Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 14 Mar 1985

Vol. 356 No. 12

Ratification of Third Lomé Convention: Motion.

Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. P. Barry)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Third ACP-EEC Convention, signed on 8th December 1984, together with the related internal agreement on the measures and procedures for implementation of the Convention and the internal agreement on the financing and administration of Community aid, signed on 19th February 1985, copies of which have been laid before the Dáil.

I am pleased to bring before the Dáil this motion concerning the Third Lomé Convention. I think it is fair to say that one of the most significant achievements of the recent Irish Presidency was the successful conclusion of the negotiations for the present Convention after more than a year of long and at times arduous negotiations.

The Lomé Convention is probably the best known instrument of the Community's development policy and it is certainly the most important. It grew out of the two original Yaounde Conventions signed in the 1960's between the original six member states of the Community and a number of their former colonies, for the most part in French speaking West Africa. Following the accession of the United Kingdom to the Community, negotiations began on a broader, more ambitious association agreement. Twenty independent Commonwealth countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific participated in these negotiations. The first ACP-EEC Convention was signed in Lomé, the capital of Togo, on 28 February 1975. At the time, the Convention was hailed as the most extensive co-operation agreement in the history of North-South relations. In contrast to the previous Conventions of Yaounde, the Lomé Convention, as it quickly became known, granted free nonreciprocal access to the Community market for almost all ACP products. In addition, it made available considerable financial and technical assistance for a wide range of ACP projects, primarily in the agricultural and industrial sector. However, the most significant innovation of the Convention lay unquestionably in the field of commodities with the introduction of a system to guarantee compensation for losses in commodity export earnings of ACP countries. The scheme, known as Stabex, covered a range of basic agricultural commodities and was designed to alleviate the worst effect of fluctuations of prices on the world market or to offset the effect of natural disasters on commodity production.

By 1979, when it was time to renegotiate a successor to the first Lomé Convention, the Community's attitude was undoubtedly coloured by the fact that there had been a steady deterioration in the international economic situation which had affected the economic performance of most industrialised countries, including the member states of the Community. On the ACP side, there was disappointment that the Convention had not proved to be the panacea for their development problems that they had hoped. Nevertheless, there was a general recognition on both sides that the Lomé framework should be retained, as should the principal instruments of ACP-EEC co-operation. The second Lomé Convention which was signed on 31 October 1979 was, therefore, more than a mere consolidation of Lomé I. One of its new features was the setting up of a system, known as Sysmin, to help ACP countries, whose economies were heavily dependent on the export of minerals to the Community, and which had not, generally speaking, benefited significantly from the provision of Stabex. The Community also agreed to increase the resources available under the Convention in real terms to shift more resources into the agricultural chapter of the Convention.

The negotiations for the Third Lomé Convention began in October 1983 and were concluded over one year later after six ministerial negotiating conferences. At the outset it was clear that the fundamental lines of the previous Convention should be confirmed and agreement was quickly reached on a number of broad objectives. Having defined the general objectives, the next task of the negotiators was to work out, in the body of the Convention, areas of joint action, and to emphasise those sectors of co-operation which should be given priority.

One such sector is agricultural development and in particular, food security and food self-sufficiency. I know the concern of this House about the situation in many parts of Africa where famine is at present widespread and I am sure Deputies will welcome the importance which the new Convention gives to tackling the long-term food requirements of Africa. In my address on the occasion of the signing of the Third Lomé Convention, I said that the most immediate problem in Africa was that of hunger. The first priority must, therefore, be action to enable Africa to feed her people. In addition to providing as much short-term relief as we can, we must look towards the future and tackle the problems in a more comprehensive and integrated way than in the past. We have made it clear in the Convention that it is our aim to develop food strategies, with the full co-operation of ACP Governments, so that imported food will gradually be replaced by local, national production. This will demand much closer co-ordination between the Community and the countries concerned to work out and implement an agricultural policy best suited to the needs of each country. In general, emphasis will be on small farming, the training and development of small farmers, better distribution of agricultural products within the country concerned or on a regional basis, and better storage of products.

Many developing countries will, nevertheless, not be able to feed their populations by their own efforts. In these situations, the Community will continue to provide aid programmes which operate outside the scope of the Convention. The ACP countries have, for some time, been asking for access to the Community's food surpluses on favourable terms and I am pleased to note that the Community has in the new Convention adopted a more flexible attitude. Under Article 34, there will now be the possibility of longer term advance fixing of refunds on the export of those agricultural products available to the Community. Specific agreements may be made with the ACP countries who request them in the context of their overall food security requirements.

Agriculture in general, and the production of food in particular, is constantly under threat in many parts of Africa from drought and desertification. For the first time the Lomé Convention is making resources available to tackle these and other environmental problems. During the negotiations there was a recognition by both sides that the physical, economic and political existence of certain ACP states is threatened by endemic drought and growing desertification which will nullify all efforts at development, and in particular the achievement of the priority objective of self-sufficiency and food security. Inventories will therefore be made of the water tables in the most badly affected areas. Other measures will aim at controlling and preventing bush fires and general deforestation. Improved training and technical assistance is envisaged and this should bring about better management of forests and create a greater awareness of the dangers of soil erosion and deforestation among local populations.

One of the major problems in Africa is the dependence on wood as a fuel. It is hoped that measures contained in the Convention which encourage the development of new and renewable sources of energy such as biomass, wind and solar energy, will greatly reduce this dependence. I would like to mention, incidentally, that this is an area in which we are active under our own bilateral aid programme notably through peat development in Burundi and experimentation with papyrus reeds as a source of fuel in Rwanda. It is a pleasure for me to be able to note, and pay tribute to, the technical expertise which Bord na Móna are contributing to these projects.

While agriculture and the drive for food self-sufficiency are of paramount importance, industry, too has a role to play in the development of ACP countries and the creation of an adequate standard of living for their people. The emphasis in the new convention will be on restoring existing industries to a sound footing rather than embarking on new large scale projects. Handicrafts and small and medium sized industries will be encouraged, particularly in rural areas. The Centre for the Development of Industry will continue its task of bringing together European and ACP entrepreneurs with a view to setting up joint ventures in ACP States. In addition, a new approach to private investment should help to foster a climate of greater investment confidence in the ACP, thus speeding up the process of industrialisation.

Trade is a key part of the convention and I am pleased to report that all the concessions of the previous two conventions have been retained and strengthened. We have not been able to advance as far as the ACP would have liked but nevertheless I am satisfied that the provisions of the convention should enable many ACP countries, including some of the poorest among them, to gain freer access to the markets of the Community. There will be a new emphasis on the development of trade and services and the importance of tourism in the economies of ACP States is given special recognition. The rights and obligations under Lome II as regards bananas, beef and veal, rice and rum have all been maintained and improved upon where possible.

The Stabex provisions have been strengthened under the new convention. In particular, three new products have been made eligible for Stabex transfers and the thresholds triggering the transfer have been lowered. Stricter administrative rules and improved monitoring of whether the use made of the funds conforms to the objectives of the system have been introduced. In addition clear rules have been agreed for reducing transfers where funds prove insufficient to cover all legitimate claims during a given year.

The aims, scope and management procedures of Sysmin have been set out in greater detail in the text of the Convention. While the system's prime objective to help restore the viability of the mining industry in the ACP countries concerned remains unchanged, it has now been agreed that should this aim prove unattainable, the system may give backing to diversification measures.

Another innovation which is of some importance is the inclusion for the first time in such a Convention of a chapter on social and cultural co-operation. Support will be given to the ACP States' policies and measures in order to enhance their human resources, increase their own creative capacities and promote their individual cultural identities. More specifically, criteria have been laid down to ensure that the cultural social dimension is taken fully into account at an early stage in the design of projects and programmes. A joint declaration of ACP migrant workers and ACP students in the Community was also agreed. It states that the member states and ACP states will continue to ensure that, through the legal or administrative measures adopted by them, the foreign nationals within their territory are not subjected to discrimination on the basis of racial, religious, cultural or social differences.

In the objectives of the Convention we have agreed to put man at the centre of our action, to respect his right to life and to ensure that he is the beneficiary of the development process. For the first time, the contracting parties' faith in fundamental human rights and respect for human dignity is enshrined in the text of the Convention. In an attached joint declaration both sides also proclaim their determination to fight effectively for the eradication of apartheid. I believe that by writing into the text of the Convention references to human rights, human dignity and apartheid, we have added a new dimension to ACP-EC co-operation which could lead to a greater mutual understanding between our peoples and thereby begin to eliminate intolerance and prejudice.

I come to the chapter of the Convention which deals with financial and technical co-operation. This chapter proved to be one of the most contentious in the negotiations, principally on account of the long debate which took place over the notion of "policy dialogue". This concept was defined, in the Community's view, as a way of implementing ACP-EC co-operation. Its aim was to make this co-operation as effective as possible by bringing Community aid more into line with economic and social reality in ACP countries and by achieving better co-ordination between the policies laid down and implemented by these countries and the contribution of the various Community aid instruments.

To begin with, the ACP countries were somewhat suspicious of the idea which they saw as an attack on their sovereignty and an attempt by the Community to interfere in the establishment of their policies. It was only after long and detailed explanation by the Community that the ACP countries were prepared to accept that there should be a more concerted form of co-ordination between donors and recipient countries by means of thoroughgoing exchanges of views. The Community made it clear that it had no intention of questioning or challenging the recipient countries' choice of development strategy; its objective was to make its aid more effective by identifying not only projects and programmes which could benefit from the Community's financial support but also whole sectors of the recipient countries' economies. I believe that this new approach will lead to a more efficient use of resources while ensuring that the real development needs of the ACP countries are addressed.

The chapter on financial and technical co-operation is, of course, an important one for the ACP countries but it also provides an opportunity for European firms to sell their goods and services to the ACP States through the projects and programmes financed from the European Development Fund, EDF. A little over 2 per cent of the contracts won by European firms under the fifth EDF were awarded to Ireland. Our percentage contribution to the EDF is 6 per cent. The four largest member states between them won 86 per cent of all EDF business. It is recognised that the small member states, and particularly those with no history of commercial involvement in the ACP States, are at an inherent disadvantage. This disadvantage was acknowledged in the arrangements which were made for allocating technical assistance contracts by giving a guaranteed quota to the small member states. Ireland's quota of 2 per cent helped a number of Irish firms to get valuable experience of overseas consultancy in providing technical assistance to ACP countries and it is now clear that they are capable of competing for and winning contracts in open competition.

In 1983, when the quota system was changed, Ireland succeeded in obtaining a minimum quota of 2 per cent with effectively no upper limit for the percentage of contracts which Irish firms could win. In fact, the latest figures show that 3.48 per cent of technical assistance contracts are now being awarded to Ireland. For works and supplies contracts the picture is unfortunately not so good. However, one must be realistic and accept that Irish firms face considerable difficulties in winning large works and supplies contracts in ACP countries. The ACP countries constitute a highly competitive market where the major international firms, with many years experience and well established connections in the recipient countries, are at a clear advantage. Increasingly, the small and medium sized contracts, which would be within the capability of Irish contractors, are being won by local ACP firms. From a developmental point of view this is, of course, highly desirable even if this may not seem the case to the Irish firms involved.

Our record in supplying the materials required in EDF projects, that is, supply contracts, is reasonably good, at least by comparison with the other smaller EC countries. We have to date sold over £6 million or almost 4 per cent of supplies under the fifth EDF. However, our sales are made up almost exclusively of fertiliser and we appear to have had little success in supplying other products. I might add that very few Irish firms even tender for this business. Both my own Department and agencies such as Córas Tráchtála, the Confederation of Irish Industry and the Construction Industry Federation are very anxious to see more Irish firms involved in overseas work under Lomé III. Every possible assistance is, and will continue to be, given to firms both in getting information about projects and in lobbying ACP Governments when this is considered appropriate.

The most difficult area of the negotiations both within the Community and with the ACP was the question of the volume of financial resources to be made available under the convention. Internal Community co-ordination on the size of the sixth European Development Fund was complicated by the need to reach agreement on the contribution keys of each member state. When eventually a figure of 7,000 million ECU, approximately £5,040 million, was put to the ACP countries, it was rejected by them on the grounds that it did not constitute, and I quote "an adequate financial contribution for the Lomé III Convention". In the end, the Community was able to increase its offer to 7,500 million ECU by including an estimated contribution from Spain and Portugal and by a remarkable political gesture from Italy which agreed to contribute an additional 150 million ECU, approximately IR£108 million, over and above its normal contribution.

The details of Community assistance to the ACP states under the new Convention are as follows. The overall amount available to the ACP countries will be 8,500 million ECUs, approximately IR£6,120 million. This represents a 54 per cent increase on the corresponding Lomé II figure and so maintains in real terms the value of the resources to be made available. At a time when other international aid programmes are being cut back and even the bilateral programmes of the member states are showing retrenchment, I am satisfied that this figure is not ungenerous and shows our continuing commitment to the development of the ACP countries.

The total amount is divided into 7,400 million ECU — approximately IR£5,328 million — which goes into the sixth European Development Fund and 1,000 million ECU — approximately IR£792 million — which will be loaned from the own resources of the European Investment Bank. Outside the convention, provision is also being made within the sixth EDF for financial assistance to the overseas countries and territories in the sum of 100 million ECU — approximately IR£72 million — while 20 million ECU — approximately IR£14 million — will be provided by the EIB.

Ireland's contribution to the new EDF will total approximately 41.3 million ECU — approximately IR£30 million — or 0.55 per cent of the overall amount. It is expected that the moneys of the sixth EDF will be disbursed over a period of eight to ten years.

The Lomé Convention is not able to provide solutions to all the problems confronting the ACP countries but it does make a considerable contribution towards solving some of them. It remains a unique example of north-south co-operation of which Europe can be proud and in which Ireland can play a role disproportionate to our size and influence. We participate fully in the decision-making programmes alongside the larger member states and, through the various specialised committees which assist the Commission in the management of the aid, we can make an important contribution to the design and approval of projects and programmes.

The participation of Irish firms in Community funded projects has brought Irish expertise and skills to parts of the world with which we have had very little contact. The new convention sets new and important objectives for ACP-EEC co-operation and provides new challenges for those involved in their implementation. I therefore recommend that this House approve the terms of the third ACP-EEC Convention.

Mr. O'Kennedy

I should like to thank the Minister for giving us such a detailed review of the elements contained in the Third Lomé Convention. I should also like to extend my congratulations to the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs on his contribution in bringing about the third in a row for Ireland. I do not intend to make any great boast of this, but it is significant that this is the third time the negotiations for the Lomé Convention were concluded under an Irish Presidency. I had the experience of concluding the negotiations for the Second Lomé Convention in 1979 and the current Taoiseach had the same experience in 1974. We can feel a little tinge of satisfaction if not pride about that. I extend to both Ministers in the House my congratulations on achieving the culmination of the Lomé Convention during the Irish Presidency.

It is not a coincidence that Ireland should nearly always emerge as the EC country during whose presidency the Lomé Convention is signed. This convention derives from the long association between the former colonies and their former imperial masters. This association was particularly enshrined in the Yaounde Convention before the original Lomé Convention was launched. Let us not overlook some of the realities in interpreting, analysing and, hopefully, redirecting the purpose and instruments of the Lomé Convention. The ACP-EEC countries still feel, understandably so, that this convention is a very limited means, as they see it, of recompensing them for the manner in which over the years they were exploited. Let there be no doubt about that in our minds. If we do not take the view that they see this as an instrument of retribution and justice, we are mistaken.

On the night before the Second Lomé Convention was to be signed I was in Lomé. I was awakened at 3 o'clock in the morning by a message saying that the Ministers of the ACP countries wanted to see me. At that hour of the morning it was conveyed to me that the convention would not be signed the following day unless there was a change in the preamble. The change required was that they insisted that the preamble should include a paragraph saying that the Second Lomé Convention was seen as an instrument of retribution for the exploitation, as they said deliberately, of the developing countries.

I pointed out to them that we knew a little about colonial exploitation in Ireland. We knew 700 years more of it than they did. I said that if they wanted a paragraph in the premable, as the Irish Foreign Minister I would claim a chapter. That gave them an awareness that they were not the only people who had been exploited. That incident demonstrates that Ireland is in a unique position because our experience is akin to the ACP countries' experience, not the same but akin. As a country formerly exploited and dominated by one of the major imperial powers we can understand why the ACP countries are now even economically at a disadvantage, apart from the physical disabilities they may have and the geographical problems they have, because they have been exploited over the years.

Let it not be said that the Lomé Convention is a very generous instrument on the part of the EC countries, that it was a unilateral decision of the EC countries to help, boost and be kind to the ACP countries, because it is not. It is a significant attempt to recompense them for the disabilities which have accrued over the years and to restore a balance in terms of markets — I note some things which are not included in this convention and they were not in the previous ones either — in terms of money supply and the economic world order which pose a more critical problem for the developing countries than they do for us. If we measure the impact of the transfer, about 60 countries must be involved in the ACP side. Perhaps it is more now.

Mr. P. Barry

It is 66.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It is growing each year, obviously. We are talking about the transfer of approximately £6,120 million over a five year period. That is roughly £1,000 million per annum. Let us put it in perspective. The best perspective we can get on it is this: that our total budget in any one year is nine times the amount that will be provided under this convention to 66 countries. It is important that we see the measure of this. I do not want to dismiss it but neither do I want it presented as a major contribution from EC countries. That is the first point.

The Minister has, very fairly, given us details of the total amounts involved. If one compares the amount of money transfers now with those negotiated under the first Lomé Convention — and the Minister makes the point that it maintains the level of assistance negotiated under the second Lomé Convention — as the person who negotiated the second Lomé Convention let me acknowledge this much: that while we did claim that Lomé II maintained the level of money in real terms of Lomé I, that did not take account of the impact of debt payments, interest payments and other matters that had accrued since Lomé I. The blunt fact of the matter is that if one uses an inflation index — ours not theirs — one could say "Yes, Lomé II kept pace with Lomé I in terms of real values and increased inflation" and one could say the same now. But the reality is that to get the real measure of the value of what is being contributed under any of the conventions — and we are now dealing with Lome III — one would have to take into account what will be the net gain accruing to them at the end of it. Having regard to the crushing burden of debt payments on developing countries, of interest payments — and God knows we know something about them here now — because they are, by definition, debtors to almost every international institution and developed country, then one will see that we have not kept pace with the contribution since Lomé I. If one isolates the payments alone the answer is: "Yes, we have, just about." As the Minister said, in that sense it is not ungenerous, but perhaps there is a case for being a little more than not ungenerous; there is a case for making a major impact. If we isolate the payments alone probably we could argue that we have kept pace. But if one takes account of all the other events I have mentioned than it is clear that we have not.

I want to draw a conclusion from that. Anybody looking at the state of western economies in recent times, in particular of the EC, could come to one conclusion only: that the European Community has, in a sense, turned in on itself. The role of Europe in the future world economic order will be a limited one. Europe is concentrating on budgets. There was an example recently when we put a ceiling on a budget for agriculture over the next five years. We are putting a ceiling on this and that. We are not looking at all at the role and potential there for Europe, not merely within itself, but in terms of international trade.

For instance, do we not realise that one of the problems that Europe has faced is that we are not getting the cheap raw material we used to get from many of these developing countries? I am talking now in the period just before the EEC was launched and immediately thereafter when European industries were able to draw on cheap raw material from the primary producers in these countries, European multi-nationals particularly. Indeed not just Europeans but any of them could avail of cheap labour. We built up western economies on the basis of raw material imports and cheap labour imports from what are now the ACP countries. Let us recognise that as a reality of the world economic order as it was. Now we have reached the point at which that cannot last. Some of them, notably what are now termed the ASEAN countries, of Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines; I forget the fifth——

Mr. P. Barry

Brunei, Dar es Salaam and Thailand.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Obviously they are growing. A few years back, even in 1977-78, when I occupied the seat now occupied by the Minister present, they were in the category of least developed countries. Now they have lifted their economic development to the point that they are competitors of ours. God knows we know that well enough here in the area of textiles. The fact of the matter is that for a long time imports from those countries into EC countries formed the base for our industry, for re-processing and whatever else. Now they have seen the opportunity themselves for attracting the multi-nationals by their raw material availability and more importantly, by cheap labour, as they have claimed to date anyway. The result is that most of the major multi-nationals now invest in these ASEAN countries particularly.

We have already seen a change in the world economic order. That is only an example of that change, though I would feel that fairly soon we shall see a major change in that when the cheap labour rates that have attracted people to these countries will not be quite as cheap as they have been to date. Then there will be a greater balance in labour costs when people will not work for what are unduly deflated labour wages in those countries. That is a development we would all welcome, that there would be no exploitation of the labour market, which, in turn, can mean that one gets lower prices for products produced in those markets.

I am still talking in general terms of the economic order. Anyone who looks at Europe over the last five or ten years in particular — and I have had an opportunity of looking at it from the inside and outside — could not come to a conclusion that Europe really saw a dynamic role for itself, not just within Europe but in terms of a new and just world economic order. I should make it clear that nothing I say is meant in any way as a criticism of the role of either Ministers present in the House or of Irish officials in this area. When the Minister mentions a very generous adjustment from Italy, a remarkable political gesture in that they agreed to contribute an extra £108 million above their normal contribution, I acknowledge that to be a remarkable political gesture. But one begins to wonder why. What was happening that the whole operation hinged on an extra £108 million? Why should the whole Lomé Convention hinge on whether there would be from Europe the amassed wealth of all of these nations of Europe who would put up an extra £108 million?

I should like to say to our Italian friends — and I have had some associations with them over the years, though not on this particular issue —grazie mille because they have some awareness of their role and have close associations with many of the north African countries in particular with very little colonial domination. Is it not a measure of how limited is the attitude of member states of the EC, particularly the major, powerful ones, that there was a risk that the Lomé Convention would not be concluded? I suppose there was hardly a risk of its breaking down altogether but a risk that it would not be concluded when it was were it not for the fact that the Italian Government came up with £108 million commitment. The major increase was from £5,040 million to £6,120 million overall and that says all that has to be said about the attitude of the European Community at present.

In its attitude to the Convention and the amounts involved, the Community is giving no central leadership, direction or purpose either within its own bounds or in its relationships with other countries. The Community has been diverted into concentration on budget contributions which small men have caused by yielding to dominant demanding countries, particularly Britain, and they have not been strong enough to say that that is not the kind of Europe they want. There was great hope when the European Community was launched for a balanced and parallel development in terms of elimination of regional balances and externally between the European Community and its partners. The Lomé countries must always be seen as partners. Instead of seeing that parallel and consistent thread based on opportunity, justice, togetherness and potential we are seeing quite the opposite. Anyone who writes the history of Europe in the late seventies or early eighties will not note anything of great consequence.

Many new areas have developed: technical assistance, marketing co-operation, financial and technical co-operation, social and cultural co-operation and trade. However, an historian will see that nothing really big emerged in Europe in the seventies and eighties. When the history of this era is written they will say that the first Convention achieved a lot but, after that, these Conventions did not make a major, dynamic contribution to world justice or economic order.

Let me give some examples of what is missing from this Convention. The reality for most of these countries is that their debt service repayments are a crushing burden around almost all their necks. The Convention does not address itself to that problem. Within the last five years, that has become a major problem for these countries. That was also the case in 1979 but not to the same extent as at present. This is not a criticism of my colleagues in the House, far from it, but those within the institutions of the Community either at Commission level or Council Secretariat level should have addressed this problem. Look at our own constraints and translate them into the position of the African countries. We know the constraints which our foreign debt imposed on our economic development. We have all read about interest charges, in what currency we should borrow and so on. That is only a slight reflection of the problems facing the developing countries because they borrow more heavily and perhaps cannot always place their borrowings at the most appropriate time. We can make our choice in that regard although I contend that sometimes we make the wrong choices. However, I will not go into that matter. Those countries have no choice and have to take what they get on the available terms. The Convention should have launched into that area and tried to get either through the EMS system, which unfortunately has not developed, or through arrangements with world banks — and I know they already play a role — some indemnity against appreciation of their foreign debt which has become a major problem.

I want to stress the value of marketing. The Minister said:

Trade is a key part of the Convention and I am pleased to report that all the concessions of the previous two Conventions have been retained and strengthened. We have not been able to advance as far as the ACP would have liked...

One could read for that that we have not been able to advance as far as the ACP and the Irish Presidency would have liked because, if my experience is anything to go by, we were generally well in advance of most of our partners in that area. The Minister went on to say:

...nevertheless, I am satisfied that the provisions of the Convention should enable many ACP countries, including some of the poorest among them, to gain freer access to the markets of the community.

It is clear that the second major disability which these countries suffer in terms of building their own economies — and we all want to promote self-sufficiency — is trade imbalance and marketing disabilities of one form or another. They do not have access to markets and there are all kinds of hidden barriers which exist even within GATT. There are all kinds of customs regulations which militate against trade but, above, all, they lack marketing expertise, marketing analysis and marketing capacity to exploit markets to their advantage. You must be familiar with markets and supply them on the basis of that familiarity. Some countries are slightly better established than others — Nigeria is one — but, generally speaking, their marketing effort is so weak as to be ineffective. They have not got a marketing strategy in terms of developing or producing products. They have not got a research and development capacity. Why should the Western world do all the research and development and pass on the information to them? They will never be independent or self-sufficient. They will never really be capable of exploiting and developing their own potential until such time as they have what we have. Their research and development capacity does not feature in the Convention except to a small degree. Neither does marketing feature in the Convention nor does the other matter I have mentioned.

To that extent I find the Convention a great deal less than adequate or inspiring. The Stabex provisions are being strengthened but those provisions have been in existence since Lomé I which the Taoiseach negotiated. The Sysmin provisions have been in existence since Lomé II in which I was involved in terms of the minerals area. It is significant that there is an extension on the existing Convention in relation to agriculture in terms of drought and desertification and re-afforestation programmes but that is about the major extension in this Convention.

The major deep-seated problems that give rise to all of this are not being tackled. That is unfortunate. We have all been shocked to see the pictures from Ethiopia, in particular, of the starving peoples. Those of our own voluntary workers who are more familiar with these countries than we are have said that supplying food is no answer, that self-sufficiency must be brought about as a first priority. The Minister can say rightly that to this extent the Convention is aiming in the right direction in trying to create food security and self-sufficiency but the Convention is not trying to create a new order in which markets can be opened up for these countries and particularly in which our surplus capacity can be used effectively to underpin their development. It is extraordinary that only this week this introspective Europe, a Europe which is losing direction and inspiration and which is unworthy of the founders whose names we invoke — Schumann, Spaak and so on, whose names we are hardly worthy to mention — is putting a saving on agricultural spending for the next five years without even beginning to realise that we should begin to produce for the needs of the developing countries and to redirect the nature of our production, whether in high protein foods or otherwise, that we should start a research and development process to investigate how our meat surplus could be transferred to products that would be suitable for those peoples and make a major determined effort to ascertain how the scandal of surpluses could be used effectively by way of new technological research to produce foods that are suitable for the starving peoples of Africa. In that way we would be demonstrating that Europe is ready not merely to co-operate but to be a part of the real world. The attitude in Europe is that, "Mrs. Thatcher's approach to our budget is that X percentage be devoted to agriculture and if that means that we must produce an X percentage from somewhere else, we must cut back on agriculture." The budget ceiling has been set as the only issue in European development and this will impinge on the Lomé Convention, too.

If we begin in terms of new techniques for the development of agriculture in areas where there is a surplus, is it not extraordinary that in a world in which there is such a shortage of food, we in the breadbasket of the world are cutting back on food production? That is a scandal, not to mention its impact on our own country. Surely it is not beyond the wit or the commitment of the European countries to produce food of a kind that would meet the needs of the developing countries. In addition, as the Minister has indicated, there is the most important aspect of helping them to attain self-sufficiency in the production of their food but they are a long way from that. The cycles of drought and of soil erosion which are an endemic part of the African condition particularly are such that a major long term commitment in science and technology will be required to bring about a change in soil and climatic conditions affecting agriculture.

That is not to say that we must not make the effort but in the meantime we must supply what those people need. Is there any guarantee that we will not again witness the scandals that have aroused us in terms of Ethiopia particularly? Let us not fool ourselves that the problem relates only to Ethiopia. Eritrea has been mentioned but that brings in another problem. There are similar problems in Tanzania, in Zambia, in Lesotho and in the Sudan from time to time, sometimes for six to 12 months before we hear of them.

We react only when such tragic events as the famine in Ethiopia are brought to our attention. But we must do much more than react. There is a historic obligation on us in Europe — I include Ireland though we had no part in colonial exploitation — to protect these people against the ravages of famine. A great opportunity has been missed, not just in the Convention, but in terms of European policy, to opt for an enhanced food production programme in Europe as distinct from limiting the amount of food production. Both at the Council and in the Commission I have witnessed the European preoccupation with the budget. This preoccupation which the British in particular have introduced into Europe has turned Europe inwards in a way that is damaging the whole role and purpose of the Community and also our relationship with these other countries. It is time we moved away from that. Otherwise, the history of this decade as it relates to Europe will not be one to be proud of and I will not take any pride in having been involved in some way.

When we talk about the ACP countries, there is a factor we should recognise apart from the economic disabilities and disadvantages. It is easier for the Ten to reach a consensus than it is for the 66. Within that number there are African, Caribbean and Pacific nations at various stages of development and with different preoccupations and priorities. Some want better scope for mineral development, some want better markets for agricultural products and some want to get direct money transfers to develop tourism. For all these countries to come together and find a common purpose on which to reach agreement with the Ten is a major achievement in itself. I recall when we negotiated these conventions that the then President of the ACP had a much more difficult job than I had. Bri St. John of Barbados had to deal with 60 countries while I had to deal with nine or ten. We should recognise the problems these countries have in reaching a consensus. They arise because of differences in culture, history and the economic priorities of the various countries.

With regard to social and cultural co-operation, I note there is now a new statement of principle in the Convention. It states that the member states and ACP States will continue to ensure that through the legal or administrative measures adopted by them the foreign nationals within their territory will not be subjected to discrimination on the basis of racial, religious, cultural or social differences. We can say and mean that the EC countries will not subject foreign nationals in our territory to discrimination on the basis of racial, religious, cultural or social differences but we must recognise it is happening all the time. However, the chances of discriminating against the educated white man in the ACP countries are so minimal as not to require inclusion in the Convention. He is an essential agent there in whatever development programmes are being carried out.

The reality of discrimination exists in the school and housing programmes and in employment in those countries. I do not oppose the inclusion of such a statement of intent but if it is to become a reality we have a long way to go. It is not always a matter for government: it is a matter of the attitude of people. I do not think we will begin to reach the end of that road until we cater in these countries for the basic priority, namely, education as we do in our own country. That is the guarantee for them, as it is for us and for Japan. In that country 45 per cent of those going into first time employment have third level education. It is not quite as high as that in Switzerland but it is close to it. When we turn to the other end of the scale, we must ask how many people in employment have any education.

We will never get rid of discrimination by statements of principle until there is equal opportunity for all. We will not even get rid of discrimination in this city until there are equal educational opportunities for the children from the inner city and for the children from Foxrock. We can complain about urban vandalism but we will never get to the root of the problem, even in our own small community, unless we provide equal educational opportunities at every level. This matter of education was being discussed when I was involved with the last Convention but I do not know what has happened in the meantime. Educational programmes as they relate to modern technological developments are vital. It is not enough to say that we will work with those countries through our consultants, although there is something in that for us and I understand that approach. We have consultancy projects in Tanzania, Zambia, Sudan, Somalia and elsewhere. If we are serious about a new economic world order — and Lomé is meant to be an instrument in that direction — we will have to concentrate on education, particularly in this era of technology. If we do not, no matter how much we transfer, we will not even keep pace with where we were, much less move forward. The matter needs to be considered in the context of the ACP-EC relationship. Apart from the justice of the case, it is the only way one can guarantee against discrimination.

I am sure the Ministers opposite will share my view that one could have nothing but admiration for the intellectual capacity of some of the Ministers of the ACP countries. They put many of us in the EC to shame in terms of their philosophy and capacity. On the other hand, in some cases we were not negotiating on equal terms because some Ministers were ill-equipped to negotiate on any basis with anyone because of their lack of educational opportunity. Only by concentrating on developing their resources and potential can we have an era where there will be no discrimination but where there will be equal opportunity.

We get the ritual commitment in relation to apartheid and injustice and I hope it means something real in our case. I have seen too many cases where we said one thing in the EC and did something else. If the member states who pledge themselves to fight against the injustice of apartheid really mean what they say they could do it effectively. However, they are still supplying markets there to a considerable extent and they are drawing on the uranium of South Africa to a considerable extent. There is a mutual inter-dependence between the economic structure in many member states of the EC and the current South African régime and we would be foolish to ignore it. Our record may not be so great, but in terms of supporting the motion against apartheid in sport, we paid a bigger price for being as good as our word. We would not allow our semi-State bodies to sponsor world cup golf in Kerry in 1978 when I was Minister. This was a big loss to us, and to Kerry, because we would have had the world golf stars here with international television coverage. We did what we said we would do and paid the price in terms of tourism loss and so on. Many of our partners in the EC say one thing but do something else.

In the course of discussions on political co-operation in particular, we should remind our EC colleagues that statements of principle are one thing but actions are what we are really interested in. Britain, the Federal Republic of Germany and France tell us they will co-operate with the ACP countries in trying to get rid of apartheid, but what they actually do and what they put in print are very different. We do not have to apologise for reminding them of that. If people make a statement of principle they should act on it and if they do not intend acting on it, let them be honest enough not to make such statements which do not mean much.

I welcome the concentration on agricultural capacity of the ACP states to deal with such problems as afforestation, erosion and so on. This is a major step forward. I commend the actions taken through our own programme in this connection over a number of years. In our bilateral co-operation programme, we concentrated on personnel development and tried to transfer knowledge and technology to the countries with whom we co-operate. I insist on using the word "co-operate" because it is a two-way process. I am thinking particularly of Tanzania, Lesotho, the Sudan and Zambia. It is vitally important that that kind of approach be extended on a much broader base to co-operation between the EC and the ACP countries. We will never help them to combat the problems which are endemic to Africa unless we transfer skills and technology to them.

When I was in Africa I saw examples of money which had been transferred. For instance, projects which had been undertaken five years before we arrived in Lesotho, on which millions of pounds had been spent, had all gone for nothing because the people did not have the knowledge and capacity to maintain the programmes. If this knowledge and expertise is not made available to the people the benefits of the project are of very limited duration. For that reason, I commend the kind of developments we have been promoting for some time. I am thinking particularly of actions in countries like Burundi. I was Minister when that programme was launched but other Deputies were Ministers when other programmes were launched. None of us claims credit here but there was one theme through all our programmes which I am sure still remains. Our priority was to help the people to develop their own special resources. Hence the concentration on peat development in Burundi or the Basatho ponies in Lesotho. The Minister should commend, on the broader range of activities in EC/ACP co-operation, that kind of focus we concentrated on in our bilateral programme, not a transfer of money or even food but, much more important, a transfer of knowledge, skill and technology. This is a guarantee of a much better understanding and more mature relationship. between the donor countries and the donee countries.

Ireland has a special obligation which we face up to, but this is only a reflection of the attitude of our people because their contributions to voluntary agencies are running ahead of official contributions. I am not saying this as a political criticism of the Government, because this has always been the case. This is proof that our people are encouraging Governments to develop official programmes to aid these countries. We should do everything in our power to maintain our commitment to the ODA targets. We should not juggle with words. We should do what we say. We can use any words we like to interpret our commitments so that it will appear that we are living up to them, but the reality is that we are not measuring up to the targets set by the UN in the development decade to which we were committed.

Our record is a good one but I would like to make a suggestion. I am glad it is recorded that we are getting some level of contributions from consultancies and contracts under EDF. I remember negotiating this with Claude Cheysson and saying it was time we were allowed in on this area. I remember asking why only the French and Belgians got the consultancy contracts under Lomé. The 2 per cent commitment was made by way of a gentleman's agreement. It is important that we exploit the opportunities that exist under the consultancy contracts, because we are way behind having regard to the natural advantages which the French and the British have had over the years. This must be one priority. We cannot just rely on placing the blame on others that we are not getting our share of contracts. Having reviewed our relationship with the development countries I consider that there is real scope for having a centre for development studies, for bilateral co-operation, for technology, for research and market development. I am thinking of something that has not been attempted elsewhere, where we would have for instance, in Shannon which has a natural advantage, a new centre for studies, consultancies, research and so on.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present;

Ireland has a major traditional role in terms of our relations with developing countries. As we look at the obligation of the European Community to develop an new era of understanding and co-operation with the African countries we must be conscious of our role. Ireland has experienced deprivation due to colonial domination. We have experienced a lack of opportunity and a lack of economic development. Now that we have come to a new era of confidence the only hope for justice in the world is if we encourage through educational programmes, through research and technology, the same capacity and confidence in the developing countries. I support what the Minister has presented to the House.

While I am on my feet talking about co-operation with the countries of the world I will say that it is a happy coincidence and privilege that we are addressing this topic when the delegation from the US Congress are here to promote closer co-operation with the old sod of Ireland with which they have a particular association. It is appropriate for me to say, as the Chair is bound by silence, that we have presiding over our affairs here today a Tipperary man who was born in New York. It is a matter of great pride to us to have our US associates with us this morning. I know that we are working for the same aims not in a sense of selfish promotion but in the knowledge that unless we create conditions for justice throughout the world we will not even have the conditions for peace in our country. It is a happy coincidence that this delegation are with us as we address the major problems of the developing countries of the African, Caribbean and Pacific nations in the context of the Lomé Convention. I welcome the delegation on this festive occasion coming up to Saint Patrick's Day and I hope that it will be a further encouragement to the Minister to realise that while we are a small country we have great and powerful friends who will work with us not just in our interests but in the interests of achieving a new balanced economic order in the world.

Mrs. Owen

I welcome our distinguished guests. Some, if not all of them are politicians and I would hate to tell them what they have done to my nerves by arriving just as I am about to make my contribution. I was already feeling somewhat inhibited because sitting in the Chamber were the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister of State, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe and an ex-foreign Minister all of whom had intimately negotiated the signing of the Lomé II and Lomé III Conventions. I welcome our guests and hope that they will find this discussion of interest.

I am happy that we are about to ratify the Lome III Convention. There is no doubt when one looks back at the papers issued and the comments made when the discussions started in late 1983 to prepare the Lomé III Convention that there were many pessimists who worried that there would not be a Lomé III, because there did not appear to be a chance of reaching agreement not only between the 65 ACP countries but between the ten European countries. It is a happy day that the optimists have now seen their optimism come to reality. What most optimists hoped for was that at least the Lomé II convention would be consolidated and if possible the amount of money available increased. We have heard today that not only have the terms of Lomé II been consolidated but there has been a real increase in the amount of money made available. Lest Deputy O'Kennedy leave the House I will address one or two points he raised.

The burden of debt with which the ACP countries have to contend is a grievous drawback and the most serious element of their problems. While saying that this should have been dealt with in the Lomé Convention, I contend that the whole essence and spirit of this document is to get the countries to a state of development in which they would no longer have to depend on loans or grants, although many of these loans are of the soft loan variety, with very preferential repayments detailed in them.

I do not think that Deputy O'Kennedy was suggesting, but perhaps he was, that the 7,400 million ECUs which have been written into this Lomé Convention should all go to wipe out the debts of all these countries. That is just unrealistic. One would still have all the basic underdevelopment in these countries to contend with. It is obvious that self-sufficiency and self-dependence will arise only by a concerted long term, phased programme of development. Deputy O'Kennedy's suggestion may sound a simple way of getting rid of the problem, but it is unrealistic.

The Deputy also spoke about creating more food mountains. The problem at the moment is that we have not managed to find a way to move the food mountains we have, and which are suitable for feeding the starving people of Africa. We find ourselves continually tied up in red tape. Producing more food is not the answer. We should try to use up what food is there. That is what we should be working towards now, before any more mountains or lakes come into existence.

The Deputy also spoke about the lack of any chapter on marketing. This is an extraordinarily complicated document, but there is a chapter which deals very intricately with the development of trade and services — Chapter 6. Certainly, there is a spirit in the Convention that ACP countries should be given every possible co-operation and assistance in developing their markets and in educating themselves as to how to participate in these markets. The spirit and content may be there, but it is another matter to make it work properly. I am afraid that history shows that it has not worked all that well.

It was significant that in December 1984, when Lomé III was signed, there was far more interest or awareness of the fact that such a thing as a Lomé convention existed. Many would have been hard pressed when the last convention was being signed to say where Togo or Lomé were. With the help of television and the media in general, the public are being educated in the need for a wider outlook on the world and a moving away from the insular attitude that tended to prevail, both here in Ireland and in Europe as a whole. It was significant that the Convention was signed in December when we here were being appalled at the pictures arriving via our television screens from Ethiopia and other sub-Saharan countries.

There has rightly been a great deal of criticism of the EC developed countries, the United States included. Perhaps this was because of the lack of and the tardiness of response and the unfortunate fire brigade type of response which we make generally when we see horrific pictures. The developed countries failed to move in and to negotiate in time to prevent the catastrophies which unfortunately occurred. We are only human, we cannot change the climates of these countries. The thrust of programmes must be towards accepting the parameters within which these countries have to live and in trying to work within them, leading to long term development.

Despite all this criticism, one must acknowledge the tremendous initiative of this Lomé III Convention, that it has been signed and has been a success. This signature was in doubt at the beginning. Lomé I and II have been consolidated in Lomé III. I cannot look into the future to see if there will be a Lomé IV or if some other form of co-operation will be worked out. One must give an amount of praise to the initiative of Lomé.

I intended at the outset to pay tribute to our Ministers who were involved in the negotiations leading up to the signing of the Convention. Our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Barry, signed the Convention and, as Deputy O'Kennedy has said, this is the third convention which has been signed during an Irish Presidency.

We also need to pay tribute to the back-up team, our officers who have participated in these discussions. For depth of technicality, complication and complexity it would be hard to beat this document of the Lomé negotiations. Those who did most of the work probably were the backroom boys and girls, who deserve a word of congratulations. This includes our officials both at home and in Brussels. I should like that put on the record.

Much has been and will continue to be said about the more negative aspects of the history of Lomé and the present Lomé convention. Most glaring on the negative side is the fact that in many countries the development progress has been slow and faltering, in some almost non-existent and some countries have gone backwards. Despite the billions of dollars, pounds and ECUs made available, there are countries which are worse off today than they were eight years ago, but perhaps not as long as 30 years ago when the EC was founded.

True, in the negotiations leading up to Lomé III, the ACP countries sought a much greater financial commitment from the EC countries, something in excess of 4 billion ECUs over what eventually was agreed upon. True, in the area of policy dialogue there were long and arduous debates and discussions and what came out was a slightly different concept from what the EC countries had in mind. True, even within the EC countries there were differences, particularly in the area of trading.

Recently, I was asked to chair a debate run by Concern, in a series being conducted all over the country in second level schools. I was very pleased and, quite frankly, surprised at the depth of knowledge that these 15 and 16 year olds had of the importance of the trading area with regard to development, aid and so forth. I had to tell these young people that when I was 15 years old, I would not have known the first thing about that subject. Firstly, there was very little literature to consult and, secondly, it was not a discussion subject at school.

There is no doubt that the scenario for the Lomé III negotiations was one where many countries were turning in on themselves because of the recession. They were trying to consolidate what they had within their own boundaries and not to look outside. Their tendency was to consider their growing problems of unemployment, loss of jobs and so forth. That is the danger of negotiating a Convention like this in recession — people will look inwards rather than outwards. Therefore there are millions of people who are unable to work their vast natural resources and consequently there are millions suffering from starvation. It is a paradox that has not been solved. No country participating in the Lomé Convention has yet reached the status of a newly industrialised country. It had been hoped that as countries came in at the bottom of the scale other countries at the top would be looking for industrial status and, in turn, would be able to help the less fortunate countries.

It would be unrealistic to think that the 65 ACP countries and the ten EC countries could sit down together and find a peaceful solution acceptable to all. Even the ten European countries cannot agree among themselves. It would be wrong to expect that such meetings and conventions would be all peace. The 65 ACP countries, though joined together, are not homogeneous. They have different political structures, different population structures and different climates. We can see from the negotiations how difficult it is to reach agreement. This must be accepted as the reason why negotiations were long and difficult. The homogeneity of all the countries is separating even the 65. Twenty of the 31 developing countries are in Africa and all the indications are that all the emphasis must be on Africa. The indicators show that in those countries incomes are down, health facilities are down, the amount of food available is down and that is why I should like to see the setting up of this new fund which will make available to the ACP countries 8,500 million ECUs. This should help to get at the structural problems in African countries more quickly. It will help to bring together all the technological possibilities necessary to improve those countries.

It would be wrong to blame the Lomé Convention for the position in Africa still. There has been a general deterioration in world economies and there has been fragility in the whole of Africa which for years was composed of colonial societies and the conditions were not there for the Africans to build up stronger economies. There has been increased cost of energy and higher population growths in those countries and of course the convention cannot dictate family planning among their populations. What is necessary now is to draw up structures so that the terms of the convention can be implemented.

Though this convention generally is one of the consequences of Lomé II there is a deeper accent on autonomy. There is more selectivity and more provision for sectoral development. This is a welcome development of the Lomé Convention, and the EC and ACP countries should be able to sit down and set their programme, having given a more realistic appraisal to the necessities. This should lead to the using up of the money to better purposes.

There is no doubt that the drawdown of moneys by some of those countries under Lomé II has been disappointing. Though Kenya drew down 60 per cent of the moneys available, in Zambia they do not have the infrastructure to make use of the moneys available and there is a drawdown of only approximately 20 per cent. That money is still there in the central exchequer but efforts must be made to help those countries to make better use of the financial terms available. We must have the thematic activity which will provide a wider balance. Whereas we cannot control climates in all countries, we can get co-operation between the ACP and the EC to implement policies that by themselves will aid the drought stricken. A desert does not stop when it reaches a border. It continues on and it is here that regional policies are very important so that the work will not stop in one country, because, of course, the desert runs merrily along into the others. Here the regional aspect must be guarded carefully.

I welcome the increased openings that will be made available for private investment. The Lomé Convention on its own is not the panacea, the final answer, leading to sustainable development in these countries. There will have to be a great deal of co-operation among a number of agencies, including private investment. Included is an extra chapter relating to the expansion of the fishing and shipping sectors. The Minister has highlighted another modification in the convention, the social and cultural co-operation and also the human rights area, which embraces the increased awareness and recognition in this convention of the role of women in development. As a woman involved in this area I welcome that because perhaps it is not sufficiently taken into account. If one looks at the pictures that we see here and examines the projects that go on in the Third World one realises that many of those countries are not only worked by but are having a major effect on women and children, and this convention emphasises that. For the record I quote Article 123:

1. Co-operation shall support the ACP States' efforts aimed at enhancing the work of women, improving their living conditions, expanding their role and promoting their status in the production and development process.

2. Particular attention shall be given to access by women to all aspects of training, to more advanced technology, to credit and to co-operative organizations, and to appropriate technology aimed at alleviating the arduous nature of their tasks.

We do not have to be told here in this House of the arduous nature of those tasks where women must walk 20 miles to get a bucket of water. I welcome the extra chapter in the convention this year acknowledging the role of women and recognising it in the definition of the cultural and social considerations. Many of the countries have adopted projects that were developmental in nature and may well have developed things like water sources and material resources, but on the other hand these were leading to a deterioration of their social and cultural structures. This detrimental element in development must be watched very carefully. Developed countries going into a developing country sometimes can be very insensitive to the social structures that exist there. They do not recognise that people do things differently in other parts of the world from the way we do them here. They rush in like a bull going into a china shop, insisting that the way we do it is always right. That is a shortsighted, tunnelled approach.

It is interesting to note the opening address of the Togolese President at the commencement of the celebrations for the signing of this convention. He reminded the participating countries that they were making a solemn undertaking to go beyond a simple calculation of the self-interest of our states to see man as capable of progress and out-doing his own efforts in a new world which he has made a better place by finally understanding the meaning of solidarity. He was highlighting the fact that the motive behind which countries participate in a convention such as the Lomé must be of the highest order and not of self-interest.

Because of the recession belt tightening in the EC, a number of the ACP countries have not seen the significant improvements that one would have hoped for. Analyses of such situation reveal two inherent dangers. The first is that we would all jump up and say that we must do more, that we must pour more money in, that we must over-sensationalise the whole problem. In other words, we must assuage our consciences and assure ourselves that we are doing the best we can. I submit that, if that was what had happened, then not only would we have been standing still; we would have been going backwards as far as development is concerned. The very spirit of the Lomé Conventions I, II and now III is one of self-dependence, self-reliance, self-sufficiency; and going in that frame of mind in order to assuage the conscience of the developed world is of necessity damaging to that spirit. The other danger that existed when the negotiators were sitting down, and still exists now that they are implementing the recommendations of the convention, is in the whole area of the policy dialogue. This gives rise to a great deal of discussion. There is the danger of chasing in and doing the cosmetic project. Equally there is the danger of saying that it has not worked as it was set up for the last eight years and now the donor countries will have a far greater say, will wield the big stick and say what is best for the developing countries. It is a return to a kind of paternalistic attitude.

Neither of these attitudes prevailed in this convention, I am happy to say. However, in the area of policy dialogue as it emerged eventually — it was called the programming process, which does not go quite as far as the policy dialogue that the EC countries would want — whether we and the ACP countries like it or not, it has, as everything nowadays has, an element of conditionality attached. If I want to borrow £100 from a bank the bank manager will look for some form of collateral. If I want to use credit to buy something in a shop they will look for some form of collateral. It is unrealistic to expect that these vast resources of money are being made available to the Third World and ACP countries without them recognising that they have responsibility to make the best use of it. Of course, the EC countries have an obligation and responsibility to their taxpayers who are paying all this money to answer the questions and ensure, and assure, that the money is being spent effectively and wisely.

The greatest damage can be done to the whole process of development and development education by the pictures and television coverage of something like the very lavish and extraordinary celebrations that a country such as Ethiopia had when millions of their people are dying of starvation, or, further back, the obscene and lavish coronation of Emperor Bokassa, of The Central African Republic, in the late seventies, a Napoleonic affair, when the people were dying around him and millions of pounds, dollars and ECUs were being poured into the African continent. Something like that can, understandably, turn off the people of developed countries whose taxes are being used to go towards the development of those countries. The ACP countries must understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch. If we are to make the best use of this money some conditions must attach to it.

I welcome the fact that a programming process exists whereby the ACP and EC countries can get together and work out what is best for them. What we and the other EC countries must do is ensure that this Lomé Convention is more successful than Lomé II. In this regard I welcome the extra conditions in the terms of the financing of this convention where there is a shift towards an assessment of the broad objectives. The Commission and the European Investment Bank will be obliged to make a report which will include an assessment of the impact of EC aid on the economic and social development of the ACP countries. They must also inform the Council of Ministers of the results of their evaluation of the projects and how they live up to the developmental objectives laid down in the convention. This element of answerability and continual assessment is vital so that we will not find at the end of four or five years there are blatant gaps in the success of the Lomé III Convention.

In 1989 if there is a Lomé IV we will have passed the end of 30 years of ACP-EC co-operation. I should like to think that history will record that some good has come out of it. As far as the financial commitment is concerned one has only to look at the increase from 1957 when the six EC countries entered into a convention. The amount of money available then was 581 million ECUs. In 1984 that increased to 7,400 million ECUs. We must ensure that not only is the financial commitment there but that it has some effect. Unfortunately massive transfers of money do not equal development. It is not the amount of money that counts but what is done with it.

We are a small country geographically and economically but we have made many gains by participating in this and other international agencies. On my way to a meeting the other evening I heard a replay of John F. Kennedy's address to this House in 1963. It is still true today that nations which are far bigger than ours have not played the same kind of role that we have, despite our size. We have a role to play which is disproportionate to our size. The experience and value of our co-operation with 65 ACP countries is enormous to us. We should be aware of that and learn from it.

There appears to be a consensus among the negotiators and international observers that real progress was made although perhaps not as great as the ACP countries had hoped for. There were shortcomings and some expectations may not have been met, but as in any other area of endeavour the convention will be measured less on the quantity, books, papers and hours of negotiation and more on the effectiveness and quality of what is done.

I welcome the ratification of the convention. As chairperson of the Oireachtas Committee on Overseas Development I am glad to have had an opportunity to speak on development because it is a subject that does not get a great deal of airing in this House. This convention gave me an opportunity to say a few words on it.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. O'Keeffe)

I thank the House for the compliments which were paid to my colleague, Deputy Barry, and to me in connection with the negotiation of Lomé III. On behalf of the development co-operation division of the Department of Foreign Affairs, I express my appreciation of the compliments which were passed in relation to their work. Nobody knows better than I the outstanding work they have done not only in relation to Lomé but in relation to the entire development co-operation programme.

It might be no harm to mention that in 1985, when our development co-operation will involve funding of approximately £38 million, the total number involved in the division including diplomatic, administrative and clerical staff totals not more than 28 people. Having made that opening remark I must express my disappointment. I appreciate the contributions made to the debate but I was disappointed at the relatively small number of contributors. I should have liked to have seen a broader debate with a greater number of speakers. It is important that we get more legislators involved in discussing the issues raised by Lomé and other development issues. I hope we may succeed in attracting a greater number of speakers when we next have a debate in this area.

When one looks at the Lomé agreement what is important is not to overstate its importance in resolving the problems of developing countries while at the same time recognising many of its unique merits. Looking at the latter half of that equation first, there is a danger of measuring the merits of Lomé purely in terms of its funding which has now been increased to over £6,000 million. It is probably easier to compare the figures one had in the earlier conventions and try to assess the merits of Lomé III on that basis. That would be a mistake. What are important are the other provisions dealing with trade, tourism, fishing, transport, energy and other areas which are of far greater benefit to developing countries than the amount of aid funding.

Deputy O'Kennedy mentioned the introduction of Stabex and Sysmin and the other instruments of the convention. These were unique and innovative in their time. The Community can claim credit for establishing unique instruments of co-operation which, hopefully, will be reflected in agreements made between the developed world with the developing world.

What we have here is a unique convention, Lomé I, which was signed when the Taoiseach was Minister for Foreign Affairs. As Deputy O'Kennedy mentioned, we have a unique treble with Deputy O'Kennedy in the chair of the Council of Ministers in Europe for Lomé II and the Presidency back with us again for Lomé III. It is fair to say that in our approach to Lomé III the national position was as liberal and as progressive as possible. From the point of view of funding, my approach was that we would make our contribution to the fund as large as possible, and that was recognised by our partners in the European Community and the members of the ACP. We were also trying to secure terms of the convention which would be as helpful and as liberal as possible.

In the past some criticism was expressed in relation to our approach to access of beef to the Community. That criticism was based largely on a misunderstanding. There was a provision for admitting 30,000 tonnes of beef under Lomé II. There was some discussion on whether that figure should be increased. When we examined the records over the past number of years, we discovered that the existing quota had never been filled. I think the maximum amount ever supplied in any one year under that provision was 18,000 tonnes. Really we were talking about an illusory problem. That was the only area where we had to reinvestigate the facts and present the position as it was. I do not think there can be any criticism even in that area when the quota has not been filled. The quota will be continued. Because of animal health problems in Zimbabwe and elsewhere it is unlikely to be filled for quite a long time.

During the latter half of 1984 we were not just presenting a national viewpoint. Holding the Presidency of the Community we had to ensure that an agreement was completed. Deputy O'Kennedy will recollect the hours of tedious negiotiations involved in getting an agreement between the Ten first and then with the ACP. Our approach was that it was well worthwhile making every effort possible to ensure that an agreement was reached. We had to take into account when we assessed the national input to the funding aspect of the agreement, that Ireland's contribution is .6 per cent. Let us not overstate the relevance of the national position in regard to the funding. We had a viewpoint nationally and we made it clear that we were prepared to join in any figure on which we could reach agreement with our partners. I would have liked to have seen a higher funding figure. The real effort at the end was to get agreement among all the member states to a figure which would be acceptable to the ACP.

Mr. O'Kennedy

Is the Minister at liberty to indicate — and if he is not I will understand — why the Italians were selected to pay an extra contribution over and above any other member state? Did they volunteer?

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

There were a number of aspects in the Italian situation. My recollection is that under Lomé II, the Italians had undercontributed, as it were, in relation to what would be their normal EC key. That slack was taken up by the Dutch. Over the past five years the Italians in national terms have been very progressive in the development of their aid programme, as was shown in Geneva last Monday. They were taking up a bit of slack in their own contribution and, in addition, giving a lead. I should like to compliment them in every way on the lead they gave at the end of the negotiations and in Geneva last Monday.

Mrs. Owen

There have been rumours that that extra contribution may have been the Italians' contribution to the World Bank £1 million fund. Is the Minister confirming that those rumours are untrue?

An Ceann Comhairle

The usual procedure is that one or two short questions are permitted at the end of the debate but not during the Minister's reply.

Mrs. Owen

I did not know what the procedure was.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

If Deputy Owen is referring to the announcement by the Italians in Geneva, the full effects of the announcement have not yet been teased out. I can only say that, on face value, the announcement would appear to represent a very substantial increase in their support. Further details will no doubt come to hand in due course. I am quite prepared to take them at face value. They provided the extra funding at the final stage of the negotiations on Lomé and made their announcement in Geneva in relation to famine in Africa. My reaction is: more power to them. I hope it will encourage others to follow in a similar vein.

I mentioned that, while we should recognise the unique advantages of Lomé, we must not overstate its importance. The enormity of the problem of the developing world is such that an effort such as Lomé will not make anything other than a minor contribution towards the resolution of those problems. Coupled with those problems of underdevelopment we have the horrific consequences of drought and famine. I sometimes wonder whether there is a full understanding in the developed world of the differences between the countries in Africa and elsewhere and in Europe and the Western world generally.

We see figures which compare per capita income in different countries. In Ethiopia the per capita income is £140 per annum and the comparative figure in Ireland is £5,000 per annum and in the US it is £10,000 per annum. We do not think we are too badly off compared with the US. We have half their per capita income and we have not got all the luxuries they have. We are not doing too badly. We are the 25th richest country in the world. We tend to forget that.

If we take a country like Ethiopia where their per capita income is less than 1/25th of what we have, if we are good at figures we can decide what that means in living terms. Perhaps one can paint a better picture if one looks at the situation on the ground there. Many people have not been as privileged as I have been — and as I know Deputy O'Kennedy has been — to see the situation on the ground in these countries, the lack of roads, water supply, sewerage systems, infrastructure generally. Normally we travelled on a dirt track, if they were lucky enough to have a dirt track.

Perhaps a better picture might be drawn by illustrating the situation in agriculture. I was in Tanzania and Sudan over the last eight or nine days. I might illustrate the situation by telling of a request made to me by one of the Tanzanian Ministers for help in the upgrading of their agriculture, an area which figures much in our development programmes. He wanted to know if we would get involved in assisting the development of the oxen plough in a particular part of his country. What we might tend to forget is that the type of agriculture there he wants upgraded was done with a hoe, the same procedure and implement we had in the last century. The next stage — which would effect a vast improvement if it can be implemented — is the introduction of the ox and plough. One might then say: why not skip that intermediate technology and go to the tractor? At first glance that might appear to be the obvious solution. But it must be remembered that one is talking of a place where there are very few tractors, even if there are no spare parts for them and, even if one had all of that, there is no fuel to run them and, if one had that, there are still no people with the expertise to drive and use them for proper cultivation. Then one gets a full appreciation of the situation obtaining there.

Probably that is a more illustrative picture of their problems. Ireland in the last century was probably comparable to some of the situations we find in developing countries, particularly in Africa, where I have seen these problems myself. When we talk about Ireland in the last century we are reminded of another aspect, something that is so ingrained in us we shall never forget it, that was the Famine. Even among our younger generation, when one refers to black'47, there is a continuing recollection in our culture and tradition of what happened because of the problems then obtaining of underdevelopment, coupled with a disaster that affected all agricultural production.

Mr. O'Kennedy

It was market domination that was the main cause of the Famine, not just the potato blight, but domination of the market by the British at that time.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

Perhaps the same parallel could be drawn today. The point I am making is that, there we were, a subject people, with our agriculture in an underdeveloped state. Because of a special circumstance, the blight on our staple diet, the potato crop, we suffered a famine of horrendous proportions at a time when we had a population of 8 million people and lost 1 million. That was in the 1840s, coupled with the huge number of others who left our shores. People in whose background there is a famine of that dimension can perhaps more readily relate to similar situations in Africa, in Ethiopia, the Sudan and the other countries affected. These countries, where hunger stalks the land, must raise questions in our minds as to why in the latter part of the twentieth century this situation should result in deaths of a proportion similar to that which occurred here. What is the cause? They have the problem of underdevelopment and now they have a huge drought which has affected their countries so seriously. We must ask: why should drought result in so many deaths? We had drought in Europe, in Ireland, last summer. There were some complaints about water supplies not being as plentiful as normal but we did not have any hunger. I might relate the type of underdevelopment, plus the blight we had on our potato crop in the last century, to the position now obtaining in these countries — underdevelopment plus drought, with a comparable result, hunger, famine and death.

We must raise questions as to what has been the response of the western world to these situations. One thing that was very clear to me when I visited Ethiopia on behalf of the European Community last November was that the response, both within the country and from the international community, was too late. It was interesting to note the comparison with Kenya where there was a similar food deficit to that in Ethiopia. Because of a variety of factors, including the fact that Kenya was somewhat better off than Ethiopia, but principally because the aid and support came in at an early stage, the extent of the devastation resulting from food shortage was quite minimal.

Having returned from the Sudan last week I want to give an early warning of the situation developing there. Sudan is one of our four protegé countries in Africa. They have opened their borders to refugees from a number of countries, including of late Ethiopia, so much so that they have over 1 million refugees in the country at present, rising daily. They have shown, in international terms, a warm hearted generosity in opening their borders to people from surrounding countries. In what appears to be a developing crisis there they should expect a similar warm hearted response from the international community. Having opened their borders to refugees from other countries they find themselves now with a huge number of their nationals affected by hunger. Present estimates of that number are put at over four million people many of whom left their own areas in the Sudan, have travelled to other areas they feel are more fertile or closer to towns and cities in an effort to find food.

In national terms, again the Sudanese, because of a very generous tradition of theirs, have attempted to cope with that problem, that of "own displaced persons," by supplying food and other requirements from their reserves. On the evidence available to me last week it was clear that on their own they will be unable to cope with this problem. Apart from the support given the Sudan for the refugees pouring into their country there is need for a major international effort to prevent, among their own people, the kind of catastrophe we witnessed in Ethiopia over the past six months.

We must respond ourselves. I have had discussions with some of our voluntary organisations. I would hope that the public support for the efforts of those voluntary organisations, so evident during the Ethiopian appeals, will become evident again in relation to the efforts of the Sudanese, and indeed any other of the African famine countries in which they might work. At official level we have arranged for the supply of 3,500 tonnes of wheat flour which we hope will be on its way to Port Sudan shortly. We will be urging the international community, in particular the EC, to respond effectively and early to what appears to be a developing catastrophe there.

The situation in the Community from the point of view of famine is that at the European Council in December the Taoiseach was able to get agreement between the Heads of State and Governments for a figure of 1.2 million tonnes for Africa. At the same time, he wrote to the Heads of State in other countries of the developed world asking for matching contributions. It is clear from the response of the US and other countries that there has been a response to that appeal. I am not saying that the response from the US was solely because of the Taoiseach's intervention but it helped. Having made that commitment at the end of 1984, there is a need for an even greater response from the Community and we will be working at EC level, not just for the implementation of the figure agreed at the Dublin Summit but to ensure, if possible, that that figure is increased.

I must also refer to the difference between development and relief and the public support which is needed for both. The response of the Irish public to the appeal for Ethiopia was absolutely enormous and recognised now as being, per capita, the highest in the world. However, the response we get from the public for relief should also be available for development because, essentially, relief is a firebrigade operation but development leads towards self-sufficiency which is so necessary to ensure that relief operations will not have to be continued in saecula saeculorum. One of the major objectives of the Lomé Convention is the promotion of a more self-reliant and self-sustained development of the ACP states. I wish there was a greater understanding and acceptance of the need for such development and support for it. It is easy to relate to the harrowing pictures on television of people in the last stages of distress but it is not as easy to grasp the importance of helping those people to improve their agricultural industry, trade and all the other things which will enable them to become self-reliant.

Mention has been made of the reasons why we should be involved in this activity. The basic reason for helping is humanitarian. At the same time, we are trying to encourage better political stability and, as has been mentioned by other speakers, there is an economic return because of our involvement in helping developing countries. I am a firm believer in the concept of inter-dependence and we should not be involved in giving funds for what we can get out of it. One Deputy referred to exploiting the situation and, of course, we should not exploit anyone. At the same time, we should bear in mind that there are possible returns to the economy because of our involvement in development activities and, while ensuring that aid is provision on purely developmental grounds, we should not be unaware of the possibilities of securing a return from contracts and so on. There is a return in trade and if we look at the figures between this country and the ACP states, the balance of trade is in our favour. There is a return in employment and, apart from people involved directly in development, here and abroad there are well over 1,000 whose employment is directly related to projects and programmes in the developing world.

Mr. O'Kennedy

That is only a small reflection of the overwhelming favourable balance of trade between EC countries and developing countries.

Mr. J. O'Keeffe

I do not have the exact balance of trade figures but I believe they justify the Deputy's contention. There have been improvements in recent years in which we can take pride but, like our reaction to the Lomé Convention, we cannot sit back and pat ourselves on the back. Further improvements are necessary. When I took over responsibility for development in 1981, the official figure was £18 million and this year it will be £38 million. These figures show a substantial increase but we must continue to ensure that the level of increase is continued and, if possible, improved.

It is very important to ensure that there is all party agreement for our efforts in the Third World. I should like to encourage an all party commitment and support for development activities. I have particular expectations of the work of the all party committee in that area in ensuring a united approach to the continuation and expansion of our development programme.

The ACP countries have been asking for access to the Community's food surpluses on favourable terms for quite some time. The position has improved to a certain extent and I hope it will be more than a nominal improvement. Under Article 34, there will now be the possibility of longer term advance fixing of refunds on the export of those agricultural products available in the Community. Specific agreements may be made with the ACP countries who request them in the context of their overall food security requirements. That is an advance and, in the years ahead, further advances will be necessary.

When we look at our food surpluses we must do so in the context of the needs of developing countries. We must also look at the wealth of the Community in the context of the hunger and deprivation in the Third World. We must maintain pressure at all times to ensure that there will be greater support for the relief of hunger and suffering. ACP countries are anxious to purchase some of our surpluses but cannot do so now because normally their requests are to purchase on the basis of payment in their own currencies which would not have a great marketability within the Community. We must also attempt to find a system which will enable us to respond to a greater degree to their request to be allowed to purchase on favourable terms. When they are willing to purchase, though only in their local currencies, we must be able to devise some system that will go as far as possible in meeting that request. Lomé III represents an improvement and in the years ahead we must be seen to be making efforts to enable even further improvements to be made.

I thank those who contributed to the debate and I trust that during the year there will be opportunities for more wide ranging discussions on the question of development generally. I appreciate the support of the House for the motion.

Question put and agreed to.