, courses, exhibitions, public meetings, classes, conferences, seminars, study groups, field expeditions. Another proposed immersive, experiential post-graduate modules in sustainability and sustainable forestry, while others target local authority officials. The most useful way to illustrate them is through a table, as follows (table 1.7).

Table 1.7: Areas of practical engagement for environmental NGOs

PROJECTS DEMONSTRATION AND EDUCATION

Local initiatives to plant appropriate treesConservation projects for bats, lures, survey equipmentSeed saving, orchard developmentMake commercial growers self-sufficient in seed,Use, expand woodland surveysSecond red kite release programme, in MunsterPeace forest along the borderAll - Ireland wildlife webImprove Streamscapes programme through better metrics, evaluation, engagementLocal conservation projectsSolar panels for schools, sports, communities facilitiesHelp local communities access sus-tainable energyIncrease sales of vegetables through website, digital marketing

Green SchoolsClean CoastsSustainable campusesSustainable communitiesSustainable hospitalsEducation and training on sustainabilityDemonstrate gardens, ecoparksOrganic gardening, cooking, anti-obesity in schoolsInteractive exhibit on green technologies, transition to low-carbon economyBest practice in practical management of peatlands for conservation and amenity; schools pack on peat, peatlands, raised bogsPromotion of socio-economic benefits of wildlife policiesWorkshops on biodiversity, native trees to mitigate climate change; development of pedagogical module on native trees, carbon capture and storageTwo pilot wildlife, ecology gardens in schoolsEducation for Sustainable Development (ESD) resources in schoolsCitizen scienceTraining courses for local authorities on hedgerows, where they currently lack expertiseVisits from schools, colleges, community groups; learning community eventsScope to expand visitors to ecovillage, bringing income to local communitySeed courses for growers and small-holdersExpand woodland management training for biodiversity

18

Again, as in the case in policy and research, this is a broad programme of engagement in practical activities, demonstration and educational projects across a wide range of axes and dimensions.

1.2.4 NEW SKILLS NEEDED

Finally, members were asked what new skills were needed in their organizations. Almost all cited fundraising at the top of the list, in some cases the only item on the list. Many cited skills related to or directly intended to support fundraising, such as marketing, public relations, communications, outreach, social media, website, advertising and membership development (there is some overlap between these terms). Many others wished to improve ancillary media skills, both in support of fundraising, but because they should be improved in their own right, examples being design, signage, graphics, blogs, presentational skills and article-writing. Others cited a broad range of other organizational needs, such as administration, information technology, governance, financial management, human resources, leadership, facilitation, teamwork, group dynamics, risk management, business planning, evaluation, impact assessment, board management. Two organizations spoke of how they would like to improve their skills of working with government departments, agencies and other NGOs, while another wished to recruit scientific skills. Several referred to the importance of having a dedicated fundraising officer, ‘who only tries to get in money, with a budget to make it happen’; more to a media and communications officer who could provide strong support for the fundraising effort.

1.2.5 FUNDING OF NEW POSTS

Members were asked how much funding would they need to create a single new post to undertake some of these activities and what would be the typical cost of a new post? Members gave indications in a very broad range, from €15,000 to €60,000, as follows, in table 1.8.

Table 1.8: Salary range of prospective new posts

Under €20,000 €20-29,000 €30-39,000 €40-49,000 €50-59,000 €60,000 or more

15-18 22.5-25-25-26-27.5-28 30-32.5-35-36-36 40-40-40-40-44-45 50-55 60

As may be seen, the main clusters of salaries are in the €20,000 to €45,000 range. The average is €35,000. The creation of 22 such posts in the environmental sector would, as averaged, cost €770,000. Of this total, €152,570 would come back to government in the form of income tax, PRSI and Universal Social Charge8. The actual cost of the 22 posts would therefore be €617,430. Set in a broader context, these 22 posts would replace less than half of the posts lost since 2011.

8. For a post of €35,000, prototypical income tax would be €3,940; PRSI, €1,400; USC, €1,595, total €6,935. Source: Dail Eireann, Debates, 13th October 2015, 134.

19

1.3 CONCLUSIONS

This chapter reviewed the funding, staffing, volunteering and membership of Irish environmental NGOs, comparing 2015 to 2011; and then examined their expectations of future activities, barriers to development, prospective activities, new skills needed and costs. The key findings are displayed in table 1.9:

Table 1.9: Key findings

Detailed examination of the financial figures showed that the fall in income from the government and other sources was similar (-33%, -35%). Core funding fell -1.2% (table 1.2), but funding for the Environmental Pillar was down -30%. A final comment is that these reductions should be seen in the context of an overall fall of government spending over 2008-15 of -6.18%. As can be seen, the cuts are four times higher than this overall reduction9.

The most dramatic change was what happened to staffing, with the replacement, on a significant scale, of full-time paid staff by part-time staff, scheme staff, interns, full-time unpaid staff and part-time unpaid staff. This sub-sector lost over half of its full-time staff, presumably its most skilled staff. It is fair to conclude that a significant process of deprofessionalization has taken place and that many of its most skilled staff have left and not been replaced. Whether voluntary organizations should have professional staff is a long-standing, contentious issue, as two examples show. The Minister for Finance once referred disparagingly to the ‘poverty industry’10. During the recent formation of Public Participation Networks (PPNs), local authority staff made it clear that they would deal with, but not fund, voluntary organizations because ‘voluntary means voluntary’11.

Total income of IEN organizations is down -32.3% over 2011-2015

Full time paid staff numbers are down -52.3%, 45 posts worth €1.575m, with an annual tax and related loss of €312,075

Part time staff are up +39%, schemes +129%, interns +38%, part-time unpaid +825%, with 25 new full-time unpaid posts

Volunteering is up +223% full-time, +21% part-time

The annual value of the work of volunteer staff was €899,392, while the annual value

of full-time volunteers was over €2.6m

Members are down -3.8%, but up in the smaller organizations

85% of members expect to expand their activities in 2016

Members outlined a range of policy and practice activities in which they would like to

engage, estimating that 22 new posts could be created at a cost of €770,000, of which

€152,570 would return to the Exchequer, at a net cost of €617,430.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9. The Wheel: Analysis of 2015 budget. Dublin, author, 2014. 10. Roche, William: Social partnership - from Lemass to Cowen. Economic & Social Review, vol 40, §2, summer 2009. The minister was Charlie McCreevy. 11. South Dublin Community Platform: Are you in or are you out? Community participation in South Dublin - the experience of the South Dublin Community Platform. Dublin, author, 2015.

1

20

On the other hand, during the development of the anti-poverty programmes, NGOs affirmed their need and right of to develop professional advocates, especially if they were ever to compete on more equal terms with well-funded industrial and farming interests.12 The deprofessionalization of the voluntary sector concerned with the environment heralds a return to an earlier, pre-modern age in which they were weak, amateur and ineffective, or as Wyn Grant referred to British environmental organizations in the 1970s, with ‘scruffy offices and poorly paid staff’13. Deprofessionalization critically undermines the ability to environmental NGOs to provide qualified, expert technical advice to government, its consultative bodies and its own members.

A survey of member organizations indeed found that many were now struggling below the critical mass of capacity for them to be effective. They found themselves caught in a vicious circle in which, down largely to volunteers, they neither had the time nor the skills to go out and seek funding from statutory, private or other sources. One or two remaining staff struggled to ensure that basic governance, accounts, book-keeping, monitoring and reporting and membership were maintained. Some were in a hand-to-mouth existence with financial horizons of months, a year at most. For those protagonists who argue that volunteers can ‘step in’ to replace where professionals leave, it is clear that the replacement of one by the other leads not to the flowering of voluntarism, but is instead the path to weakness, decline and potential ineffectiveness.14

Despite their precarious existence, these organizations had an ambitious list of what they would like to do, divided into broad policy issues, specific policy issues and research (table 1.6). Environmental NGOs outlined a broad range of practical projects and activities in which they wished to be involved. (table 1.7). There was a strong interest in educational programmes, despite the lack of dedicated funding for them. The two tables provide an impressive agenda of how Irish environmental NGOs can drive up environmental standards, policies, practices, projects and activities, strengthening the work of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government; the Environmental Protection Agency; other government agencies and the local authorities.

To carry out these tasks, member organizations itemised the skills necessary for them to survive and expand. It was no surprise that fundraising skills were top of the list, along with ancillary skills in the areas of marketing, communications, public relations and media. The typical cost of such a new post was estimated at €35,000. Although some organizations costed such posts as high as €60,000, most pitched their salaries at remarkably low levels, in some cases well into the low-pay economy (€15,000 - €18,000), with a big cluster in the €22,5090 to €36,000 range. This may be an indicator that existing, surviving salaries are quite low and shows that the costs of upskilling the environmental sector are quite low, compared to the significant con-tribution that they could make to environmental improvement.

12. The Wheel: Analysis of 2015 budget. Dublin, author, 2014. 13. Roche, William: Social partnership - from Lemass to Cowen. Economic & Social Review, vol 40, §2, summer 2009. The minister was Charlie McCreevy. 14. South Dublin Community Platform: Are you in or are you out? Community participation in South Dublin - the experience of the South Dublin Community Platform. Dublin, author, 2015.

21

2 IRELAND

IN COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

22

2 IRELAND IN COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

The purpose of this chapter is to explore and compare funding of NGOs in Ireland in a comparative international perspective. Here, this chapter examines the evolution of the environmental NGO sector in Ireland (2.1); Ireland in broad international comparative perspective (2.2); makes comparisons with Britain and Northern Ireland (2.3); and then draws conclusions (2.4).

2.1 EVOLUTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL SECTOR IN IRELAND

Estimating levels of funding for NGOs - be they environmental or otherwise - across national boundaries is notoriously difficult, for doing so faces challenges of definition of ‘environmental’, NGOs and types of funding systems. Historically, the Irish non-governmental sector concerned with the environment is known to be small, comprising only 0.7% of the total imputed value of volunteering, only 1.1% of the total operating expenditure of the sector, 0.9% of its total employment.15 A slightly later study confirmed the impression of its small size: although comprising 6% of voluntary organizations, it attracted only 0.9% of total funding and only 0.6% of state funding.16 It appears to be an outlier, compared to the rest of the Irish voluntary and community sector.

In the 1990s, voluntary organizations in Ireland had a very limited base. The oldest, An Taisce, despite its important role in planning and development, received no direct government funding, although it and other voluntary organizations used labour market schemes. As a result, their ability to enlist voluntary effort and contribute to policy was quite limited.17 The sector was considered to be still ‘weak’ in a follow-up study in 2002.18

Several external reports have drawn attention to the relatively small size of the environmental sector in Ireland. 19 During the 1990s, they were, like the rest of the Irish NGOs sector, very much below the critical mass necessary for effectiveness. Over the next number of years, many voluntary and community organizations, especially in the social field, benefitted from a substantial expansion of government and philanthropic funding, except that there were almost no philanthropic funders in the environmental field.

There is normally a direct relationship between the level of government investment and the size of the voluntary and community sector in general and its sub-sectors in particular. Historically, Ireland has always been underinvested, especially in comparison to Northern Ireland with which it shared a common heritage until 1922.20

15. Donoghue, Freda; Anheier, Helmut; & Salamon, Lester: Uncovering the non-profit sector in Ireland - its economic value and significance. Dublin, National College of Ireland, 1999. 16. Donoghue, Freda; Prizeman, Geraldine; O’Regan, Andrew; and Noel, Virginie: The hidden landscape? First forays into mapping non-profit organizations in Ireland. Dublin, Centre for Non Profit Management, Dublin University (Trinity College), 2006. 17. Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust: Rights and justice work in Ireland. York, author, 1993. 18. Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust: Rights and justice work in Ireland - a new base line. York, author, 2002. 19. Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust: Study on issues of funding, sustainability and social change on the island of Ireland. York, 2010; Philanthropy Ireland: Scoping of need in social justice sphere. Dublin, author, 2014. 20. Acheson, N et al: Two paths, one purpose - voluntary action in Ireland, north and south. Dub-lin, Institute of Public Adminstration, 2004.

23

2.2 IRELAND IN INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

If we set Ireland in comparative international perspective, the proportion of voluntary sector employment in the environmental field is 0.9%, which is less than Finland (1%), France (1%), Britain (1.3%) and far behind eastern European countries such as the Czech Republic (14.7%), Slovakia (6.8%) and Hungary (2.8%). If we look at volunteering full-time equivalents, the Irish level is 0.9% of the voluntary sector as a whole, compared to 5% in France, 2.9% in Germany, 1.3% in the Netherlands, 3% in Spain, 2.4% in Britain, 15.3% in the Czech Republic, 8.9% in Slovakia and 3.1% in Romania, with a European Union average of 1.9%.21 If we look in more detail at volunteering levels, this is low in environmental action in Ireland, 3%, compared to 6% in Slovakia, Sweden and Britain; 9% in Germany and 13% in Bulgaria.22

We do not have comparable data of government funding of the environmental sector in Europe as a whole, as they have not been collected, but some individual examples are available.23 These are limited figures of known, regular funding, likely to represent the low end of the overall total likely provided for environmental NGOs. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency allocates SEK12.537m (€1.34m) to environmental NGOs, of which 80% or SEK10.1m (€1.1m) goes to seven environmental NGOs (e.g. Coalition Clean Baltic) under a long-term support programme; with 20% allocated to projects, SEK 2.437m (€262,000).24 The Nuclear Waste Fund allocates €350,000 to two watchdog NGOs. The Swedish Chemicals Agency provides funding of SEK 3m (€322,000) for environmental NGOs working in the area of chemicals. Funding explicitly covers the testing of environmental standards through regulatory systems and court review. In addition, the government directs individual departments to support environmental NGOs (e.g. transport, marine water management), but figures are not available.25 In Denmark, the Consumer Council receives a grant of €2.1m to test chemicals against potential health and environmental damage.26 In the Netherlands, environmental NGOs receive substantial funding from government departments and the lottery, two alone receiving €4.71m.27 In Romania, the government provides funding to cover the cost of 10% of the budgets of projects of environmental NGOs.28 The government of Malta will cover 85% of the costs of projects in the area of Education for Sustainable Development.29 Figures are available from the Czech Republic, showing government funding

21. Salamon, Lester; Anheier, Helmut: The emerging sector revisited - a summary. Baltimore MD, Johns Hopkins University, 1998. Although these figures are now beginning to date they are the most recent available. 22. Gaskin, Katherine; Davis Smith, Justin: A new civic Europe - a study of the extent and role of volunteering. London, Volunteer Centre, 1995. The same comment applies. 23. Of the 111 national environmental organizations in other countries approached during this research, none was able to provide cross-national comparisons and few were able to present national data (Slovenia, Sweden, Czech Rep). Many volunteered that no such research had yet been done. Despite its long existence, the European Environmental Bureau does not appear to have yet carried out any research. 24. Exchange rate 9.3SEK/€ on 11th November 2015. 25. Information supplied by Christer Ågren, Air Pollution and Climate Secretariat; Johan Swahn, Swedish NGO Office for Nuclear Waste Review, Göteborg, Sweden. 26. Information supplied by Claus Jørgensen, Danish Consumer Council. 27. For example Natuur & Milieu, €1.06m; Milieudefensie, €1.75m with a further €1.9m from the Lottery. Information supplied by Hetty Jongbloed, Natuur & Milieu. 28. Information supplied by Beatrice Stefanescu, Executive Secrtary, GECB NOU. 29. Information supplied by Nature Trust of Malta.

24

(national and local) for environmental NGOs at Kč534m, or €19m.30 Comparisons are given in table 2.1 of regular funding in selected European countries against Irish Pillar and network funding.

Table 2.1: Funding of environmental NGOs in European Union (EU), selected states,

compared to Ireland

STATE AMOUNT

Netherlands1 €4.71m

Denmark2 €2.1m

Sweden3 €2.012m

Ireland4 €0.729m

Notes: 1: Figures as supplied above; 2: Consumer Council only; 3: combined figures of Environmental Protection Agency, Nuclear Waste Fund, Swedish Chemicals Agency; 4: as per table 1.2.

2.3 COMPARISONS WITH BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND

The environmental sector in Britain has recently been mapped.31 It comprises 139 organizations with 4.5m members and supporters, 11,125 full-time equivalents and an income of £984.9m. Median staff is 17 and median income £1.5m. Government support is the principal source of funding, £202.4m, 20.6% of income with a further £55.4m, 5.6% from the Lottery (total £257.8m, or €368m).32 This is a survey-based baseline, built on returns from receiving organizations. A second set of figures is available from examination of outgoing money by funders which show the most recent funding from the Lottery at £80.9m and government at £87.2m (total £168.1m or €240m). Specific grant aid in Northern Ireland (included in these figures) is £5.519m, divided between NI Environment Agency, £594,000 and NI Environment Agency Natural Heritage, £4.925m these being grants for biodiversity and landscapes. The Lottery in Northern Ireland provided grants £6.14m over a two-year period, or an annual average of £3.07m (total £8.589m, or €12.27m).

30. Šobova, Zdenka: Neziskové organizace v oblasti životního prostredi. Prague, 2008; Exchange rate 27 crowns/euro on 11th November 2015. 31. Cracknell, Jon; Miller, Florence; Williams, Harriet: Passionate collaboration? Taking the pulse of the UK environmental sector. London, Environmental Funders Network, 2013. 32. Exchange rate £0.70/€ on 11th November 2015

25

In addition, Britain and Northern Ireland have a significant foundation sector of 180 foundations which provide grants for environmental NGOs, £112.8m. NI-specific foundation grants were £856,528 over two years, or £428,264 annually.

We have a detailed picture of Northern Ireland’s environmental sector.33 There are 38 environmental NGOs, two thirds of which are NI-only, with 720 full-time staff.34 Their funding is £31.9m, of which £18m comes from non-governmental sources and £14.8m (€21.1m) from government, divided between Northern Ireland Environment Agency (£2.2m), government departments (£6.3m) and local government (£6.4m).

2.4 CONCLUSIONS

This short chapter set Ireland in comparative international perspective. The voluntary and community sector in Ireland as a whole has been historically underinvested. The environmental sub-sector of the voluntary and community sector in Ireland is known to be quite small, about 1% of its quantum, depending on what form of measurement one uses. Several independent commentaries noted its small size and limited, late development. It did not benefit from the expansion of philanthropic funding from the 1990s, which concentrated on the social sectors.

The Irish environment subsector scores low in international comparisons for employment, volunteering numbers and volunteering levels - not least against environmental sub-sectors in eastern and central Europe that started much later. Although information on government funding from other European countries is limited, it indicates that Irish funding falls below that of other countries where information is available. One notable feature of Scandinavia, absent in Ireland, is industry funding for organizations working against chemical hazards and nuclear waste.

Comparisons with Britain and Northern Ireland are perhaps the most instructive. Here, there is substantial funding for environmental organizations, both from government departments and agencies and the Lottery, the latter not yet having been used for this purpose in Ireland. Even allowing for differences of population and scale, the size of the environmental voluntary sector in Britain is a dramatic contrast, with its staff levels and huge memberships. Table 2.2 compares environmental NGOs in the British Isles.35 In the case of the UK and Northern Ireland, two sets of figures are given, one of the government’s assessment of support for environmental organizations; and the amount known to reach these organizations from survey samples.

33. Envision: The environmental NGO sector in Northern Ireland. Belfast, author, 2010. 34. This is based on returns from 38 out of 64 known organizations. 35. Ireland has a population of 4.587m, the UK 63.7m and Northern Ireland, 1.8m. The term ‘British Isles’ is a geographical one referring to these islands and does not have political connotations.

26

Table 2.2: Funding of environmental NGOs in the British Isles

FUNDING € PER HEAD EQUIVALENT TO IRELAND

Ireland €3.1m 0.67

Northern Ireland- (upper band)- (lower band)

€21.1m€12.27m

11.726.81

€53.7m€31.2m

United Kingdom - (upper band)- (lower band)

€368m€240m

5.773.76

€26.5m€17.2m

Ireland figure taken from Table 1.

As may be seen, funding levels per head are highest in Northern Ireland, followed by the UK as a whole. If Irish environmental NGOs were funded to an equivalent level (third column), they would receive funding in a band from €17.2m to €53.7m, or by a magnitude of between 5.5 and 17.3. In such a comparison, the reduced funding and de-professionalization of environmental NGOs noted in chapter 1 is all the more alarming.

Several features that ensure a positive funding environment in other countries are not present in Ireland. There is no funding of NGOs by the Environmental Protection Agency, nor is there a budget line yet available from the Lottery (although the legislation has been amended to make this possible). There does not appear to be industry funding, as is the case in Scandinavia. The principal philanthropic funder in Ireland over the past 20 years, Atlantic Philanthropies, did not fund environmental NGOs. Although there is a foundation in Ireland concerned with the environment, the Mary Robinson Foundation for Climate Justice, it does not have a funding stream.36 The only foundation identified by IEN members as supporting environmental concerns was National Toll Roads (NTR) Foundation. This currently provides support for Friends of the Earth and Birdwatch Ireland, as well as other projects outside the IEN network. The foundation operates on a proactive basis only (it neither solicits nor accepts applications, nor responds to enquiries), does not provide an annual report, nor does it provide information on grants provided.

36. Philanthropy Ireland: Scoping of need in social justice sphere. Dublin, author, 2014.

27

3 THE CASE

28

3 THE CASE

The task of this chapter is to outline the broad case for government to support environmental NGOs, starting with a narrative of the involvement of NGOs with government in general (3.2) and then environmental NGOs in particular (3.3), before a summary is outlined (3.4). First, a short background is presented (3.1).

3.1 BACKDROP

Environmental NGOs have a long history in modern Europe in general and in Ireland in particular. They are an integral part of what is called the ‘civil society’ or the community of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) or ‘voluntary and community organizations’, which essentially affirm the right of citizens to associate and organize together in a democracy for the public good. Environmental NGOs may be traced to conservation associations in the 19th century (e.g. Sierra Club founded by John Muir). From the awakening of environmental concerns in industrialized countries - landmark moments being Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962) and in the British Isles EF Schumacher’s Small is beautiful (1973) - there has been a rapid rate of formation of NGOs concerned with environmental issues.37 Environmental NGOs range in size, some having large, even mass memberships, whilst others are small; in scope, some being generalist, others having highly specialized concerns; in modus operandi, some being collegial whilst others take on vanguard form; in style, some being cooperative with government, others confrontational; some being highly local, whilst others work across continents and even globally. Even if its environmental NGO sector is less well developed than other countries, Ireland reflects this diversity.

Prompted by environmental NGOs, media and party activists, the Irish government established a Department of the Environment (1977); an Environmental Protection Agency (1992); and a set of environmental policies that followed, even if they fell short of the aspirations of the NGO community. Environmental actions received ever higher presence on the national agenda with the election of the first Green Party deputy (1989) and the participation of the Green Party in government (2007-2011). Governmental action on the environment was stimulated by the adoption, at European level of the Gothenburg summit (2001), of the environment as the third pillar for the development of the European Union, alongside economic and social development. In 2009 the Government established the fifth pillar of Social Partnership, the Environmental Pillar.

3.2 ROLE OF NGOS

Environmental NGOs fit into the long, post-enlightenment narrative of NGOs being a significant contributor to the public good, dating as far back as the campaign to abolish slavery in the 18th century.38 Voluntary organizations in the social field were significant contributors to the building of the post-Great War welfare state in Germany and then

37. Carson, Rachel: Silent Spring. Published in the New Yorker, June 1962, in three parts, subsequently in book form, its focus being the effect of pesticides such as DDT; Schumacher, EF: Small is beautiful. London, 1973. 38. Hochshild, Adam: Bury the chains - the British struggle to abolish slavery. New York, McMillan, 2005.

29

the post-Second World War reconstruction of housing, health and welfare across northern Europe, Les trente glorieuses années, the ‘thirty glorious years’.

Their role was recognised by interstate organizations, starting with the Council of Europe (1949), which developed formal structures for working with NGOs (consultative status, plenary forums, consultative committees). The European Communities, later the European Union, while eschewing such formal arrangements, developed a variety of mechanisms to work with advocacy organizations, including the funding of environmental networks. The European Commission formally presented a white paper On promoting the role of voluntary organizations and foundations in Europe (1997), one which acknowledged the role which NGOs played in active citizenship, democracy, social inclusion, representing civic interests to the public authorities and in promoting human rights and global development; the subsequent White paper on governance spoke of the role of associations in changing policy and society, with the need for those in authority to create ‘structured channels for feedback, criticism and protest’, a rare instance in which a role of ‘protest’ has been acknowledged and endorsed.39 The European Constitution, subsequently embodied in legal form in the Treaty of Lisbon, committed the Union to the principle of participatory democracy; opportunities for representative associations to make their views known and exchanged; and open, transparent and regular dialogue with representative associations and civil society.

In 1998 European governments and NGOs worked together under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) to establish the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Participation and Justice in Environmental Decision-making. The Convention recognises the special role of environmental NGOs in preventing environmental harm and in making public authorities answerable for their actions.

Over the years, a narrative has emerged in which the participation of NGOs in civic action and in working with government, works toward the ‘good society’, at a philosophical, political, policy and practical level. This narrative makes the case for the participation of NGOs in politics and public administration and is summarized under headings. The arguments are not mutually exclusive and may overlap:

- Participation: NGOs provides an important channel for citizens to participate in society, especially when membership of political parties is so unattractive and when other opportunities to participate in democratic decision-making are limited. In Britain, 43% of people participate in voluntary organizations, contrasting with a long-term decline in participation in political parties (2% now), so NGOs present a justification of what might be termed ‘politics by other means’, an essential element in a healthy, progressive, civilizing democracy;

- Improved policies: NGOs bring a broad range of information, options and solutions to government, improving the quality of the decisions subsequently taken and enabling government to avoid unintended and negative consequences;

- Expertise: Voluntary organizations bring skills, which can be quite technical and scientific, important for improving the quality of decisions and essential for informing generic, non-specialist civil and public servants;

39. European Commission: On promoting the role of voluntary organizations and foundations in Europe. Brussels, author, 1997; European governance - a white paper. Luxembourg, Office of Official Publications, 2001.

30

- Long-term perspective: NGOs promote long-term analysis and solutions to problems that extend beyond the five-year electoral cycle of government;

- Watchdog role: they improve the surveillance and accountability of government;- Minorities: NGOs are important for the presentation of minority views in majoritarian

political systems. They enable views to be fed in that might otherwise be overlooked;- Ground truth and new issues: voluntary organizations provide ‘ground truth’ to government

about situations of which it would not otherwise be aware. Related to this, as they seek to get fresh issues on the political agenda, they can serve as an early warning to government of upcoming issues that must, sooner or later, be addressed;

- Communication and buy-in: NGOs are an important channel of communication from government to people and vice versa, including the achievement of buy-in or acquiescence in complex and difficult decisions;

- Implementation: voluntary organizations play an important role in the monitoring, implementation and enforcement of government decisions (laws, policies, procedures, protocols, strategies). 40

In addition, there are important ethical reasons why government should support environmental NGOs, namely responsibility for the planet, both in Ireland and in developing countries. Many analysts have focussed on the expertise that NGOs can bring to government and public administration: as far back as 1977, they warned that government was becoming ever more complex, so this required fresh knowledge, technical skill and specialization.41 This role of expertise is now well documented in Britain, where The politics of expertise - how NGOs shaped modern Britain illustrated how professional NGOs led to much improved public administration whilst simultaneously engaging a wide range of citizens as supporters, funders and participants.42

This is almost certainly the outcome of sustained investment by British governments in them (table 2.2).

Recognition of the validity of the role of NGOs was seen in Ireland in the extension of social partnership (1987) initially to voluntary organizations representative of the un-employed (1995) and soon thereafter to what was called the Community Pillar, a process called ‘the long march through the institutions’.43 Subsequent analysis suggests that the Pillar influenced a number of positive social policy outcomes and that there were considerable gains not only to the Irish political and administrative system and the quality of decision-making but to democratic participation arising from social partnership and the bringing in to the political system of hitherto weak voices and perspectives.44 The late inclusion of the Environment NGO sector in social partnership in 2009 with the formation of the Environmental Pillar has also seen a shift in the awareness and engagement of a range of government departments on environmental issues and their integration in the economic and social well-being of Ireland.

40. The arguments are developed in detail in Advocacy Initiative: Funding dissent. Dublin, 2013. 41. King, Anthony: Why is Britain becoming harder to govern? London, BBC, 1976. 42. Hilton, Matthew; McKay, James; Crowson, Nicholas: The politics of expertise - how NGOs shaped modern Britain. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013. 43. Allen, Mike: The bitter word - Ireland’s job famine and its aftermath. Dublin, Poolbeg, 1998. 44. Larragy, Joe: Asymmetric engagement - the Community and Voluntary Pillar in Irish social partnership. Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2014.

31

The role of voluntary organizations has not always been accepted by government. From time to time, states seek to reconfigure the contours of that relationship, arguing for the supremacy of parliamentary government over insurgent external influences. Such examples are evident in Britain in the Britain in the 1980s, with the restriction of ‘political’ activity by voluntary organizations such as Oxfam; political vetting in Northern Ireland during the troubles; the dissolution of voluntary organizations in Slovakia over 1994-8. Not least have they been contested in Ireland, where the role of voluntary and organizations in partnership with the state, agreed in Supporting voluntary activity (2000) was repudiated only two years later. Prominent opposition ministers contested the admission of voluntary organizations to social partnership as undermining representative government. The Governor of the Irish Central Bank once described the influence of interest groups as having disastrous consequences for public finances.45 The Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell, condemned the ‘subsidizing [of] interest groups to bring dissent into the semi-state world’. The Centre for Public Inquiry, an NGO which investigated environmental and other corruption, was closed down after governmental intervention, the decision applauded in the Oireachtas. Within the public service, there are mixed views as to the merits of the contribution of NGOs to public administration, regarding them as disruptive to orderly government, some even attacking them as ‘a bunch of trots’ with ulterior political objectives.46 Hostility to environmental NGOs may be traced to the 1960s (e.g. criticism of the role of An Taisce) and may have strengthened in the austerity period from 2008. Although this research concerns the case for the role of environmental NGOs, it is important to be aware of sentiment, however crudely expressed, against NGOs in general and that there is a hostile counter-narrative. The discomfort of Irish governments and their departments with civil society and NGOs, coupled with Irish isolation from the mainstream European democratic experience, may help explain the defunding of the Irish voluntary sector in general and its environmental subsector in particular.

3.3 ROLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL NGOs

Environmental NGOs have fitted in well into this broad narrative of civil society’s contribution to ‘the good society’ and in some cases have formed the leadership of the NGO community as a whole, eastern and central Europe during the post-1989 transition being the best example. Overall, environmental NGOs worldwide have played a prominent role in policy-formation from local, to regional, national and even global levels, their presence being a key element of global environmental summits (e.g. Kyoto, Rio, Paris). They have been influential in pressing for the maximum possible outcomes and targets, supporting those governments seeking them and attempting to influence reluctant governments to be more supportive. NGOs have played an important role in the enforcement of international agreements, to give just one example the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) (1975) and tackling transfrontier environmental issues, such as acid rain.

In Europe, environmental NGOs have been important in strengthening legislation for environmental protection; promoting environmental democracy; increasing the allocation of structural funds for the environment, participating in planning and monitoring committees

45. Murphy, Gary: Interest groups in the policy-making process. John Coakley & Michael Gallagher (eds): Politics in the Republic of Ireland. London, Routledge & PSAI Press, 1999 (3rd edition). 46. Advocacy Initiative: Are we paying for that? Dublin, author, 2014

32

and making national development plans more rigorous.47 NGOs have been the key to the implementation of successful conservation projects with both the European Union and national governments under programmes such as Natura and LIFE+. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature led European measures in the areas of rainforest protection, logging prevention and the preservation of plants and wetlands, while the World Wide Fund for Nature led the introduction of consideration of genetic, species and ecosystem diversity.48 Numerous examples may be cited from individual countries, such as the ending of the nuclear power programme in several states, such as Germany.

The case of eastern and central Europe is of especial interest, for the environmental movement emerged from a state of considerable under-development. During the period of transition after 1989, funders ensured that its progress was well-tracked, so it is possible to assess its role and impact.49 Here, facing a legacy of environmental degradation on a sometimes massive scale, environmental organizations led the putting in place by national and regional governments of policies, legislation, practices and funding in such areas as biodiversity, the cleaning up of hazardous and nuclear waste, air and water pollution, reducing fossil fuels, architectural heritage, animal protection, habitat preservation, as well as campaigns of public education. They brought substantial technical expertise to bear which had hitherto been absent from government and arguably still is. The Aarhus Convention was the tool used in many of these countries to ensure the involvement and protection of these environmental NGOs.

Turning to the British Isles, in Britain, there was a substantial expansion of environmental NGOs in the 1970s, both in membership and staff which rose more than four-fold.50 Indeed, of all the new social movements, environmental groups grew the most over 1951-2006. Analysts of British politics credited environmental NGOs with affecting changes in such areas as the reduction of food additives and ensuring that policies in the areas of farming, forestry and land use took account of environmental concerns, broadening the field of ‘influencers’ and widening the participation in policy communities. To give two initial examples, the CLEAR campaign was responsible for the removal of lead in petrol, a neurotoxin responsible for brain poisoning (1983), while London First led the campaign for the improvement in public transport through the Crossrail project.51

Pearson traced the subsequent influence of British environmental NGOs.52 Their membership doubled in the last 20 years of the 20th century to 5m, tripling income to £300m. They combined groups working a ‘high’ policy level with radical grassroots action. The fields in which they were most influential were considered to be food health; the scaling down of road-building projects; animal welfare (banning fox-hunting, restricting export of live animals, controls over animal experimentation, halting extermination of badgers); ending deep sea dumping of oil rigs; reduction of organophosphates; pedestrianization of streetscapes; and elimination of CFCs in fridges. Many studies on the effectiveness of interventions by voluntary organizations

47. ECAS: The illusion of inclusion. Brussels, author, 2004. 48. Community Development Foundation: Networking in Europe. London, NCVO, 1995 (2nd ed). 49. Community Development Foundation: Networking in eastern and central Europe. London, Directory of Social Change, 1995. 50. Grant, Wyn:Pressure groups, politics and democracy in Britain. Philip Allen, Hemel Hempstead, 1989. 51. Wison, Des: Campaigning - the A-Z of public advocacy. London, Hawkesmere, 1993. 52. Coxall, Bill: Pressure groups in British politics. Pearson, Harlow, 2001.

33

cite those of environmental groups, examples being the ending of the export of live calves, ending veal crates and the suspension of the nuclear programme in Britain.53

Over time, environmental NGOs came to play an-ever more important role in decisionmaking that impacted, directly or indirectly, on environmental issues. The politics of expertise shows how integrated are environmental NGOs within the high-level political landscape in Britain and how environmental considerations have become a routine, accepted part of policy-making and its implementation.54 The chapter Ascent of the expert traced how the expertise of environmental NGOs was increasingly used by Parliament, parliamentary committees, Whitehall, commissions, consultations and investigations as well as the media. Walking the corridors of power traced their transition from ‘outsiders’ to ‘insiders’, to the point of becoming part of the policy élite, gaining access to No. 10, with even an environmental advisor in its policy unit and the first white paper on the environment, Our common inheritance. Whilst such an insider role carries a high risk of ‘capture’, it also brings concrete gains, ranging from rights to access to the countryside to the cessation of the dumping of industrial, sewage and nuclear waste at sea. It is evident that British governments have a much more mature, secure and relaxed relationship with critical environmental NGOs than is the case in Ireland.

In Northern Ireland, environmental NGOs believe that they make an important contribution to public consultations in the areas of planning and legislation, leading to improved outcomes; provide high-quality research, for example in the area of built heritage, which would be much more costly to government if done directly; and manage nature reserves and on-site conservation.55 The Envision report was important because it also asked for the government perception of the value of environmental NGOs, something which is rarely done. Northern Ireland departments and agencies valued the contribution of environmental NGOs in the areas of legislation, advice, formulating policy (e.g. renewable energy and fisheries) information, training, expertise and site management.

In Ireland, there is evidence that NGOs have played an important role in improving the quality of the environment. The formation of An Taisce in 1948 began with a campaign to prevent the conversion of North Bull Island into a tourist resort, the outcome being its repurposing as a bird sanctuary and later preventing landfill there. Modern examples include the role of Cork Harbour Alliance in preventing discharges from chemical plants, the scaling down of interpretive centre projects to be more sympathetic to the environment and the end of plans to run visually-intrusive pylons through the south-east.56 Over time, Irish environmental NGOs were able to build up their technical capacity to participate ever more meaningfully at a scientific, policy and legal level. Although the media focus has been on larger, national campaigns, especially those with a strong visual, confrontational element, community groups have successfully influenced the political and administrative system at local level through actions such as the banning of smoky

53. Simpson, David: Pressure groups. London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1999. 54. Hilton, Matthew; McKay, James; Crowson, Nicholas: The politics of expertise - how NGOs shaped modern Britain. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013. 55. Envision: The environmental NGO sector in Northern Ireland. Belfast, author, 2010. 56. Mullally, Gerard: Relocating protest - globalization and the institutionalization of organized environmentalism in Ireland in Linda Connolly & Niamh Hourigan: Social movements and Ireland. Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2006.

34

coal in Dundalk and the introduction of speed ramps in estates in Cork.57 A key moment for the environmental movement was the campaign around the Carnsore Point nuclear power station over 1978-80, ultimately leading to its abandonment by government.

In analyzing changes and improvements in environmental standards and conditions, decisions are the outcomes of a broad range of actors (e.g. governmental, international) and it is difficult to forensically extract examples where environmental NGOs have played the decisive part. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify outcomes where environmental NGOs have been important. Irish environmental NGOs have made significant gains in environmental protection across multiple fields, such as air, water, soil, food, health, trees, bogs, waste and recycling, urban and rural landscapes (e.g. visually intrusive masts), transport, education, environmental democracy and animal welfare:

- The banning of bituminous coal, leading to improvements in air quality; - Targets for the ending of industrial production of turf;- Improvement in water quality in harbours, rivers, coasts and beaches (Blue Flag);- Reduction in litter levels, including charges for plastic shopping bags;- Protection of bird species (e.g. corncrakes, curlews), reintroduction of extinct birds (e.g.

kites, eagles);- Improvements in environmental health, such as banning smoking in public places;- Improvement in levels of recycling;- Extension of cycling as a transport mode, with cycleways and routes;- Growth in organic farming, improved land use and bog protection;- Diversification of energy sources, with increasing use of solar power, electric cars;- Insulation, more efficient heating systems and energy auditing;- Inventorizing bird populations through bird survey programmes;- Educational gains from programmes such as Green Schools, Spring Clean, Irish Business

against Litter and Green Homes.58

3.4 CONCLUSIONS

This chapter traced the emergence of the environmental non-governmental sector and how environmental issues rose to prominence in Ireland. The chapter examined the broad role of NGOs in constructing modern, post-enlightenment societies and recognition of this role at European level. A narrative has emerged in which they work with government at a philosophical, political, policy and practical level whilst enlisting a broad base of citizen action. There are nine explicit ways in which NGOs do so, one of the most important being the bringing of expertise, knowledge, science and technical skills to the complex area of environmental decision-making, implementation and the driving up of standards. Here, environmental NGOs entered the process of social partnership in recent years, but a particular Irish problem has been hostility to the non-governmental community as a whole, which may explain its dramatic loss of funding in the past decade.

57. Combat Poverty Agency: Working for change. Dublin, author, 1998, 2002, 2008. 58. Gormley, John: The green guide for Ireland. Dublin, Wolfhound, 1990; Watson, Clare; O Cadhla, Micheal; Ni Dhurcain, Cristiona: Campaigns and how to win them. Dublin, Wolfhound, 1997

35

Environment NGOs fit in well with the broader narrative of the progress toward ‘good society’, with examples across Europe of reduced pollution, the avoidance of environmentally-destructive policies and projects, concrete actions for nature preservation, the driving up of standards, the elaboration of ever-more sophisticated policies for sustainability, with measures documented at local, regional, national and international level. Although environmental NGOs cannot and do not claim sole credit for environmental improvements, their role as chief drivers is difficult to dispute. In Britain, with its well-supported environmental sector, environmental NGOs have become an integrated, effective part of policy-making and implementation on the inside, underpinned by strong, mass memberships and civic action on the outside.

Doing so requires a high level of skill sets, such as in economics, environmental science, project planning and organizational management.59 Organizations considered effective invested in effective communications and media profile; lobbying govern-ment; quality research and building an evidence base; and anticipating new and emerging issues (‘horizon scanning’) - all requiring high skill levels. Such effectiveness was based on a combination of strong membership and professional staff. Britain’s improved environmental was built on the back of a highly professional, skilled, expert, knowledgeable environmental sector. This experience could not be more dramatically contrasted with the deprofessionalization of the Irish environmental sector since 2011. Ultimately it is not in the interest of government - nor, more importantly the environment itself - that it be weak and unskilled.

59. Cracknell, Jon; Miller, Florence; Williams, Harriet: Passionate collaboration? Taking the pulse of the UK environmental sector. London, Environmental Funders Network, 2013.

36

4 SUMMARIZING THE CASE

37

4 SUMMARIZING THE CASE

Chapter 4 summarizes the case why the Irish government should provide a firmer level of support for environmental NGOs. The Irish Environmental Network has already made the case for government support on the basis of the urgency and imperative of environmental action; international recognition of the important role of NGOs (Rio, 1992); the practical value of IEN members in education, monitoring, policy and site management; and their value for money.60

Making the case for the Irish government to provide a firmer level of support for environmental NGOs relies on the following:

- The creation of a narrative of the role of NGOs as part of the post-Enlightenment history of civil society, citizen engagement and the their contribution to improved policies in the political administrative system, the ‘good society’;

- Their specific contributions on the nine grounds outlined in chapter 2: participation, improved policies, expertise, long-term perspective, watchdog role, minority views, ground truth and new issues, communication and buy-in, implementation;

- The historic role of environmental NGOs in Europe, the British Isles and Ireland in particular in enlisting citizens in environmental protection and successfully influencing government to improve policies, standards and practice;

- Examples, notably from Britain, of how a well-funded environmental sector with mass membership, two elements of which are connected, is an integrated part of environmental decision making from the highest to the lowest level, providing critical expertise unavailable in any other way, backed by strong public support;

- The low level of funding of environmental NGOs in Ireland, notably in comparison to the UK as a whole and Northern Ireland in particular;

- The absence of funding mechanisms in Ireland which sustain environmental NGOs elsewhere, such as Lottery, industry and philanthropic funding;

- The de-funding and deprofessionalization of the environmental sector in Ireland since 2011, which has left it weak, unable to recruit members and support, denuded of technical expertise, surviving on a shortterm basis, less and less able to contribute to policy, practice and standards, below the critical mass needed for effectiveness;

- The lengthy agenda of those actions which it would like to - and is enthusiastic to - undertake in the areas of policy, research, practice and education;

- The considerable potential gains to government, public administration and society as a whole from the rebuilding of its capacity to a meaningful level.

60. Irish Environmental Network: Submission from the IEN to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on IEN funding for the period 2010-2012. Dublin, author, 2010.

38

ANNEXES

39

ANNEX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear [member of the Irish Environmental Network]

My name is Brian Harvey and I am a researcher tasked by the Irish Environmental Network (IEN) to write a report on the changing level of funding and staffing for environmental NGOs in Ireland over the last five years 2010-15; to compare funding for environmental NGOs in Ireland with Britain and continental Europe; and to make the case for the benefits to (1) the environment in both practice and policy (2) these NGOs arising from improved levels of government support, using any arguments that may be persuasive.

As part of this, I am surveying members for their views in a number of key areas that are important if they are to expand their role and activities in the coming years. I am asking you for about 10-15min of your time if you could help me by responding to the following questions, suggesting that you add them in at the appropriate point either in the body of the e-mail or alternately in the attached document, please; and then return to me. All views will be treated not-for-attribution to any particular individual or organization.

Questions

1. Over the next few years, do you expect to:

- Expand your activities- Contract- Stay about the same

Can you say why?

2. What are the main barriers you presently face as an organization?

3. What activities would you like to undertake in the areas of:

- Policy- Practical activities

4. How much funding do you need to create a single new post to undertake some of these activities? What is the typical cost of a new post?

5. What new skills do you need in your organization?

40

ANNEX 2: ENVIRONMENTAL PILLAR REPRESENTATIVES ON INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL BODIES

European Economic & Social Committee Cillian lohan

National Economic and Social Council Oisín Coghlan, Karin Dubsky, Siobhán Egan, Michael Ewing

Fisheries Advisory Committee (SUPENDED) Karin Dubsky, Siobhán Egan

RDP Advisory Committee Cillian Lohan, Anja Murray

Public Transport Partnership Forum James Nix, James Leahy, Charles Stanley-Smith

Housing Forum Emer O’Siochrú, Charles Stanley-Smith

National Forestry Policy Review Group Anja Murray

Advisory Council for Dumping at Sea Licences Karin Dubsky

National Rural Network Emer O’Siochrú, Alex Copland

SEA on Offshore Sustainable Energy Production Karin Dubsky

CAP Post 2013 Consultative Committee Andrew St ledger, Alex Copland

Designated Areas Appeals Boards Karin Dubsky, Siobhán Egan, Anja Murray

North-South Consultative Forum Michael Ewing

The National Monitoring Committee of the European Fisheries Fund Karin Dubsky, Ed Fahy

Sea Food Monitoring Committee Karin Dubsky

Catchment Flood Risk Assessment and Management (CFRAM)Tina AughneyKarin Dubsky

Charles Stanley-Smith

Eirgrid Board Prof Patrick Devine-Wright

EPA Advisory Committee David Ball

Monitoring Committee of the N-S INTERREG

Sean CroninAlternate Aedin McLoughlin

Monitoring Committee of the Wales-Ireland INTERREG Charles Stanley-SmithKarin Dubsky

National Waste Prevention Committee Mindy O’Brien

Public Water Forum Mindy O’Brien

PEACE IV Programme Monitoring Committee Aedin McLoughlin

Public Participation Network Oversight and Implementation Committee Michael Ewing

41

ANNEX 3: RANGE OF ACTIVITIES IN WHICH IEN MEMBERS ARE ENGAGED

· Awareness raising througho Hands on conservation activitieso Educational programmeso Workshops o Exhibitions o Publicationso Media o Campaigns

· Monitoring ofo Littero Beacheso Waterso Biodiversityo Emissionso Industrial activitieso Planning and developmento Protection of SAC/SPA/NHA siteso The activities of local governmento The activities of semi-state bodieso The drafting of environmental lawo The implementation of environmental lawo The Implementation of International Commitments

· Training the public in o Skills related to the different monitoring activitieso Sustainability practiceo Basic environmental researcho Planning law and procedureso Organic practiceso Alternative energy systemso Powering downo Green employmento Access Rightso Forestry

· Carrying outo Independent cutting edge researcho Research in conjunction with other bodies (the EPA,

NPWS etc.) which makes use of the large, geographically widespread volunteer networks

o Citizen Science researcho Both independently and at the request of

government, the EU and other international bodies, reviews of and making submissions on

Policies Programmes Strategies Legislation Planning and development

o Legal and administrative challenges to inaction and action by the relevant authorities resulting in environmental harm

· Taking an active part in o Intergovernmental conferenceso International civil society conferenceso Meetings with government and other stakeholderso NESCo River Basin District Advisory Councilso Community Fora

o SPCso CDBso ILDCso UBPso Public Participation Networkso A range of other Government consultative bodies

· Coordinating civil society stakeholder engagement with government

· Taking unpopular ethical stands on behalf of the environment, and so initiating the political changes needed to protect the environment.

· Managing

o Prototype projectso Historic propertieso Species reintroductions

· Proposingo New policy directionso New answers to pressing issues

B r i a n H a r v e y S o c i a l R e s e a r c h2 R a t h d o w n c r e s c e n t

Te r e n u r eD u b l i n 6 W, I r e l a n d

Te l 0 0 3 5 3 1 4 9 0 3 0 3 9e - m a i l : b r h a r v e y @ i o l . i e

Irish Environmental Network (IEN)

Irish Environmental Network (IEN)

L a y o u t a n d g r a p h i c s O l g a Z o m aP u b l i s h e d b y t h e I r i s h E n v i r o n m e n t a l N e t w o r k

M A C R O C e n t r e1 G r e e n s t

D u b l i n 7

R e g n o : 3 5 0 1 8 2

FUN

DIN

G EN

VIRON

MEN

TAL N

ON

-GO

VERNM

ENTA

L ORG

AN

IZATION

S IN

IRELAN

D

December 2015

B r i a n H a r v e y S o c i a l R e s e a r c h

2 R a t h d o w n c r e s c e n tTe r e n u r e

D u b l i n 6 W, I r e l a n dTe l 0 0 3 5 3 1 4 9 0 3 0 3 9