CENTRE for CROSS BORDER STUDIES

The general view of the Centre is overwhelmingly positive. Comments may be summarized as follows:

• The work it is doing is valuable and recognized as a vital adjunct to the political settlement achieved over the past four years.
• The Centre is seen as a serious body anxious to make an impact. It is reaching the right people. The Centre is seen as dynamic, entrepreneurial and quick to spot opportunities (e.g. the project to analyse the issues arising from the foot-and-mouth epidemic).
• The Centre is seen to have almost passed through its experimental phase and to be a feature of the cross border landscape. Several commentators saw it as 'the unofficial research wing of the Belfast agreement'.
• It is visible, conspicuous and has a strong profile. It 'punches above its weight'.
• The research reports are lucid, tightly written, with, due to effective editing, little or no padding. The research reports are professionally produced and well received.
• It is well thought of among peer groups.
• It has low costs, low overheads, is 'swift and light' in its operation.
• The three book publications are liked. Some rated them as one of the most important products of the Centre, designed to provoke opinion.
• Its policy proposals are seen to strike the right tone: challenging enough to provoke a response, but not so controversial as to lose support. The Centre had been right to focus on practical issues of co-operation in a pragmatic way and this had brought on board a significant element of unionist thinking.
• It is politically balanced, independent, credible and non-partisan. It has pursued cross border issues in a non-ideological way, without permitting these issues to be defined either in a nationalist or unionist way (though recognising that such differences exist).
• The Centre seems to have a good combination of means of work: in-house research, commissioned research, the call for proposals, study days, publications. Study days provide important neutral networking opportunities and a safe place for people to debate. These off-the-record fora are highly valued by public servants. Through the Centre, academics had done work that is seen to be relevant, useful and practical.
• Its reports are seen to score highly for volume, relevance and quality. The reports are seen as substantial, weighty and more than up to academic standard. They are seen to have attacked a broad spread of carefully chosen issues. It is acknowledged that the Centre cannot take on all issues, but it is considered to have made a number of judicious, shrewd, well-balanced choices. Many commented on the remarkable volume of output in a short period with only limited funding. All are impressed with the amount of activity carried out in a short period of time. 'A lot has been achieved in a short period' is a typical comment.