Lack of agreement on the Haass-O’Sullivan proposals on flags, parades and how to deal with the past was “disappointing” but not the end of the process, it has been claimed.

In a cautiously upbeat assessment, Prof Meghan O’Sullivan insists progress can still be made with the support of the British and Irish governments and a constructive spirit among the five parties. A timeline was needed for fresh discussions among the parties, Prof O’Sullivan, co-chair of the initiative, says.

There remains "a lot that can be capitalised on" in the final draft proposals, she said last night. Prof O'Sullivan told The Irish Times from Washington: "There is momentum behind some of the ideas [in the final Haass-O'Sullivan paper] and there continues to be a very real need from the perspective of the people who live in Northern Ireland to have their politicians sort this out and find a way forward."

Referring to the leader of the five parties involved in the talks which broke up without accord early on New Year’s Eve, she said: “There are leaders, not just of their parties and not just of their communities, but of Northern Ireland as a whole. Certainly the case can be made that [agreement] can be good for Northern Ireland. That is a ‘slam dunk’.”

She said there was enough in the outline agreement for each of the parties to progress.

The final draft was written by herself and Richard Haass, fully aware that the party leaders were thinking of elections later this year. "Everybody has political calculations to make so we tried to be as responsive as conceivable without creating an agreement which no one could sign up to."

On plans for the parties to take part in a working group in the search for agreement, Prof O’Sullivan said: “Realistically the most fruitful next step would be for the parties when they come together in the working group to declare a timeline under which they plan to resolve outstanding issues and move to expeditious implementation.

“They need to make clear that this working group is not going to be a talking shop, it is . . . going to be a forum to advance the ball.”

The parties could help each other, she insisted. They needed to consider “how do we make it possible for the others to deliver on the agreement? . . . I don’t know if there was enough of that in the room this time.” It was a pity the parties were “focused too much on the trees and not on the forest”.