Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Oct 2000

Vol. 524 No. 3

Other Questions. - Overseas Development Aid.

Bernard J. Durkan

Question:

10 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs when it is expected the level of overseas development aid will be brought up to that recommended by the United Nations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22303/00]

Emmet Stagg

Question:

20 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the percentage of GNP in each year to 2007 which the Government proposes to allocate to overseas development aid; and if it is to achieve the United Nation's target of 0.7% of GNP by 2007 as committed to the United Nations. [22348/00]

Ivor Callely

Question:

24 Mr. Callely asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the total of the overseas development fund for developing countries in 2000; the likely total fund for the years to 2005; the way in which such funding will be allocated; the organisations to which funding will be available; the religious orders which will receive funding in view of the fact they are undertaking tremendous work in this area; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22180/00]

Ruairí Quinn

Question:

27 Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs the specific measures he intends to take to ensure that the commitments given in relation to the interim ODA target of 0.45% and the ultimate target of 0.7% of GNP will be met within the specified time frame. [19828/00]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 10, 20, 24 and 27 together.

As Deputies will be aware, the Taoiseach announced in early September at the UN Millennium Summit in New York that, following a for mal decision by the Government on 6 September 2000, Ireland will move to meet the UN target for aid to developing countries, 0.7% of GNP, by 2007. He announced too that, as evidence of the Government's determination to honour this commitment, the aid programme would reach 0.45% of GNP in 2002.

Discussions are under way to finalise the allocation for next year, which I am confident, will be appreciably increased on the allocation for this year. Furthermore, it is likely there will be agreement on fixed allocations for the three years 2001, 2002 and 2003, with the allocation for the second year in line with the interim ODA target of 0.45%, estimated at £365 million. This three year deal will have the advantage of allowing for multi-annual budgeting, something especially important in planning expenditure in a growing programme. The net amounts for the Vote will be announced in the context of the publication of the Abridged Book of Estimates for 2001. Deputies will appreciate that, in the context of Government budgeting processes, it is not possible to make formal allocations for more than three years in advance. However, the intention is to continue to make allocations consistent with achieving the 0.7% target by 2007 which, on current estimates, will imply an ODA allocation of around £800 million in that year.

In addition to addressing the allocations issue and agreeing on paths to the interim and UN targets, the Government also decided that the whole overseas development programme should be reviewed in order to establish an updated aid policy as the foundation for the programme's expansion. Plans to carry out this review are at an advanced stage. The process will determine priorities for development assistance including the range of bodies through whom aid can be channelled.

Will the Minister of State confirm that Ireland will adhere to this commitment regardless of whether our economic growth changes in the meantime? Since the UN recommended target is not necessarily written in stone and it is acceptable to exceed it, given our economic growth to date, would it be possible to exceed that target which is a basic minimum target?

The commitment which has now been articulated in a very important forum, the UN Assembly, by the Taoiseach on behalf of the Irish Government is a repetition of a commitment previously given but on this occasion it is backed up by Cabinet decision and agreement with the Department of Finance that we will move towards the UN target and reach the interim target of 0.45%. High economic growth in recent years has impacted negatively on our ability to reach the ODA percentages we had planned for ourselves. In volume terms the programme and the budget have increased by 61% since this Government came into office. Notwith standing those volume increases insufficient progress was made on the percentage of ODA to GNP. For that reason a decision was made by Government to commit itself to that UN target. It is true that target was set 30 years ago by the UN and only four countries, Norway, Sweden, Holland and Denmark, have reached or exceeded that target. When we reach that target in 2007 we will join a small group of developed countries which have reached the UN target. Some of those countries have exceeded that UN which is much to their credit.

Will the Minister of State indicate what new facts have changed her mind from the time in March when she suggested that the interim target of 0.45% would not be met? We announced this at a crucial moment when seeking support for membership of the Security Council. Would it not have been a better indication of our sincerity if the Government had accepted the private Bill proposed by my colleague, Deputy Quinn, to achieve the UN target within two years, given that our remit on the Security Council is two years? In the gap between 2002 and 2007 will she indicate how she will structure that set of three year and two year gaps?

The difference between now and March when I expressed my concerns as to our ability to reach even the interim target by 2002 is that there has been a Cabinet decision. This means there is full support from all Ministers to transform our ability in terms of our interaction with the wider world by increasing our ODA budget, by current estimates, to £365 million at the end of 2002 which is an increase of about £160 million over two years. No other Government budget is growing at that level. Not only is there cross-party support for it but it has the support of the social partners. That has contributed very significantly to the ability of the Government to make this announcement. This brings me to the Labour Party Bill which suggested, as did Fine Gael, that our commitment to reach the UN target should be framed in statute. It transpires that it has not been necessary to legislate for that commitment because of the Cabinet decision which underpins it. That all parties support this major expansion in our overseas development aid programme lays the foundations for the continuation into future governments of the commitment which the Government has announced, regardless of what party is in Government at the time of the 2007 budget. The three-year multi-annual process which we embarked upon two years ago will enable the Minister for Finance during the Estimates debate to announce not only the budget for 2001 but for 2002 and 2003 towards reaching the UN target. It is important to acknowledge this has been made possible by the cross-party consensus on this issue. In other words, it can transcend political party differences and become a strong endorsement by the Irish people of the need for Ireland to engage in overseas development assistance.

I congratulate the Minister of State and the Government on this step. For many years we were pressing for a cross-party commitment on this issue. In the past the Fianna Fáil Party was not progressive on the issue. A former leader of Fianna Fáil, Charles J. Haughey, when I asked him if a Minister of State would be appointed to deal with overseas co-operation said such an appointment was supernumerary and superfluous. Given that we have got this far the main point I wish to focus on is the effectiveness of the aid. Will the Minister of State accept that much of the aid around the world is wasted, though not the Irish aid? In connection with the review, will there be an opportunity for Oireachtas committees to discuss it and for an input from this House? Will we have an opportunity to talk about how we might help with regard to possible new priority countries such as Vietnam, the situation in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union? I suggest the widest possible consultation takes place in relation to the review so that we can be satisfied that the best new additional programme will be put in place and these new resources will be put to the best use?

The terms of reference for a review which has been indicated as part of the Government decision as required in order to provide an enduring policy basis to drive the expansion of the programme is being put in place. The terms of reference for the review will include, inter alia, consultation with all stakeholders, including the political parties. Central to the success and sustainability of our expanding aid programme is the continuing support of all parties in the House, the social partners, the churches and civil society. I am anxious that a sense of public ownership be engendered by the review so people will know how this money is spent. It is a major expansion in the budget and not before time.

The Deputy indicated that in the past some parties were not in favour of this. The proof of this is that this Government has increased the budget by 61% since taking office. To give the House a measure of the growth of the programme, in 1992 the overseas development assistance budget was £40 million and it is now £208 million. This is a great tribute to Irish politics in that everybody is now supportive of the budget being expanded.

Volume, however, is not the only issue. It is an important issue because it is the objective way we are assessed by the DAC of the OECD, which assesses our performance in this area. Quality and achieving a quality programme are also significant. The review will be comprehensive. It will consult with our developing partner countries, NGOs, the wider civil society and with members of the development and human rights sub committee of the Oireachtas committee on foreign affairs.

We will have to implement it from next year.

I wish to ask about the 0.45% target. I am not aware of any constitutional inhibition on going beyond three years in what is agreed with the Department of Finance. If it has been agreed to move from wherever we are now to 0.45% in 2002, will the Minister assure me there has been an agreement with the Department of Finance to get from 0.45% to 0.7% by 2006? It would be most unusual. If it is the case that such an agreement exists, what is the inhibition to giving an indicative percentage for each of the years to 2006?

I believe it will be possible. The multi annual budgeting process is unusual. We started it a year ago—

I welcome it.

It is particularly useful for people to be able to plan for future growth in their programmes. We are entering into multi annual budgeting arrangements for block grants with five significant Irish NGOs. As I understand it, when the Estimates are announced and agreed this year, there will be an announcement by the Minister for Finance not only for 2001 but also for 2002 and 2003. We have indicative charts which are being discussed with the Department of Finance. On current GNP estimates, we intend that the upward trajectory will be outlined so that it will reach £800 million by 2007.

The trajectory will have been agreed with the Department of Finance?

That is my undertaking. It will be for future Governments to ensure that happens. I can only guarantee the performance of this Government until the year 2002 or 2003 and it is likely we will be here in 2003.

Proinsias De Rossa

Question:

11 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has examined alternative mechanisms for the disbursement of aid which might make greater use of non-governmental organisations with the aim of maximising the transfer and benefit to those in the greatest need. [22357/00]

The Government's programme of development co-operation recognises the important role which NGOs play in development efforts throughout the developing world. Their contribution to work at the grassroots level and in emergency situations is particularly noteworthy. The bilateral programme has built strong and solid relationships with Irish NGOs and missionary orders over the years. In 1992, £3.4 million was channeled for development through NGOs; this increased to £20.7 million in 1998 and £24.6 million in 1999. These figures are indicative of the belief of the Government in the capacity of NGOs to reach the poor and marginalised and in building the capacity of these groups to determine their own development.

In a situation of increased funding, as was committed by the Taoiseach on behalf of the Government at the Millennium Summit on 6 September, the role of NGOs can and should be strengthened. I am currently considering the introduction of multi annual funding for the larger NGOs which are already in receipt of block grants. This will facilitate better planning of their development activities and provide a greater measure of assurance regarding funding levels. This more strategic approach will also facilitate a greater focus on the quality of outcomes and impact of development projects and programmes. We will work with all NGOs to build an even more robust partnership with them and indeed with the various strands of civil society with an interest in development. The search for sustainable development through quality interventions and the adoption of best practice is a collective endeavour.

In the context of an expanding aid programme, a review is being undertaken with a view to providing the best possible basis for the planned expansion and development of the enlarged programme. This process will include, inter alia, consultations with the main NGOs and also the smaller ones represented by Dóchas, the representative body for Irish development NGOs.

Does the Minister of State agree that, in relation to co-operation with NGOs mediated through the European Union, what is happening in Brussels is a disaster? Will she give an indication of what funds have been voted for development and what proportion of them have been disbursed by the European Commission or the DG for development in the Commission? Does she not agree that the time has come for her and her Department to put an end to the disgraceful position in which a vast amount of money voted for the relief of distress has not been allocated because of unexplained bureaucratic delays? The NGOs are correctly concerned about this.

The Deputy has deviated a little from the original question but I have some information on the undisbursed funds. A number of factors contributed to the high level of unspent funds. They include Commission bureaucracy, member state micro management and political decisions to freeze funds in certain cases. Ireland, in common with a number of like minded member states, has been pressing the Commission to take action to clear the backlog and increase the effectiveness of EU aid. A major reform, which was discussed at the last meeting of the Development Council, is under way in this regard. The GAC is also taking an interest in the efficiency of the EU development programme and the external assistance mechanisms of the Union.

The original question related to NGOs. The percentage of money we spend through NGOs has increased considerably to the current level of 14% of ODA. We greatly value their expertise. Many people urge that more money should be channeled through NGOs and we are looking at that in the context of an expanding budget. However, we believe it is important to have a mix of activities which meet the diverse and changing needs of developing countries. Central to that is working with developing country partner governments to build up their capacity to develop and work through multilateral agencies.

Can I take it that, in relation to the proposals that will be brought forward which give an even greater role to the NGOs, the Minister proposes to address the situation in the development directorate in the European Commission? Will the Minister, for the record, give the figure for undistributed funds? Will she agree that when a disaster happens in any part of the world and there is a response from the EU, the ability of people to gather funds that will impact on the communities involved is damaged by the fact that there is a huge backlog of voted money not transferred to those in need? Perhaps I should table this question again after the next meeting of development Ministers but I hope the Minister will agree that the present situation is simply unsatisfactory. NGOs might have a better role in what she is planning for them in the future in the context of the Irish Government's funding but they are being hampered by what is happening in Brussels.

I accept there is widespread concern about the undisbursed funds.

We have been pressing at official and ministerial level for a reform package and Commissioners Nielson and Patten have produced reform proposals. The Commission is now seeking changes to the financial regulation which envisaged a sunset clause allowing for the transfer of funds if they have not been spent within a maximum of two years. This would introduce much needed flexibility which would help with efforts to use unspent funds in other areas. We have pressed the Commission to ensure the communication on the accelerated action against HIV and AIDS, for example, and the action plans are backed up by significant resources.

The credibility of the overall endeavour of overseas development assistance has taken a hammering because of bureaucracy within the European Union. All Ministers agreed that it is important for the Commission to reform this aspect so that Ministers can justify in their parliaments this issue and argue for an increased allocation for overseas development assistance.

Top
Share