Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Oct 1995

Vol. 456 No. 4

Food Aid Convention, 1995: Motion.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Ms Burton)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Food Aid Convention, 1995, done at London on the 5th day of December, 1994, and amended on the 13th day of March, 1995, copies of which were laid before the Dáil on 7th July, 1995.

Since its foundation the United Nations has identified access to adequate food as a universal human right and as a collective responsibility. The Universal Declaration on Human Rights, 1948 recognised that "everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself and his family, including food...". In 1974 the World Food Conference reaffirmed that every man, woman and child has the inalienable right to be free from hunger and malnutrition, to develop fully and maintain their physical and mental faculties.

According to the most recent figures published by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, 800 million people are chronically undernourished. Among them are more than 200 million children under the age of five who suffer from acute or chronic protein and energy deficiencies. That is an affront to the entire international community. The continuing problem of world hunger is a severe rebuke to our collective past failures and an insistent challenge that we now establish conditions of adequate food security for all. We in the international community do not have a more urgent task.

There is a growing recognition on the part of the international community that renewed efforts and imaginative approaches are urgently needed to address the problems of underdevelopment and poverty which persist in so many parts of the world. The concept of sustainable development was strongly endorsed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and will remain an important objective for all developing countries. In Rio the international donor community renewed its commitment to provide the necessary financial and technical assistance to enable developing countries to make much greater progress in overcoming the problems, including food shortages which prevent their people from achieving an acceptable quality of life.

This year is the 150th anniversary of the famine in Ireland. Irish people today find it unacceptable that this terrible experience is now being visited on innocent people in parts of our world. It is important to acknowledge that many of the causes of famine and food shortage are to be found not only in local political instabilities but in wider collective international failures. We, in the international community, have yet to address adequately the impact and management of issues transcending national boundaries, including the global environment and the way in which the world resources are divided.

Global statistics speak for themselves. The developed world has roughly one-fifth of the world's population while enjoying four-fifths of global income. It consumes 75 per cent of the world's energy, 75 per cent of its metals and 85 per cent of its food.

The armaments industry and the failure of Governments to control arms is another major and growing factor leading all too often to political and economic instability in the developing world.

Irish foreign policy has been and continues to be aimed at preventing conflict, promoting development, economic growth and co-operation, controlling the supply of arms and promoting disarmament.

The House is being asked to endorse an international framework for the provision of a comprehensive policy of food aid for countries with serious food difficulties. The Food Aid Convention is an essential component of the international response to problems of hunger and underdevelopment. It is not in itself a complete answer to the challenge of establishing adequate food security, but it does represent an important step in the right direction.

I wish to outline briefly the legal and technical background to the convention. The Food Aid Convention is one of two separate legal instruments which form the International Grains Agreement, 1995. The other legal instrument is the Grains Trade Convention, 1995 which will be ratified by the European Union on behalf of all member states and does not require ratification by individual member states.

The first International Wheat Agreement was negotiated in 1949 and was updated on successive occasions, leading to the International Wheat Agreement, 1986. In 1967 the original agreement was extended to include the first Food Aid Convention. The second Food Aid Convention was agreed in 1971.

Under the terms of the Treaty of Accession to the European Communities, Ireland became a party to the 1971 Food Aid Convention. Since then our contribution under the Food Aid Convention, like that of all other member states, is counted as part of the overall European Union contribution.

The 1971 Food Aid Convention was succeeded by the conventions of 1980, 1986 and 1995. In addition to the European Union the other parties involved in the negotiations for the 1995 conventions were Argentina, Australia, Canada, Japan, Norway, Switzerland and the United States. The text of the convention was agreed in London on 5 December 1994. That text was subsequently amended on 13 March, 1995 to allow amendment of the minimum annual contribution of the United States from 4,470,000 tonnes to 2,500,000 tonnes.

The Food Aid Convention, 1995 was opened for signature, ratification and accession at the United Nations headquarters in New York from 1 May to 30 June 1995. Ireland signed the convention in New York on 30 June 1995 and it entered into force with effect from 1 July 1995.

Article 1 of the 1995 convention defines its objective as to secure, through a joint effort by the international community, the achievement of the World Food Conference target of at least ten million tonnes of food annually to developing countries in the form of grain suitable for human consumption.

The convention provides that such aid may be in the form of grain, pulses, rice or cash equivalent, together with a contribution towards transport costs. The European Union is committed to providing 1,755,000 tonnes in wheat equivalent. This compares to the obligation by the Community to provide 1.67 million tonnes under the 1986 convention. As with previous conventions, the new EU total is likely to be divided internally as between 55 per cent to Community operations and 45 per cent to national operations. Under the 1986 convention, Ireland's share of the EU total is expected to be 4,000 tonnes.

For some years it has been the practice to make the Irish contribution in cash. Under the terms of the convention, cash contributions shall be used, as far as possible, to buy grain from developing countries. This is an important feature of Irish policy in relation to the convention because it means the disturbance to local markets is minimised.

The Irish contribution as under previous conventions, will be borne by the Vote of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry but will count in fulfilment of the Government's objective of making steady progress towards achieving the UN goal of 0.7 per cent of GNP devoted to official development aid. In recent years, the annual contribution has amounted to £500,000 in 1992; £545,000 in 1993; £564,000 in 1994 and £544,000 in 1995. The cost of Ireland's commitment will continue to be of this order of magnitude, subject to fluctuations in market prices for wheat, exchange rates and freight charges, because our commitment is to an overall tonnage. We then buy that tonnage which ultimately determines our contribution.

It is important to emphasise to the House, that in addition to our food aid convention obligations, Ireland takes significant additional measures as part of the international effort to alleviate malnutrition and hunger in developing countries. This year, the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry is providing a £1 million cash donation to the World Food Programme in recognition of its vital work in combating world hunger. These funds have been committed to emergency food operations in Africa. My Department made a voluntary contribution of £400,000 to the World Food Programme in 1993 and £500,000 in 1994. We have also provided extensive humanitarian assistance in cases of compelling need, Rwanda being a recent example.

It is also important to note that in recent years the European Union has consistently exceeded its obligations under the Food Aid Convention. In the marketing year 1993-94, for example, the Community and its member states provided a total in cereals of 2.5 million tonnes as food aid, thus comfortably exceeding the minimum obligation under the 1986 convention of 1.67 million tonnes.

Food security is a vital issue which affects everyone in the developing world. The Irish Government has sought to make it a growing and priority sector in terms of Irish aid. In target Irish aid areas where food production opportunities are limited, Ireland will continue to support income generation projects and strategies that involve farmers in the identification of needs and possible solutions. We will encourage the promotion of technologies to overcome problems in food production utilisation and storage.

The FAO has recently stated that "children under five and pregnant and nursing women are frequently the principal victims of food insecurity.... A major cause of child illness and malnutrition is women's heavy workload, which forces them to cut down on meal preparation and family care". Through Irish aid programmes, Ireland will do everything possible to support the empowerment of women as an integral part of our development co-operation programmes.

In November 1994 the EU Development Council adopted a resolution stating, inter alia, that “food security including nutrition issues should be adopted as a guiding principle underlying development programmes ...”. The Irish Government fully supports and endorses this strategy. I hope the World Food Summit to be held in Rome next year will define for the international community a new agenda on food security that will enable us to move towards the new millennium free of the shadow of starvation anywhere in the world.

Over recent years, the ending of the Cold War has removed consideration of development issues from the constraints of ideologies and differing world views. There is now widespread international agreement in both developed and developing countries on the concept of sustainable development; the importance, in the widest sense, of investment in people; concern for the rights of the environment; the importance of equal and full respect for the rights of women and the essential requirement of food security as a basic and core human right.

In August we celebrated the tenth anniversary of Live Aid when people in Ireland and throughout the world were particularly conscious of starvation in Ethiopia. Ten years later, Ethiopia has undergone a political and partial economic transformation. In recent years, droughts have occurred in Ethiopia as severe as those that occurred at the time of Live Aid. However, the reason one million people did not die in these droughts is due to the fact that a series of measures had been put in place both by the local government and the international community which supplied food aid together with improvements in the road infrastructure. This meant that particularly deprived areas affected by the droughts did not suffer the starvation of a decade ago.

Much of southern Africa is currently experiencing one of its worst droughts for a long time and the expectations in relation to harvest have been substantially reduced. The Irish aid programme, acting in advance of problems arising, has committed additional resources to those areas of southern Africa particularly affected by this season's drought.

In discussing Africa we often talk about negative rather than positive outcomes. Properly organised food security with the co-operation of the international community, the national development agencies and the NGOs will mean that the starvation people experienced from time to time need not recur.

The food aid convention is an important framework for international food action, one which has in the past demonstrated its value and effectiveness. I commend this motion to the House.

Mr. M. Kitt

I compliment the Minister of State on introducing the debate on this convention and welcome the opportunity of making a contribution. I would point out, however, that last June in this House the Minister of State promised to organise an initiative on the question of food aid and food security in the autumn. When replying, will she give us some indication of any initiatives she will take in this regard? This is an important issue. There is major concern about the role of the EU and the effectiveness of its delivery of aid and we do not often get an opportunity to discuss these issues in the House.

This year we are commemorating the 150th anniversary of the great famine. We are in a position to make ourselves aware of the reality of famine in the world today. It is clear from the Minister of State's contribution this morning and the bishops' pastoral letter of last Sunday week that famine is not the fruit of divine anger or exclusively natural events but rather is due to a combination of factors such as crop failure, war or unjust social and political economic structures. That was the case in the 1840s and it holds true today.

We can learn lessons from the Irish experience of famine and parts of the world ravaged by famine. The bishops' pastoral letter points out that over 700 million people do not have enough to eat each day, that 40 million people die each year from hunger and hunger related diseases and that one third of all children in Africa are malnourished. The presence of a sizeable Irish diaspora, many of whose ancestors left Ireland in famine times, is a reminder of the plight of refugees and displaced persons in so many different parts of the world.

Advanced technology makes it possible to predict changes in climate, crop failures and consequently areas of likely food scarcity. Wherever famine occurs it is largely as a result of human action or inaction. The appalling lack of action led to the ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia and the massacres in Rwanda and Burundi, to name two countries.

The Food Aid Convention, 1995, introduced by the Minister, which Ireland signed in New York on 30 June 1995, will remain in force for three years up to the end of June 1998. The objective of the convention is to secure the achievement of the world food conference target of at least 10 million tonnes of food aid suitable for consumption annually in developing countries. Ireland's share of this is 4,000 tonnes. For some years it has been the practice to make Irish contributions in cash. The Irish contribution will be borne by the Vote of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. This is taken into consideration also in fulfilment of the Government's objective of making steady progress towards achieving the UN goal of 0.7 per cent of GNP devoted to overseas development aid. I understand that the annual contribution of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry for 1995 had been estimated at £620,000 but the actual figure, as the Minister said in her speech, is £544,000. The Minister also referred to the fact that an extra £1 million is being contributed by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry.

I asked on a number of occasions why two Departments deal with overseas development aid. I would always imagine the Department of Foreign Affairs would take the lead role. The only answer I received is that it does not matter where the money comes from as long as it helps the people in developing countries. That is fair enough. I do not believe we should have high levels of administrative costs and schemes should not be cumbersome or bureaucratic.

We are in a very serious position where the price of food is increasing on the world market, surpluses have diminished and the gap between world and Community prices has narrowed. Many Governments question the effectiveness and suitability of food aid, indeed food aid has been cut by 40 per cent in the US.

I read some debates of the European Parliament and have taken part in debates in the Parliamentary Assembly in the Council of Europe. I have heard national parliaments question the need to make progress to achieve the United Nations goal of 0.7 per cent of GNP devoted to overseas development aid. Recently, some British Conservative members at a Council of Europe meeting stated that this figure had been plucked out of the air. I already raised this matter in the House with the Minister of State. The United Nations should have much more to say concerning this issue.

I am pleased President Mary Robinson highlighted the situation in developing countries. The fact that she travelled to these countries has drawn world attention to the millions of people who do not have enough to eat each day and that people are dying each year from hunger and hunger related diseases.

On 22 June 1995 the European Commission adopted a proposal for a new regulation on food policy and food aid management concerning special operations in support of food security. This proposal is aimed at simplifying existing legal instruments to enable the EU to deal with the growing number of countries requesting aid and to improve its actions while maintaining the overall objective of combating poverty.

The new regulation has three main themes: first, food aid as a key component of long term strategy. Priority in this respect is to be given to instruments such as structural food aid, local purchasing and triangular operations with the aim of contributing to the development of agricultural food security; the promotion of local trade and the interregional economy in the developing countries. In addition to the allocation of staple foodstuffs, the aid can also be used to supply other inputs or raw materials to build up reserves and conduct public information and training schemes.

Second, we must amend the list of potential recipients of Community aid and, third, bring together all the existing legal instruments on food aid into a single body of rules. We will all welcome proposals to simplify the existing legal instruments but the Minister is aware that there has been strong NGO reaction to the transfer of food aid funds from the Director Generalate for development, known as DGVIII, to humanitarian food aid known as ECHO. The Commission in its discussions with NGO networks justified the transfer as corresponding to humanitarian food aid whereas, according to the NGO network, the concept is unclear, creating much confusion and major problems of co-ordination between DGVIII and ECHO. The transfer of projects has already been informally attempted this year when NGOs were told that approximately 50 projects have been transferred to ECHO. These projects were not of a short term nature and did not fall under the mandate of humanitarian aid. ECHO confirmed this by rejecting projects on these grounds. This shows there is an uncovered gap between food aid and emergency aid. The refugee food aid is also involved in the transfer. There are strong arguments to keep the bulk of refugee food aid in DGVIII. First, in dealing with the prolonged refugee position, the food security of the region has to be taken into account. It needs a programmed approach. This is important in view of educational activities and environmental impact. Second, the substantial demand for food is best guaranteed out of the wider food aid budget. Third, when a rapid response is needed, DG8 is often placed in a position to react quickly with its strategically placed warehouses, trucks, etc. This method is more effective than very expensive air bridges which cannot deal with large quantities.

In general NGOs are concerned about the proposed transfer of this major block of funding away from development purposes. Moreover, given the fact that half the ECHO funding goes to the East, this also represents a geographical shift. The NGOs associated with EURON aid have welcomed the increased emphasis on food security but have questioned some of the changes and the speed with which they are taking place. The demarcation line between DGVIII and ECHO is still unclear. ECHO handles only small food aid grants for immediate emergency use while DG8 handles the large food shipments for longer-term emergencies, for example, in Ethiopia and Angola.

Food security is defined as access by all people at all times to enough food for an active healthy life. There is a particular difficulty in the refugee camps where food can be used in a political way. Rumours about cuts in rations and the pipeline drying up can lead to chaos. These changes can cause serious problems for some NGOs who have supported hospitals and orphanages and school feeding programmes for many years. The international relief agency CONCERN has expressed concern regarding food distribution needed in Ethiopia in recent years. The facts speak for themselves. Of the 43 NGO programme proposals transferred by the food security unit to ECHO in 1995, 41 were rejected as they did not fit in with ECHO's mandate.

In 1993, according to a food forum article, global redistribution of food by public sector agencies reached a record 17 million tonnes which fell far short of meeting the real need. In fact, the amount of food aid required in 1993 had been estimated at 24 million tonnes to 27 million tonnes, about 50 per cent more than was available. The level is not being maintained and in 1994 total food aid fell to around 14 million tonnes. For the world food programme this shift towards emergencies has been even more marked. In 1986 the world food programme allocated 75 per cent of its resources to development activities, the remainder supported relief and refugee operations. In the years 1993 and 1994 more than 85 per cent of its resources went to humanitarian emergencies and refugee needs.

It is projected that the food aid requirement to cope with the status quo in the year 2020 is likely to be 60 to 80 million tonnes which is four or five times the current supply. Food aid is an increasingly scarce resource that requires co-ordinated effort to bring together the financial resources, technical skills and food to maximise the positive impact of each.

An article dated 20 September 1995 in Reuters report stated that the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, FAO to which the Minister referred, sees the food aid shipment dwindling next year. It warned of food levels falling to the lowest level since the 1970s and low income food deficit countries being hit further by sharply rising cereal import costs forecast for 1995-96. It further stated that many national food crises persist in Africa and several other parts of the world and that the food supply is tightening in 1995-96. It forecasts that food aid shipments would be down by one million tonnes compared with 1994-95 and the lowest level since the mid-1970s; for the second consecutive year food aid shipments, including cereal, would fall sharply below ten million tonnes, the minimum annual target established by the World Food Conference in 1974 for developing countries.

FAO states that cereal production in southern Africa is expected to be one-third below normal in 1995-96. The subregion's cereal imports and food aid needs have risen substantially since the previous year and a large number of refugees in Rwanda and Burundi will continue to require emergency aid while excessive rainfall and floods have damaged crops in south east Asia. It said that cereal import prices would rise sharply due to high international prices and ocean freight. It concluded that the continued decline in world cereal reserves meant that world food security in 1996-97 would depend critically on a substantial increase in cereal production in 1996. This highlights the seriousness of the issue. Some of the changes I referred to earlier could mean that countries such as Brazil, which has a high GDP per capita, could be excluded from the new proposals while new countries, such as the new Asian independent states, could become eligible. Obviously that would be welcome but it would be disastrous if under proposed changes countries were excluded. Similarly food aid programmes which have a development aspect need support. I agree with what has been said about it. It would be welcome if fertilisers, agricultural implements and pesticides could be included.

The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs published a report on Third World debt which is one of the main problems in developing countries. I pay tribute to the committee and the chairman of the sub-committee, Deputy Pat Gallagher, for his work in this area. The committee points out that Third World debt is a major barrier to positive development and self-sufficiency across the southern countries; Third World debt has increased substantially since the 1994 report was published. The total development assistance from the developed world in 1994 was $5.5 billion less than in the previous year and debt repayments rose by 6 per cent. These figures illustrate that the debt crisis is still an acute problem in the developing world. The committee considered it timely to review progress on the approaches towards a resolution of the problem and to put forward recommendations for action by Ireland in the context of our membership of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Will the Minister consider the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs? I welcome the convention.

Mr. O'Malley

I am happy to support the motion to ratify this convention which is absolutely essential and entirely commendable. If one wanted to comment on it one would refer to the modest contribution Ireland makes. I am a bit surprised to learn from the Minister's speech that our contribution is only 4,000 tonnes of wheat equivalent. That is a very tiny figure, and also a tiny proportion of the European Union's contribution. I feel we could increase our contribution greatly.

I am a bit disappointed to see we are giving aid in the form of cash rather than food. I say this from the point of view of our rather privileged position as one of a minority of countries which produces more food than we consume and has large stockpiles of different types of food. In the context of wheat and cereals, we have large tracts of set aside land, which is disappointing from our own point of view and particularly disappointing when there are hundreds of millions of people who are starving or severely undernourished.

One of the disadvantages I see in the encouragement that appears to be given in this convention to many of the donating states to contribute cash rather than food is that it may well have the same effect in some of the least developed countries that the Famine had here. We are always reminding ourselves that there were large exports of food from Ireland in the late 1840s but the food was being sold for cash. If we are encouraged to buy grain or other forms of food from some of the least developed countries, although they are short of food, they are forced to sell it for hard currency because of the economic circumstances in which they find themselves. It is a terrible thought that after the passage of 150 years since the devastating Famine here we could be a party to the same mistake that was made in respect of this country 150 years ago. I would much prefer to see Ireland making its contribution in food.

It has been the tradition since the late 1940s that aid tends to be given in the form of wheat or wheat equivalent cereals. However, there are other foods particularly in Ireland that are available in substantial surplus, are less internationally acceptable and less palatable internationally because there are a great many people in the world who have never eaten products such as beef or butter and would find them unpalatable. However, with proper arrangements those for whom beef and butter would be appropriate might get them as would those for whom grains are appropriate.

There is a danger that countries whose output of food in a particular year does not equal their requirement will export food because of their requirement for hard currency. That should be avoided. The level of debt has heavily distorted the economies of many poorer countries, especially in Africa, and the paramount need to repay or service debts takes precedence over what should be the paramount need to feed their own people. This is a tragedy of the times in which we live. It is probably true, although we can never check it exactly, that the level of famine and hunger in the world today is much greater than it was in the past. In the past people tended to be more self-sufficient; they did not survive if they were not. Living in a much more complex global economy today, people can find themselves in the extraordinary and frightening situation, borne out by the figures quoted by the Minister, in which the developed one fifth of the world consumes 75 per cent of the world's energy, 75 per cent of its metals and 85 per cent of its food. That means that 15 per cent of the world's food is available for 80 per cent of the world's people. The international community has a fundamental duty to try to adjust the situation and to do so rapidly.

The obligation of the international community under this Food Aid Convention of 1995 is to provide ten million tonnes of wheat or wheat equivalent. However, the obligation under article 3, paragraph 4 seems to amount only to about five million tonnes from the countries that are listed. I do not know the explanation for that. Perhaps the Minister would deal with that in her reply. I hope there will not be a shortfall. It is disappointing that the contribution of the United States has dropped from four million tonnes to 2.5 million tonnes. There may be technical or other explanations for that but, on the face of it, it is disappointing, particularly as there is a huge surplus of grain in storage in the United States and also in Canada.

The Minister did not indicate in her opening speech the recipients, particularly of Irish aid. Under the convention a donor country can designate where it wants the aid to go. I would like to know where the Irish aid goes, and also where the European Union aid goes. We do not have a list of the countries that get aid. The only identification of them seems to be in article 3, paragraph 1 where the recipients are listed as the least developed countries followed by other low income countries and lower middle income countries. I would have thought that the vast bulk of the aid should go to the worst off. I do not know what constitutes a lower middle income country. I am sure many of them have their problems but starvation of a significant section of their population is probably not one of the problems in such countries.

In recent years the European Union has succeeded, because of the changes in the Common Agricultural Policy, in reducing its surpluses of food. It has particularly reduced its intervention stocks of beef, but still produces substantially more than it consumes. Much of the surplus is difficult to sell in commercial terms. It is one of the crying shames of the age in which we live that food continues to be dumped from time to time because of inability to sell it commercially. That is inexcusable at a time when so many people are starving. The principal object of our efforts should be Africa where the problems are greatest and are likely to continue to be so. We should remember that as well as the question of debt which has complicated the economies of so many of the weaker countries, we have geo-political questions of a type that did not exist in the past which have also complicated things and made it much harder for people. As a result of man's interference with the environment we also have environmental problems which did not exist before and which can have a major bearing on the ability of weaker countries to produce food. They are no longer able to produce it in the traditional way due to external environmental influences. Because the developed world is causing these difficulties for very weak countries and their people, it has a corresponding duty to try to rectify the consequences.

I fully support this convention but I must comment on its modesty. It is almost a cause of shame to us that a Minister should announce we are giving 4,000 tonnes. A few parishes in this country would produce that. It is extremely modest when we see on our television sets the awful suffering of people. Where people suffered in the past, our fathers and forefathers were able to say they did not know. We cannot they probably did not know. We cannot say we do not know because we see it every night of the week on our television screens. Our obligation is to respond to the need. A relatively rich and certainly very fertile country like Ireland has an obligation to do more than this. I would love to see us doing more in non cash food terms.

Mr. Gallagher

(Laoighis-Offaly): I welcome the opportunity to discuss an important development issue in the House. Although it is something we have debated in committee on many occasions in the past two or three years, this is the second occasion only on which a debate has taken place in the House. My contribution can be of a limited nature only, and because of that I will touch on just a few points.

Most of the aid which will go through this convention will go to the World Food Programme which is an agency of the United Nations. At a time when the United Nations has been subjected to such a battering and so much criticism over its actions in Bosnia, it is important to remember that the UN is only as good as its members. The World Food Programme is a good UN agency. It facilitates international action to relieve famine and also to deal with food security as part of a wider development agenda. It is important that we be seen to make a contribution to this.

While our minimum contribution is very modest, it should be recognised that in recent years we have given more than was required of us, the Department of Agriculture having given an extra £1 million this year and the Minister of State's own Department having given extra contributions in 1993-94. I hope that such additional contributions, from whatever source, continue to be made by the Government.

I am disappointed that the amount of food committed under the Food Aid Convention has decreased. In an era of technological development, when we pride ourselves on many developments in the international sphere and when people are encouraged to surf the internet, it is a mark of shame on the world community that the minimum agreed under this convention has been significantly reduced on that agreed under the 1986 convention. This is not something about which the international community can be proud. Food security is a very basic need in absolute terms in emergencies such as Rwanda and as part of a wider development strategy such as that undertaken in respect of Ethiopia in the past ten years.

Some members referred to the significance of this convention in the year we commemorate our famine. In considering what this convention can achieve, it is also important to note that this is the tenth anniversary of the Ethiopian famine. Ethiopia has suffered climatic and other adverse conditions since then that would have produced a much worse famine were it not for the development strategy undertaken there of which food aid and security formed an important part. In our contribution to the convention we should ensure that, where possible, we become involved in long term development and, while acknowledging its importance, not merely operations such as Band Aid.

Previous speakers referred to the link between food aid and the international debt problem. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs will consider our second draft report on this issue this afternoon. I urge the Government to continue to press for the alleviation of debt on less developed countries in the south, particularly those in Africa, at the October meeting of the IMF and the World Bank. It is interesting to note that the World Bank has made a move in this direction and has tabled a paper for consideration which admits that previous development strategies have failed. This is a welcome move and the Government should support it.

I also urge the Minister to bring to the Government's attention the concerns of the Sub-Committee on Development Co-Operation regarding the Government's consideration of contributing to ESAF, a branch of the IMF. We would prefer our contributions to go towards strict development programmes; Members of the sub-committee would not favour a Government contribution to ESAF.

I disagree with Deputy O'Malley's sentiments whereby he would prefer Ireland's contribution to be given in food rather than cash. The inappropriateness and distorting effect of such donations in the past is well documented. To stimulate local markets in developing countries, it would be preferable for developing countries to buy from the developing world for the developing world. In that regard I have no hesitation in supporting the Government's position that our contribution be given in cash rather than in grain or other foodstuffs. There are many examples of where contributions in the form of food have not worked. Cash contributions enable the World Food Programme to be administered effectively and help stimulate local producers and local markets. I unreservedly support this convention and urge the Government to continue to provide additional contributions over and above our minimum requirements.

Éamon Ó Cuív

Cuireann an laghad cainteoirí ar an ábhar seo atá le feiceáil sa Teach díoma orm. Taispeánann sé, ar bhealach, an fhadhb a bhaineann le cúrsaí gorta. Nuair atá sé i bhfad as baile, is léir gur féidir le daoine dearmad éasca a dhéanamh ar chomh práinneach atá ceist bia domhanda.

I am disappointed at the lack of enthusiasm for this debate. It appears that what happens far away is easily forgotten. The question of food and its distribution, money and debt does not receive enough attention. In this part of the world we are destroying food surpluses while in other parts people do not have enough to eat. We know from revised histories of our famine that one of the main problems was not the shortage of food, but a difficulty with distribution, similar to what is now known as debt payments, and so on. Food was exported to pay debts because of the laissez-faire attitude to the economy. The difficulty in regard to food shortages arises from the worldwide laissezfaire attitude — there are certain things that cannot be touched. We are unwilling to face up to certain structural problems because the better off in the world are not willing to pay the ultimate price that would be required to ensure that everybody has enough to eat.

If we are serious about tackling the difficulty in regard to food shortages we must ensure in the short term that people receive direct food aid. It is pointless talking about long term structural problems unless people are fed in the meantime. Short-term food aid is very important. However, in the long term we must examine the underlying problems and ascertain why countries producing cash crops have food shortages. We must also examine the part played by debt servicing in many Third World countries in the creation of famine and food shortages. Unless the developed world is willing to seriously examine the question of restructuring the debt problem and pay a price, we will not resolve the difficulties of famine or food shortages.

We are all familiar with the adage that if you give a person a fish you feed him for a day but if you teach him to fish you feed him for life. We will resolve this problem only by enabling countries to produce their food and this involves tackling the current economic cycle.

It puzzles me how poor countries such as Rwanda and Somalia always manage to find money to pay for expensive technological equipment, such as guns, from the First World but cannot find money to buy food. What driving economic force makes that possible? Yet it defeats us in the First World to provide those countries with an adequate amount of food? Up to 90 per cent of such weapons are produced in the developed world and a large proportion in the European Union. How can the countries in the European Union manipulate matters in such a way that poor countries can always find money to pay them for weapons — I doubt if they are giving them away for nothing — while they cannot find a way of ensuring that surplus food could be produced in such a way that would meet the requirements of Third World countries?

I acknowledge that it is pointless taking sides of beef out of cold storage and sending them to Africa. However, it is amazing that we cannot match production with requirements and, similar to the arms industry, provide a mechanism for poor countries to pay for food supplies. It seems one can incur debt to buy arms, but not food. If we are serious about eliminating poverty, we have to tackle the root causes. In the meantime we should take the necessary emergency steps. These include the redistribution of wealth and debt restructuring. I hope the World Bank, the IMF and others will be able to get their political masters to bite the bullet on that issue.

Mr. Dukes

I am encouraged listening to this debate and that which has been taking place for some time about the context in which we operate food aid policies because it seems there is a growing awareness of the need to underpin what one might call the sticking plasters of the problem with longer term policies which would have some effect.

We should not succumb to the populist temptation to go for the easy targets. What we need to do and what the European Union, the United States and the world community generally in the developed world should do is formulate an articulated food aid policy, of which this Food Aid Convention would form part, which would look forward for a considerable period on a contingency basis. This should be accompanied by a fundamental change in world trading policies to allow developing countries break free of the bonds which surround them as a result of having to produce a single cash crop which is totally foreign to the needs of their economy in order to fund Government expenditures, including expenditures on arms to which Deputy Ó Cuív referred. Unless food aid policy is integrated with a change in trade policy we will not have much success in tackling the root causes of famine and poverty.

I do not go along with the ritualistic denunciation of the West and banks for bleeding these poor countries dry of their limited resources by insisting that they repay the money borrowed from us because governments in those countries have a responsibility to use their resources from domestic operations as well as aid from the international community wisely. We should not forget that in some parts of the world millions of people have died from famine caused not by exploitation by anyone outside but by civil war and internal political divisions. As Deputy Ó Cuív said, many of these regimes can afford to buy arms, but not food. I cannot see how it helps the people who have died and will die from hunger to miss our target in that way.

Regimes in those countries have an enormous responsibility to eradicate the disease which, in many cases, they have caught from the West of believing that they have to maintain relatively large armed forces in order to fight their internecine battles. They believe the West will save them by providing food aid, lending more money and "restructuring" their debt. By this most of us mean we will not ask them to repay the money they used, in some cases, to build the most outrageous show projects which have no effect on production and, in others, to make investments they were advised by the World Bank and others to make — frequently, this was about the worst possible advice that could be given.

While maintaining our long standing and, I hope, expanding commitment to provide food and development aid, I would like to see us contribute to a development in thinking on trade policy, without which there is little prospect we will see any of these countries emerge into a position where they can begin on a reasonable basis to provide for themselves. That will be difficult.

It was a source of great disappointment that this issue received almost no attention in the Uruguay Round of GATT. While there was much drama about the rows between the United States and the rest of the West about trade policy and intellectual property rights between the United States and Europe, there was no drama about the fact that the world trade system condemns many otherwise fertile countries to produce a single cash crop for export, most of the revenue from which is controlled by governments every bit as venal and subject to corruption as governments elsewhere and which, quite often, cause famine, want, poverty and debt for their people as a result.

I hope that this issue will be dealt with in the White Paper on foreign policy to be published later this month and that we will have an opportunity to discuss the wider context of this problem when we come to consider that White Paper.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Ms Burton)

I thank the Deputies who contributed to the debate. Their insights will be very valuable. Each speaker raised two or three separate points which are of major significance. This is an indication of the complexity of the matter.

Deputy Kitt raised the question of the delivery of food and development aid and asked why the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry is involved. While policy on overseas development assistance is led and largely determined by the Department of Foreign Affairs and the development co-operation division, the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry is involved because agricultural matters have to be dealt with. Our participation does not require a great deal of administration work. Therefore, no effort is wasted.

There is a value in having Departments such as Finance and Agriculture, Food and Forestry involved to some extent in the sense that the formulation of broader policies in which those Departments are involved sets the context for much of what happens in the developing world. As we strive to formulate a comprehensive foreign policy, which I hope will reflect the interest, generosity and tradition of the Irish people, it will not be sufficient for us to say that we should give money through development co-operation. This year almost £90 million will be spent. This represents a 50 per cent increase over a two year period. We must also strive increasingly for coherence so that when the Minister for Finance attends meetings of the World Bank his contribution in relation to developing economies is coherent in terms of the policy on development pursued by the development co-operation division and Irish NGOs.

It is appropriate that the Department of Agriculture Food and Forestry should participate and be aware of the policy issues of the development co-operation division. It is useful that both Departments are involved. I would like to see greater contact between Ministers and would like them to look at the coherency of policy in this area.

Deputy Kitt raised the issue of the changes in the Commission particularly in DG VIII and ECHO. I share many of his concerns. This issue will be raised at the development council meeting in December. We have taken the position, broadly in line with that adopted by many NGOs, that we do not wish to see ECHO become a massively expensive EU humanitarian operation which will replace organisations or NGOs already working effectively. It is fine if it is in addition to them, but if it becomes a massive EU humanitarian organisation I am not particularly interested. There is considerable contact between the Department and the Commission on the formulation of ECHO regulations and we will examine them in great detail at the development council meeting. We also maintain detailed contact with NGOs because we wish to see EU aid delivered effectively and efficiently. Where there are other bodies available they should be used to the maximum rather than creating new structures. We do not need more organisations.

Debt is one of the most critical features of the debate on development. When I lived in Tanzania we used to buy milk in buckets from the local dairy from time to time. There was fat on top of the milk which would have to be skimmed off. The fat was used to enrich the milk and was given under one of the international food aid programmes. Everyone spent time trying to separate the milk from the fat as children would not use the milk with globs of fat floating in it. There must be detailed thinking on the interaction between local production, markets, the development of income for local farmers and self sufficiency.

Deputy O'Malley asked why Irish aid was in cash form rather than in kind. Only cereals should be included under the convention and not beef and milk products. In the past we supplied skimmed milk powder to the World Food Programme and that was used in refugee camps were there is need for emergency and immediate supply. It may be rather difficult for local populations at the receiving end of food aid to use it or store it and it can be extremely expensive to transport food. In terms of trade development, it may be possible to source food locally or in adjacent countries and offer a market for the food without disturbing the traditional diet or market.

As a result of food aid to Africa there is now a strong preference there for rice. However, many parts of Africa are relatively dry and it is almost impossible to produce rice. That item will be an expensive import or food aid crop. Traditional staples which are more drought resistant are going out of fashion in parts of Africa as they are not seen as a trendy, more modern food. We have a global communications network and people are aware of what is eaten in different parts of the world. In terms of local tastes it is difficult to meet food demands particularly where there is an arid climate or drought.

Many speakers mentioned the arms industry. I will accompany President Robinson on her visit to Rwanda next week. The tragedy is that Rwanda is probably one of the most fertile countries in Africa as it has frequent rains and can produce three crops a year. If the refugees go home they can produce food in a 12 to 14 week period. The genocide, hunger and want in Rwanda is the result of political failure and a complex ethnic problem. It is also a reflection on the international arms industry. If an agreement can be arrived at and the refugees return home the international community must ensure a period of rehabilitation. Rwanda is capable of producing large quantities of food and does not need huge inputs of chemicals or machinery.

Deputy O'Malley referred to the fall in the US contribution which is regretted. The US made it clear they are anxious to meet their original commitments but Congress imposed budgetary pressures on the American development programme. The US said it will regard the new figure of 2.5 million tonnes as a minimum rather than a ceiling, in other words, they hope to exceed that figure. It is regrettable that because of a political view of aid the American contribution has fallen. However, that is a domestic political matter.

Deputy O'Malley asked who are the recipients of Irish aid. In the main they are the poorer countries in Subsaharan Africa. The bulk of EU assistance also goes to that region. In addition to the special contribution made by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry this year we are responding to special appeals for aid from parts of southern Africa where drought is widespread. Countries such as Lesotho are experiencing severe drought and food shortages.

I thank Members for their contributions and confirm that the Irish Aid Programme, in the name of the Irish people, in this, the 150th anniversary of the Famine, is spending the highest ever amount, almost £89 million, on development assistance of which food aid and food security forms part, something all of us would like to see expand in the years ahead.

Acting Chairman (Mr. McGrath)

As it is now 12 noon I am required to put the following question in accordance with an Order of the Dáil of this day: "That the motion is hereby agreed to".

Question put and agreed to.