Gay Mitchell
Question:41 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the percentage of GNP Ireland contributed to developing countries in 1998 and the forecast for 1999. [20955/99]
Other Questions. - Overseas Development Aid.
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:52 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the changes, if any, he proposes with a view to improving the means whereby funding is made available to developing countries in an effective and efficient manner, with minimum loss through administration and with the objective of achieving maximum impact; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20976/99]
Derek McDowell
Question:71 Mr. McDowell asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs when Ireland will reach the UN target of 0.7 per cent of GNP for overseas development aid; the Irish ODA figures for 1999 using the standardised method of calculating GNP introduced by the CSO and the EU in December 1998; and the reason this more current GNP figure was not used by him when replying to previous questions on this matter [20867/99]
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:156 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if it is proposed to increase the level of overseas development aid to levels set down by the UN; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21068/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:163 Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the measure of GNP used within his Department for official purposes; if his Department is using the CSO agreed exhaustive ESA95 figures; if not, when it will update its figures to incorporate this new standard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21723/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:166 Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the discretionary and non-discretionary elements of the ODA budget for the past three years; the figures agreed for both categories under the multi-annual budgeting agreement announced in December 1998; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21848/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 41, 52, 71, 156, 163 and 166 together.
Looking first at the question on the efficiency of the Irish aid programme, I draw the attention of Deputies to the peer review of Irish aid carried out recently by the development co-operation committee, or DAC, of the OECD. The report was published in late August.
The DAC, in its report, notes that Irish Aid sets high standards for its official aid programme. It acknowledges the strong policy basis for the programme and commends the positive Irish performance in putting a partnership approach into practice, especially in the six priority countries. The report goes on to comment: "the last DAC review and the present one have traced the impressive process through which Irish Aid has managed to accomplish such volume increases, while simultaneously strengthening the quality and operating professionalism of the programme." The DAC report in effect validates that the programme is on the right lines and operating to the highest professional standards.
Turning to aid allocations, in 1998 Ireland's official development assistance, ODA, amounted to £139.6 million. The forecast for 1999 is that ODA will reach £178 million, an increase of £38 million. On the basis of a GNP estimate calculated in June last on the old European system of accounts, ESA79, this would have turned out at 0.35 per cent of GNP. However, as Deputies will be aware from recent replies to parliamentary questions, the Central Statistics Office has adopted a new method of calculating GNP which results in a higher base figure. The expected outturn using the new system, ESA95, is that ODA in 1999 will reach 0.31 per cent of GNP.
As Deputies are aware, the target for official development assistance, ODA, which is accepted in principle by most donor countries, is 0.7 per cent of gross national product, GNP, a target set by the United Nations. In its programme in 1997, the Government set an interim target to be achieved by 2002 of 0.45 per cent of GNP en route to the UN target.
The ODA provision has grown substantially in cash terms every year since 1992, from £40 million in that year to £178 million in 1999. For most of that period there has been progress also in GNP terms. Since 1996, because of rapid growth in GNP, we began to experience difficulties in making good progress towards the GNP target despite substantial annual increases in the ODA budget. Deputies will recall much debate on this last year which lead to a multi-annual approach being taken by agreement with the Department of Finance for the next three years.
Our planned upward trajectory has now been thrown off course by the new system of calculating GNP, ESA95, which has been introduced by the Central Statistics Office. My Department was officially advised in mid September that the old system would no longer be used. This was referred to on 5 October in a reply to Deputy Quinn.
Clearly, the introduction of a new system whose impact boosts the GNP figure still further has had an adverse impact on the rate of movement toward the UN target, despite very substantial annual cash increases in funding. We are examining this issue carefully with a view to establishing a new consensus with our stakeholders on progress to the UN goal. However, the most important fact is that we are fully committed to continued substantial volume increases each year in the aid budget with a view to making steady and significant progress to an interim target of 0.45 per cent of GNP and ultimately to the UN target of 0.7 per cent.
The Deputy will be aware that the total ODA budget comprises payments made by a number of Departments as well as by the Department of Foreign Affairs. It includes, for example, contributions by the Department of Finance to the International Development Association of the World Bank, by the Department of the Environment and Local Government to the Global Environment Facility and by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development to the World Food Programme and the Food Aid Convention. The sums contributed are counted as ODA and are non-discretionary as far as the Department of Foreign Affairs is concerned. The bilateral and multilateral aid programme is funded through the Department of Foreign Affairs.
In order to deal with the challenge of fast growing GNP and the need to ensure steady and substantial growth, agreement was reached last year on significant cash increases in that part of the budget administered by the Department of Foreign Affairs. In so doing, we hoped to achieve and had in sight visible staging posts on the road to the interim GNP target. The agreement relates to subheads C to G of Vote 39, which will be re-lettered A to E in the 2000 Estimates volume. In the three years in question, these amounts, totalling £406 million, are agreed as: 1999 – £110.374 million; 2000 – £136.4 million; and 2001 – £159.2 million. The volume increase from 1999 to 2000 will be over £26 million and from 2000 to 2001 will be almost £23 million. The equivalent amounts for the previous three years were: 1996 – £77.2 million; 1997 – £92.459 million; and 1998 – £103.959 million. Overall official development assistance for those same three years was as follows: 1996 – £112.066 million; 1997 – £124.14; and 1998 – £139.605 million.
As mentioned above, the best estimate available for ODA in 1999 indicates a figure for the year of £178 million. Given the large number of variable elements involved, we do not at this stage have reliable estimates for the next two years but can be quite clear that there will continue to be steady and significant growth. The real issue here is to ensure that growth in the aid budget is sustained and well managed. A steady and substantial increase each year will allow for proper planning to obtain maximum impact.
Does the Minister agree that if we are to reach the target of 0.7 per cent by 2007, according to the best estimates of GNP at that time we would need to be contributing in the region of £660 million to development aid? Does she also agree, given that approximately 20 million children die each year from easily preventable diseases, including six million children because of dirty water – a holocaust a year – it is shameful that we have not set a date for the GNP target to be met? Does she agree with the proposal I have put forward in the House time and again that we should legislate for that 0.7 per cent target so that she and her successors do not have to go through the annual wrangle in the Estimates with the Department of Finance? No Member of the Dáil represents those 20 million children who die each year. I assure the Minister that if she introduces legislation we will support it.
I welcome the cross-party consensus in the House, which has existed for some years, in favour of substantial volume increases in ODA to the poorest countries in line with our international obligations and a genuine commitment on the part of all parties to reach the UN target of 0.7 per cent. What has happened since 1996 in particular is that our unprecedented growth has caused complications in our reaching a ratio of ODA to GNP. Notwithstanding the fact that in 1999 our ODA will reach £178 million, by far the highest amount ever for ODA, because of a new system of calculating GNP, which has been instructed to us by the Department of Finance and the Central Statistics Office—
We are wealthier. We should give more.
I understand that and absolutely agree with the Deputy. There is broad consensus on that matter, but our staged progress which was in sight for reaching the interim target of 0.45 per cent of GNP has been set off course by the fact that the calculation or computation of GNP has changed. This has thrown us off the upward trajectory. We are now looking at the development of cohesion and agreement behind a new consensus of how we are going to reach these international targets, particularly the UN target of 0.7 per cent.
Supplementary questions and answers are confined to one minute.
I was answering seven questions.
Will the Minister confirm that the agreement about the new assessment of GNP was made in November last year, that the negotiations in relation to a rate of 0.45 per cent of GNP happened subsequent to that, that the decision made in terms of last year's December budget was that there would be a 0.45 per cent ratio by 2002 and that for her to come to the House now and say that the 0.45 per cent of GNP has been put off track because of the new assessment of GNP is to mislead the House yet again? We were mislead on 5 October when the Minister's Department, in a written reply by the Minister, Deputy Andrews, indicated that we were on track to reach a level of 0.45 per cent. We are now being told it is not on track because of some new way of assessing GNP, agreed with the EU. However, that agreement was made in November last, before last year's budget and before the Minister was forced by the Minister for Finance to cut the ODA budget.
Would she not agree that she should insist that the agreement she made with the Minister for Finance for a contribution of 0.45 per cent of GNP by 2002 must be complied with? We have the money; there is no reason for it not being complied with.
The agreement reached by me with the Minister for Finance last year was in relation to the subheads administered by my Department. They related to and guaranteed substantial cash increases in volume terms for 2000 and 2001. The figure agreed for 2000 is an increase of £26 million and there is an increase of £23 million for the following year. They are substantial cash increases which are guaranteed by agreement with the Minister for Finance.
There are other aspects of ODA which are reckonable as ODA but which are the responsibility of other Departments, for example, the Departments of Finance, Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and Enterprise, Trade and Employment. We are working on debt relief measures which will increase our overall ODA and are reckonable for ODA. In the agreement reached last year, we tried to guarantee, regardless of GNP, that there would be substantial cash increases to avoid a situation where there might be cuts in the aid administered by my Department.
The new system of GNP calculation was flagged in the written reply to Deputy Quinn. My Department was only formally advised that the new calculation of GNP would be used for the year 1999 in mid September. As soon as a question was put down on 5 October, it was flagged that the new system would apply.
The Minister of State is confirming that the Minister for Finance misled her last December in relation to GNP. He and his Department knew that the basis for calculating GNP had been changed in the EU last November and the Minister of State negotiated with him in December. Therefore, he misled the Minister of State and did not inform her until June.
I negotiated with the Minister for Finance on the basis of those subheads – C to G – administered by my Department.
That is not the issue.
The Minister of State was misled.
The issue of the new calculation was not raised with my Department and certainly not with me, as Minister of State with political responsibility for these matters, until mid September; in fact, early October.
The Minister for Finance misled the Minister of State.
That is right. We were not made aware.
Would the Minister of State agree that this talk about cash increases is nonsense? Ireland undertook to the United Nations to meet the target of 0.7 per cent of GNP. Regardless of how one measures GNP, that is our commitment. Time and time again, the Minister of State has changed her position on this.
Is she aware that the chairman of the Oireachtas sub-committee on development aid has expressed concern that the great fanfare surrounding the Minister of State's £5 million donation to the Kosovo region has resulted in a reduction in the contribution from development aid, particularly EU development aid, to countries in Africa and Asia? Until we meet our 0.7 per cent of GNP commitment, we will not be able to influence our EU colleagues to do the same and 20 million children will continue to die each year from easily preventable diseases. That has nothing to do with cash increases but with Ireland meeting its obligations and, therefore, being able to put other Governments under pressure to meet theirs.
I accept that we are having difficulty maintaining our ODA as a percentage of GNP, not only because of our unprecented growth but also because of the new mechanism for calculating GNP. I am examining that with a view to developing a new consensus with our stakeholders as to how we can meet our commitment to reach the UN target.
In relation to the £6 million for Kosovo, the Deputy appears to be confusing two separate issues.
I said the region.
There are two issues here. We—
I have the Minister of State's statement.
The Government awarded an extra £6 million in emergency humanitarian response last year for the Kosovo difficulties. That is quite separate from the response of the European fund for development. There is a degree of controversy at European level at present that the least developed countries are obliged to suffer as a consequence of extra aid going to East Timor and Kosovo. That is a separate matter from our budget, which was substantially increased last year in order to respond effectively to the Kosovo crisis.
In relation to my advocacy of a substantial increase in the budget for overseas development aid, the Minister of State will be aware that I also advocate greater accountability for how that money is spent. In particular, I have sought that the Estimates be redesigned to show the amounts going to NGOs and Irish missionaries. We get a great bang for our buck, so to speak, from those organisations. Does the Minister of State intend to redesign the Estimates to ensure greater accountability and transparency in the expenditure of such funds in future years?
I accept the Deputy's concern about accountability. My political responsibility is not only to increase the aid budget but also to ensure its impact and effectiveness and that includes accountability. We have a good relationship with our NGOs, who are extremely skilled and exercise their talents all over the world on Ireland's behalf. At present, approximately 12 per cent of our budget goes through NGOs but there is always a demand from them for an increased share of overall ODA. My concern is that long-term development co-operation requires Governments working together on long-term structural improvement and capacity building in Third World countries. I am open to the greater involvement of NGOs and we discuss these matters frequently with our stakeholders and the NGO community.
Can I take it from the Minister of State's reply that she is abandoning the target of 0.45 per cent of GNP for 2002 and that she is now opting for volume increases? Is that the import of her comments?
How many children does the Minister of State expect to die in the next 12 months from easily preventable diseases, water impurities and other such humanitarian catastrophes? What is the figure forecast by the Department for the coming year?
In relation to the last question, I have no exact details. However, the Deputy will agree that too many children will die—
Six million children will die.
—from easily preventable diseases.
Four million from measles and diarrhoea.
It is easy to get carried away with emotive issues like that. This Government is and previous Governments—
Of course they are emotive issues.
—were absolutely committed to increasing the ODA budget. It has not ever been higher. It is £178 million this year, an increase of £38 million on last year. I have guaranteed cash volume increases over the next three year period. This has been agreed with the Department of Finance, separate from the Estimates process. We are now trying to examine how we can get to the UN target of 0.7 per cent of GNP.
With regard to the interim target, given the new calculation mechanism of GNP, which has boosted GNP by several percentage points, the staging post of 0.35 per cent this year which we had hoped to reach en route to the target of 0.45 per cent in 2002, will not be achievable. However, we are working towards providing other ODA, apart from through my Department, which will boost our performance towards that interim target.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.