Government’s islands strategy a disappointment

We departed Rossaveel in high spirits, bound for Inis Oírr. There was an air of excitement as we approached the island.
The new harbour was a huge improvement on what I had seen on a previous visit in 1965, although it would be very exposed to easterly gales. There were many new houses and modest traffic jams of cars, tractors and jarvies.
As we landed, two more ferries arrived from Doolin. A huge influx of visitors disembarked and spread out to explore this beautiful island. A key attraction was the rusty shipwreck – the Plassy – iconic from the opening sequence of Father Ted.
Tourism certainly pumps money into our offshore islands, but mainly during the high tourist season.

Whittled away
Economists are not indifferent to the beauty of islands, but we also try to understand how their economies function. There is a hierarchy in our nation’s economy. At the top are the five big cities. Next comes the hinterlands of these cities. Then, the Northern and Western Region (excluding Galway), followed by the Atlantic seaboard. Finally, our offshore islands: the periphery of the periphery’s periphery.
As late as the 1990s, island infrastructure (harbours, roads, electricity, housing, etc) was bad. A plan to make improvements was set out in a government report of 1996: ‘Island Development – A strategic framework for developing the offshore islands of Ireland’. This was a pragmatic and down-to-earth programme, and major improvements were made over the following decade.
A few days after our Inis Oírr outing, Minister for Rural and Community Development Heather Humphreys launched a new strategy for Irish islands: ‘Our Living Islands – National Islands Policy 2023-2033’. I looked forward to learning how the 1996 island strategy had succeeded in its objectives to improve island life; how things fared today on the individual islands; and how the new strategy would focus on addressing persistent and emerging island challenges.
I was to be disappointed.
The 80 inhabited Irish islands are whittled down in the new strategy to 23. Six are in Mayo; four in Galway. Many were ignored because they are either connected by a bridge to the mainland or have no permanent population. The Inishkeas, Inishshark and the Blaskets (long abandoned) don’t make the cut.
The strategy’s aim is admirable: ‘To ensure that sustainable, vibrant communities can continue to live – and thrive – on the offshore islands’. However, the graph showing the inexorable decline of total island population was ominous, as was the older age profile. Total island population declined by 42 percent between 1961 and 2016. The 1996 strategy, in spite of its many merits, had not prevented further haemorrhaging of island population – while national population grew by 69 percent.

Vague talk
Islands share many of the characteristics of rural hinterlands in counties like Donegal and Mayo. While towns and villages often show remarkable growth, many rural areas are struggling. In effect, an island strategy resembles a mainland rural strategy, but for a region that has difficult access problems and has no towns of any size. Population revitalisation and diversification of island economies pose challenges that are not addressed credibly in Minister Humphreys’s new strategy.
A basic requirement for a family living on an island (or anywhere else) is a roof over its head. The housing crisis playing out across the mainland and planning restrictions are even more serious on the islands, and the modestly higher financial supports offered to islanders for house renovations are nowhere adequate to compensate for the higher cost of building on an offshore island.
The unreality of the new strategy becomes obvious when it turns to the diversification of island economies.
No effort was made to construct a detailed baseline profile of the economy of each individual island, even for the larger ones. The Government’s ‘Our Living Islands’ strategy jumps straight into vague talk of remote working, culture and heritage, agri-food, marine economy, design and crafts, audio-visual services, renewable energy, tourism.
I can almost see the mainly Dublin-based civil servants sitting at their desks, puzzled as to why islanders are not forging ahead, modernising their economies and creating ‘smart’ villages. This speaks of an incredible lack of situational awareness. Do these policymakers ever visit our island communities and observe the actual challenges they face?

Killer blow
When the strategy turns to empowering island communities it is depressingly cynical. The very last thing this government wants is to create properly resourced island-based community structures where people can collectively analyse the reasonable needs of their island, arrive at decisions, and speak truth to Dublin power.
Government much prefers a situation where ‘the successful delivery of this policy will require a collaborative, participative and shared approach between Government Departments, public bodies, local and community groups and islanders themselves’. We all know who will call the shots in that kind of messy, top-down set-up. It will not be the islanders.
Policy in the absence of funding is useless. The killer blow at the end of the strategy is where it is stated that: “Funding of the commitments contained in this policy will be met from the votes/budgets of the relevant Government Departments, agencies and other bodies responsible for the delivery of the relevant actions and policy measures.”
From bitter experience, we know that Government Departments in Dublin operate in deep, opaque and uncooperating silos, despite the weasel words of ‘whole-of-Government’ policymaking. In such an environment, the complex range of policy actions needed to revitalise our islands has little chance of being designed, funded, or delivered, and the ominous graph of declining population is likely to continue its downward trend.
Ill fares the land.

John Bradley is a former ESRI professor and has published on the island economy of Ireland, EU development policy, industrial strategy and economic modelling.