JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS debate -
Thursday, 3 Jun 2004

Development Needs in Uganda: Presentation.

Chairman

I thank the delegations for attending. As part of its work programme for 2004, the joint committee is considering the current situation in Uganda, how the substantial development assistance which Ireland provides is used, the political and economic issues, the successful HIV-AIDS strategy adopted, and issues such as good governance and relations with neighbouring countries. We have already met the Minister to discuss Ireland's policy and contributions in the area. We will hear at this meeting the views of six non-governmental organisations actively involved in Uganda. In attendance are representatives of Trócaire, Goal, Concern, World Vision, Self-Help Development International and Oxfam. Each presentation will take approximately ten minutes or less. Following the presentations, we will have an opportunity to have a question-and-answer session with the delegations. I ask the groups to adhere to the time limits to allow as much time as possible for interchange and questions.

Before I commence, I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that, while members of the committee have absolute privilege, that privilege does not extend to witnesses appearing before it. While it is generally accepted that qualified privilege would apply to witnesses, the committee cannot guarantee any level of privilege to any witnesses appearing before it. If members make certain kinds of statements, one should hesitate for a moment and consider whether one wishes to be involved in them. I now invite Mr. Justin Kilcullen and Ms Mary Healy from Trócaire to begin their presentation.

Mr. Justin Kilcullen

We have prepared a submission according to the letter of invitation. I will ask Mary Healy, who is the acting head of our international department, to begin, after which I will offer some concluding remarks.

Ms Mary Healy

I welcome the opportunity to share with the committee some brief information on Trócaire's work in Uganda and also some of the constraints and opportunities that we see arising there. Trócaire has been working in the country since 1975 — almost 29 years now — and we work mainly with local partners, including non-governmental organisations and missionaries based in Uganda. We have 14 partners focusing on four key areas, which are livelihood security, the development of civil society and human rights, disaster preparedness and emergency response, and policy research and education work. As preparation for this submission, our colleagues from our Nairobi office did a fair amount of consultation with some of the local NGOs based in Uganda. We are privileged to be able to share with the committee a submission based on the views of Ugandan civil society, which we believe to be a critical contribution to the committee's review of the programme there.

One of the big constraints to development in Uganda at the moment is the ongoing conflict in the north and north-east of the country where the rebel movement, the Lord's Resistance Army is fighting the Ugandan Government. There have been issues surrounding the involvement of Sudan in that conflict. We are happy and grateful that Development Co-operation Ireland is supporting two projects that Trócaire is implementing in the north to assist the 1.4 million people displaced there. Apart from the ongoing conflict, one of the key issues is governance. There are constraints connected with the possibility of President Museveni running for a third term. There are ongoing restrictions on other political parties and a fair amount of clamping down on dissent. That is obviously a serious constraint, and our local partners in Uganda feel that it is quite possible that Museveni will have the constitution changed to allow him to run for a third term. Obviously, Trócaire would support that not occurring and a move to a multi-party democracy.

The second big constraint is corruption and lack of accountability. Pervasive corruption certainly exists in Uganda and is a serious problem. Transparency International ranks Uganda seventh in its perception index for corruption. There is high level corruption connected with public procurement and also in the diversion of funds meant for the social sector but which do not always end up there. That is a major constraint on development.

The high cost of public administration is another constraint, and some of the funds used on that could be used better on the social sector, where there are still serious budget shortfalls. The high level of spending on public administration neither stimulates development nor gives value for money to the people of Uganda. Linked to that, the creation of several new political districts, largely perceived to be for political mileage and patronage, has further aggravated the problem. The conflict, as I have already mentioned, is a severe hindrance to development, and while other parts of Uganda have made progress regarding poverty reduction, the poverty rate in the north, where the conflict is ongoing, has increased rather than decreased. There are 1.4 million people living in camps in the north.

The Ugandan Government's attitude to non-governmental organisations and civil society in general is clearly of concern to us. Laws are being put in place by the Ugandan Government to insist that NGOs re-register every year. It is up to the Ugandan Government to decide whether it should accept their applications. That is a constraint for NGOs and is largely perceived by them as an attempt to divert NGOs and civil society groups from the work on which they should be focusing to make their lives difficult. On the other side, civil society itself in Uganda is rather weak, and that is also a constraint. Civil society groups are quite weak and scattered throughout the country, and sometimes they duplicate effort. Not many NGOs are involved in advocacy work concerned with trying to strengthen civil society, so that is also a constraint. The cause and effect of weak civil society are obviously deeply intertwined. An environment must be created to facilitate the strengthening of such society.

The final constraint that we perceive is that of decentralisation. There has been significant decentralisation to the district level, and that has meant that money intended for universal primary education has often ended up in the pockets of head teachers in schools. Money allocated to the health service has been disbursed but without resulting in improvement of the health services at district level. Many of our partners feel that decentralisation is a tool for dispensing political patronage and that the money sent to the districts is often misused.

Broadly, those are the constraints as we see them. Mr. Kilcullen will talk briefly about some of the opportunities and Ireland's programme in Uganda.

Mr. Kilcullen

It has always been Trócaire's contention that weak governance is not a bar to engagement with countries that display it and all the associated problems, many of which Ms Healy has outlined. We have been asked to provide our views on potential opportunities for sustainable development and Ireland's priorities. Everything seen as a threat is also an opportunity. For instance, 2006 will provide a great opportunity to promote the question of sustainable multi-party democracy in Uganda. It is very important that all the donors to Uganda, whether governments, NGOs or multilateral organisations, focus on their engagement with the Ugandan Government regarding the forthcoming elections to try to promote the whole question of multi-party democracy. Related to that, particularly regarding NGOs, is the question of the capacity of local NGOs and civil society organisations. It is a priority for us whereby we are working to build the capacity to give people education on human rights, elections, the right to vote and how they should exercise their vote. That is a very exciting prospect in the immediate future for Uganda, given the current situation there.

The war in northern Uganda is also a serious issue. The present government, while it can manage the problem of the war, does not seem able to bring it to a solution. The recent protocols signed in Sudan to bring peace to that country provide an opportunity to move again on the conflict with the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda. The government donors in particular should be working closely with the Ugandan Government to avail of that opportunity. Similarly, regarding corruption, working with civil society organisations is a key way to deal with corruption and make local political leaders answerable to their constituents and electorate and give that electorate the understanding that they can call their political leaders to account.

The other issue relates to the poverty eradication action plan. It concerns poverty reduction strategy papers and the whole funding from the IMF and the World Bank. There has been a significant shift in budget allocations to high-priority areas focusing on poverty eradication as a result of the work that has been done on the plan by all the donors and the government. We believe that it can be carried forward. We are particularly grateful to DCI for the support that it has given Trócaire in some of the key areas of this work. Last year, a radio station called SOCADIDO, run by a diocese that we support, was closed by the Ugandan Government for three months. With DCI intervention and support, we were able to get the Government to re-establish that station and allow it to broadcast. It was closed because it was saying things of which the government did not approve. However, that kind of mass communication is key to the development of a democracy. I will stop there, given the time constraints. What the other agencies have to say will very much complement what we are saying, and we do not want to go through the whole story. We will be more than happy to clarify anything at the end.

Chairman

Next is Mr. Ray Jordan from GOAL.

Mr. Ray Jordan

I welcome the opportunity to attend and speak before the committee. I am the emergency co-ordinator from GOAL. I have lived in Uganda for over five years. Since 1992 I have been in the country for some part of every year. Uganda has been part of my life over the last 12 years. Much has been put on the record, and we are more than happy to back up the points that I make today with external documentation from the United Nations, the EU, Human Rights Watch and so on. Owing to the time restrictions, I will get straight to the point. Humanitarian assistance for Uganda and development aid have seen some successes over the last few years in the south and the south-west. I recognise that, but the fundamental question that I ask at the start of my presentation is at what cost to people in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and specifically those in the north of the country.

I will deal with the Congo first. Since 1998, it is estimated that somewhere between 3 million and 5 million people have been killed in the Congo as a result of a large-scale conflict of which Uganda was part. Unfortunately, the town of Bukavu in the east of the DRC fell within the last few days and is in the hands of rebels. It is still a live issue. The Congo has not been sorted out, and there is a great undercurrent that must be addressed at regional level.

I am sad to say that the situation in the north of Uganda has been recognised by the European Union, members of the Commission, and people within the UN structure as a forgotten emergency. We are talking about development assistance, but what is that doing for the 1.6 million people in the north of Uganda at the moment? The World Food Programme made a presentation less than two weeks ago to say that it cannot feed those in the north of the country. Yet we are talking about development assistance and things going well in the south. For me, it is a nonsense that we can talk about the positive things without seriously addressing the critical humanitarian situation in the north. The number of internally displaced persons, or IDPs, in the north has gone from 500,000 in 2002 to over 800,000 in 2003. Now we are at 1.6 million. When will we stop and say that this crisis must be addressed? We cannot simply talk our way out of it, since people are suffering daily. I would love to see members of the committee come to the north of Uganda with me and see it with their own eyes. The suffering of the people is a disgrace. The World Food Programme in that country must pay the Ugandan Government to provide security for distributing food. This is all fact; I work in the north of the country and know it intimately. I am passionate about it. This crisis must be addressed as such.

My third point has already been touched on by Trócaire. The 2006 elections will mark the third term for President Museveni. I am an eternal optimist, as one must be in this line of work, but I am also a realist. If President Museveni was not going to run in 2006 surely we would have seen some sort of succession planning and an opening up of the democracy and governance space for multi-party elections to take place. I have visited the country since 1992. President Museveni has been in power since 1986. In 1996, in the first elections, I heard the promise to open up the space for multi-party elections and again in 2001; now 2006 is around the corner and Development Co-operation Ireland's country strategy 2000-03 expresses doubts about the Government's commitment to full strategy. It is doubtful that Mr. Museveni will step down in 2006. When do we say enough is enough?

In 1994 the overseas aid programme started very well in Kibaale with funding of £1 million; by 1999 it had reached £10 million and by 2003 it was €30 million. During this time Uganda was involved in a major war in the Congo, had a humanitarian crisis in the north of the country and held elections in 2001 whose validity, according to international monitors, was contentious, to say the least. As humanitarian workers we have an obligation to assist in the development. While I recognise there has been progress we are obliged to stand up and say things are not going well in Uganda. Must we wait until 2006 when President Museveni goes for his third term and say that we must revise our strategy or do we continue with the line that we are engaging? It is a constructive dialogue and we are developing civil society, democracy and governance as we go from £1 million in 1994 to €30 million in 2003. Where do we go from 2003 to 2010? I am greatly concerned through my experience of working with GOAL and other organisations that we are on the wrong track in Uganda and someone at some stage must have the courage to stand up and say, "wait, we must take a break, step back for 30 seconds and take a mature look at what is happening." The first step was taken last year when the Irish Government decided to redirect €10 million of budgetary support into a poverty action fund. That was a clear guideline that things were not well in Uganda. In Development Co-operation Ireland's evaluation it was a small step but one in the right direction. Probably one could do more in that regard.

I will finish on that point but will be delighted to follow up with any questions afterwards. I hope we can continue this debate which has been very fruitful and we have a very robust dialogue with the Department and its officials, which is the only way to bring the essential points to the table and achieve some action for the poorest of the poor, specifically in northern Uganda but we must not forget about the Congo.

Chairman

The committee is making arrangements to visit Uganda in September so we might take Mr. Jordan up on his offer, and any others we receive.

Mr. Jordan

Excellent.

Chairman

The next speakers are Ms Helen Keogh, executive director World Vision Ireland and Ms Sheila Garry, director of programmes. Ms Keogh is well known to us all having served in the Houses of the Oireachtas and it is a good example to all of us that she has decided to become involved in this in a very practical way.

Ms Helen Keogh

I thank the Chairman for his remarks but I hope that is not a recommendation to others to leave the Houses. My departure was somewhat involuntary, as the Chairman knows. I thank the Chairman for the invitation to appear before the committee. World Vision considers it a unique opportunity to share its views on Uganda and the lack of progress there. Ms Sheila Garry will take the committee through our work but not in great detail because our field office in Uganda has prepared a substantial document for the committee.

For five years we have worked in partnership with World Vision Uganda which has been operating there since 1986 and works in 19 districts in the north, south, east, central and western regions. We took on board the pointers the committee gave us to make the most of this presentation. There are areas of common ground but there are some areas in which we differ slightly from our colleagues possibly because of the particular activities in which we are involved. Our documentation cites some examples of the humanitarian assistance programmes in which World Vision Uganda was involved from March 2003 to April of this year. That gives some idea of our work.

At the end of the document there is a very confusing map which shows the extent of activities by World Vision Uganda which we supported by many other countries. We have one programme there at the moment which we hope to expand to two in the coming years and we have other grant-supported activities which Ms Garry will also indicate. I thank the committee again for giving us the opportunity to be here. It is lovely to see colleagues here from the other side of the fence as it were.

Ms Sheila Garry

To continue Ms Keogh's outline of World Vision Ireland's interest in Uganda, we have for the past five years supported certain projects in the south western area of Kibaale district in Rukiga county, with co-financing grants, concentrating on education and health. That area is part of our block grant programme and last year we made a commitment to support a long-term development programme which should last between ten and 15 also in north Rukiga county. Hopefully we will build on our commitment to Uganda so that it will become a key country for us in the next few years.

A table attached to our documents details the work that World Vision Uganda does throughout the country and which it plans to expand soon. For example, there are 35 long-term integrated area development programmes, usually taking up a sub-county or two. There are plans to grow that to 50 by 2008. At present the estimated number of people reached is 2.7 million. Hopefully that will increase to 4 million in 2008 and the estimated number of orphans and vulnerable children targeted is 200,000, which will increase to 300,000 over the next four years, mainly in the districts where World Vision Uganda already operates. If we go into new districts it will be through other partners who can directly implement the programmes. There will be an increased focus on the north where we are now, but new projects will focus there because of its particular needs and also in the east of the country, which is very poor. World Vision's priorities for development work in Uganda are similar to the other agencies and focus on poverty eradication through transformational development involving primary education, children's rights, women's rights, health etc. There will be a strong focus on a humanitarian response, because of the specific needs in the north but also building in capacity for disaster mitigation in the long-term development programmes.

The response to HIV-AIDS will continue to be a major priority and will be mainstreamed into all programmes throughout the country, building capacity for advocacy for World Vision staff and local partners to improve their competence in peace-building and reconciliation; developing the capacity of partner communities to sustain project development activities and building on the work of local organisations.

The committee asked for an explanation of the organisational models that we use for working in the country. There is more detail in the submission, but generally we work through specific geographical areas with what we call area development programmes. These are based on working in partnership with local representatives. For example, in an ADP there would be democratically elected committees from the village to the sub-county level, and the committee at the latter level is key in the leadership and management of the ADP. It is made up of representatives from the various parishes of the sub-counties. These members also sit on their village committees and are instrumental in all phases of the project cycle — research, implementation, monitoring, evaluating, budgeting and so on.

Certain issues limit World Vision's development potential in Uganda. The conflict is a major limiting factor. We have already heard that the number of people living in poverty has decreased in the rest of the country but has increased in the northern area linked to the conflict, which has a huge impact on the development potential of the area and on the work that can be done there. The impact of HIV-AIDS remains devastating, although it is being tackled and the situation has improved, with some good progress. Local staff, key resource people, have been lost to the disease. Community leaders and members are dying or sick with AIDS. Resources which could be used for development purposes even at a household level are being used to care for families.

There are a number of factors affecting all development work in Uganda, such as a generally lax approach among public officials, a lack of accountability, and corruption. Public infrastructure such as schools, roads and health centres remain under-developed. If developed, they would facilitate better economic growth and development. At the same time, the country's defence budget has been increasing, taking valuable resources away from much-needed infrastructure. It has been noted that Uganda is ranked the seventh most corrupt country, and that impacts on the work being done. Poor governance means that resources are often not used in the best possible way so that the efforts of development agencies' funding often go to filling in gaps left in health and education, for example, because of money being diverted.

World Vision Uganda has experience of a very positive civil society and there is a belief that civil society organisations can be supported to do direct development work, influence public policy and monitor implementation of government programmes and policy. World Vision Uganda is looking to focus less on direct implementation and work more on facilitating the capacity building of communities. We have created a specific role in the organisation for a capacity building officer who will work particularly in the area of building up relations with civil society organisations. They are not perfect but they have very good potential and can be worked with.

Uganda has good natural resources. It has fertile soil and regular rainfall. There is a lot of potential there. Regarding Ireland's development aid priorities, World Vision welcomes the Government's support and focus on primary education, health, HIV-AIDS, water and sanitation, law and order, sector reform and plans for agricultural modernisation. They are the priorities of the people within Uganda and they are aligned with the Government's focus. DCI gets most of its aid through budget support rather than programmes and it needs to ensure strong accountability systems to safeguard this aid and to ensure that the poor benefit. It might be interesting to see comparisons between effectiveness on the basis of impact of this kind of aid and programme support, that is, support to NGOs and so on. Support to improve capacity and strengthen good governance is very important. This is the kind of work that government donors can do. They can promote bilateral programmes and they are in a strong position to influence partner governments and promote transparency and the tackling of government corruption. This is an important role for the Government to take.

Uganda has supported the notion of constitutional governance but there are factors which if not checked will threaten its development. Pressure groups have emerged. The area of constitutional reform is a key one. With the forthcoming elections in 2006 there is a demand for change to take place. The Irish Government is well positioned and should push for reform and transparency. It can have an important influence on how the Ugandan Government takes reforms on board.

The war in northern Uganda is a huge factor affecting the population. The Irish Government can have a strong role there. Corruption, the lack of transparency and the need for improved governance are all areas which can, if not tackled, hinder the progress of Uganda.

Chairman

We now come to Concern. Tom Arnold is the chief executive officer, Mike Williams is regional director for Africa and Ms Esther Watts is desk officer.

Mr. Tom Arnold

We too have produced a detailed paper on this but I will not go through it. I will make a few general points to be supplemented by Mr. Williams. As others have said, it is clear that there is a degree of complementarity and a shared view among the NGOs present. This does not extend to complete agreement on the analysis and it is important to recognise that. There are, however, broadly shared views in a significant number of areas.

I will focus on the conflict in Uganda and the impact it is having on the DCI development programme and the wider regional issues. Uganda cannot be discussed without putting it into its regional context. It is clear that the conflict in Uganda is of huge significance in terms of the damage it is currently doing. Mr. Ray Jordan spoke eloquently about that. Some 1.6 million people have been displaced and 10,000 children have been abducted by the Lords' Resistance Army. This conflicts has decimated the productive capacity of the country, with the cost estimated at about €100 million per annum.

What can be done? The situation has been going on for a very long time. Efforts are being made at different levels of politics. We know from our office in the United States that there is an active US involvement. Whatever needs to be done to resolve this conflict should be done. This is where the Irish role can be important. By any standards, our Presidency has been of great value; we have done very well. Just because our EU Presidency is to end does not mean that our responsibilities will diminish. We should build on the credibility that we have gained from our Presidency to make a serious effort at providing leadership in involving the EU and other governments to exert pressure to resolve the conflict in northern Uganda. That is a crucial short to medium-term imperative. The shorter-term issues connect with that. There must be greater emphasis on the current emergency problem in northern Uganda. There is no point in simply taking a short-term perspective. There must be more emphasis on a longer-term focus on northern Uganda too. That is an area where there is probably a significant degree of consensus among the groups present today.

The second issue to reflect on briefly is the DCI programme. Our overall sense of that is that the programme's focus on poverty alleviation, improved governance and the promotion of civil society is, broadly speaking, correct and we support it. There is an issue regarding civil society, since one must build up local NGOs for all sorts of reasons connected with accountability and so on. It is also of great importance that we recognise that international NGOs continue to have an important role in that. That is where the quality of partnership between the international NGOs and the local ones is of great importance. There is a big capacity issue in Uganda, as in other countries, and, as the last speaker mentioned, HIV-AIDS is having an impact on that, even though Uganda is seen as making progress on it. It is still a significant issue.

The third issue on which we wish to focus is the regional context of Uganda. We all know that, in the past ten years, the region has suffered greatly after the genocide in Rwanda and all that flowed from it, including the war in the Congo. We want to see a coherent approach by the Government and the international community to that regional conflict and development crisis. That is where we get into some level of difference among ourselves. It is ultimately a question of judgment as to how the Government and the international community can work to improve matters in that region and Uganda. Our view is that, on balance, a policy and consistent approach of engagement with the Ugandan Government is better than effective disengagement.

If we want to engage, that does not mean a recipe for accepting anything that those governments say. There are quite clear benchmarks and criteria that we would expect the Ugandan Government and others to meet if political and development assistance are continued. We start from the premise that we should be exerting that pressure, and we hope that it will yield results and that there are clear benchmarks regarding what must be achieved. The only way that the whole region can have any chance of development in the longer term is if African political leaders take their responsibilities seriously and live up to some of the commitments that they have made in NEPAD and elsewhere. The international community must apply a combination of carrots and sticks to ensure that those commitments are adhered to.

Mr. Mike Williams

Perhaps I might comment on the Concern programme in Uganda. We are currently in four districts in various parts of the country. We have conducted fairly extensive surveys, particularly in the north. We deliberately try to target the poorest regions and districts. One of the problems is that we have not been able to move into some of those because of the conflict. In some cases we have been able to work through partners, and we work in the north-east where there is an ongoing conflict. However, it has been a big issue for us, as for other agencies. Our emergency programme is in the north-east, in Katakwi, where last year we had an ongoing decentralisation programme which we were supporting. We had to revert to the emergency phase.

Mr. Arnold has already mentioned the need for the Government to exert pressure to achieve a more coherent approach to emergencies, but last year there was an issue regarding the speed of the response when there was a new emergency in another part of the country. We were quite shocked in Kampala. We raised at meetings, before UN and government officials, the fact that there seemed to be no willingness to address the problem. We were up there with several other NGOs. It took several months for people to make any concerted attempt to address the issue. We raised it with the Minister for Foreign Affairs when he was here, so our views on it are well known. The issue is not simply the sheer scale, which is enormous, but the willingness to respond quickly. We are also asking DCI itself to examine its capacity and try to respond as rapidly as possible when future crises occur.

There is certainly a need for greater coherence among all the agencies, but we must also consider such complex issues as the people who are fighting. Many of the soldiers were either abducted or born in captivity. There must be incentives for those people to demobilise. At the moment some of them are better off staying where they are fighting according to recent reports from the ICG and Christian Aid. It is very difficult for people to go back to their villages when they have been involved in the slaughter of their own villagers in some cases. There are other, more complex issues there too, such as how the amnesty is to be applied. It is a little fuzzy and unclear at times who will be given an amnesty. Those sorts of issues must be addressed.

There has been much talk about the need to improve governance and how that might be done. The last time that we were here, I referred to Concern being involved in decentralisation programmes in certain parts of the country. Decentralisation can be a problem, since a great deal of money is going down to a local level where there is a great deal of corruption. We are working with civil society and local government. We start at village level and go up to parish, sub-county and district levels, examining how the structure of decentralisation works and ensuring that there is better buy-in. Mr. Arnold has referred to the need for better capacity in government, so it is not always about corruption but about capacity in governance. The issue is not always simply corruption. There must be capacity and awareness of people's rights. We work on those things. It would be really good if we could get better collaboration regarding what is happening at national level. DCI has a real opportunity to work at that level and link to what we do at a more local level. The NGOs and DCI can work together more strongly. We have discussed this already, but we can do much more on it together. There are ways to address some of the governance issues.

So far today we have not said much about the agricultural or economic sectors. Agriculture still represents 42% of the Ugandan economy. That is not a very high figure by the standards of developing countries, but it still represents 80% of the workforce. The majority of those are people who work on less than two hectares, and smallholders are responsible for the vast bulk of production. We feel that there should be a great deal of emphasis, and not just on production. The tendency is to emphasise production. We must examine local marketing structures. There are international marketing issues too concerning such things as coffee, sugar and so on. However, we should also focus on national marketing issues. It is a significant question of which we have a great deal of experience in Ireland in the context of economic development.

HIV-AIDS has been mentioned many times, and DCI has done a very good job in bringing it to the fore in Uganda and in supporting the NGOs in doing so. However, there are two communities in particular that must be examined much more with regard to HIV-AIDS, the first being that of the IDP camps in the north. The second is in the military, which is responsible for a large part of the problem. We would like to see more focus on those from the international community as a whole.

Uganda has been complimented a great deal on introducing universal primary education. It was one of the first countries to do so. It led to a flood of children into schools, which is very welcome, but the capacity is not there. Of the children that entered primary school in 1997, only 22% of them completed their final exams in primary school. It is not enough to get them in there; they have to be kept there. A positive aspect of the DCI programme has been the focus on education for girls. If HIV and AIDS are to be addressed in the long term, one of the most powerful ways of doing so is to educate girls to empower women in society.

We have to look at the regional picture. It is important to recognise that it is extremely complex. Congo is the size of Western Europe, it has no governance, no roadways and everything has collapsed. We are trying to fix the railways and so on. It is a vast country with jungle terrain and 3.3 million people have died there which is horrendous. The sheer scale is enormous. There is no doubt that there are still some questions about continuing wars, particularly in Rwanda and that which has been going on in Bukavu and Goma. There is a peace agreement since last year and that is progress. There is a transition Government in place which is shaky but at least it is there. The army was united and remains so although it has been challenged in the last few days.

The Ugandan Government was one of the few that commissioned an internal inquiry at the request of the UN into the illegal exploitation of resources. That Government followed it up with a White Paper as a result of that report, has said it will prosecute people and is taking steps to do that. We have to measure how the Ugandans follow through on what they said they will do. It would be helpful if DCI could lay down the criteria clearly to measure progress in these areas. It would then need to state what would trigger a reduction in aid or a change in strategy in aid. It is about measured approaches to what we are doing.

There are many countries involved and we need to look at the bigger picture. There is a Great Lakes conference later this year which will be of importance as part of the UN process.

Mr. Noel McDonagh

I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to meet the committee. The most recent initiative by Self Help in Uganda began in 1999. Uganda is one of the poorest countries in the world. Over 60% of the population live on less than $1 per day. It is has a population of 23 million, 85% of whom are dependent on agriculture.

Our first project was in the north-east in an area called Asamuk. This three-year pilot project dealt with a community of 15,000 people. Our strategies on intervention fall into two areas: direct action, which is mainly area based programmes, and support action, which is on the wider issue of capacity building. The pilot project was immensely successful. There was a real sense of local ownership of the project and strategic activities that yielded quick results were put in place. Crop yields increased, families were provided with clean water and income generating activities added considerably to the ability of the families to deal with their issues.

In 2002 we began a full-scale programme in Amuria, an area with a population of about 120,000 and located about 46 km. north-east of Soroti town. The main focus was on food security, income generation, rural water development, women's programmes and health. The project was progressing well and early indications were that it would build on the success of the pilot project. However, in late June 2003, the project was severely disrupted by the Lord's Resistance Army which invaded the region. Families were forced to flee their homes and farms. Since then, they have been living in displacement camps in the town of Soroti. Government forces have fought the army and, unfortunately, Amuria saw some of the heaviest fighting. We had to take the decision to suspend the project in July 2003. While the Government has pushed the LRA back, skirmishes are still occurring and the area is mined. The local community refuses to leave the relative safety of the displacement camps. There was total disruption of employment opportunities for our staff and so on.

Having suspended that project, we immediately took action to begin another project in the Kamuli area, 100 km north-east of Kampala. This area was selected in agreement with the Ugandan Ministry of Agriculture. That project has just started this year and I can say no more about it at this stage. Most of our focus on the capacity building programmes or support action would have been to build the capacity of the various local authorities in the areas in which we are operating, as well as the capacity of our own staff.

Other cross-cutting issues have been mainstreamed into our activities such as HIV and AIDS. This can not be underestimated. We hear a lot about the progress that Uganda has made and there is always the danger of complacency creeping in when we hear that. It can not be allowed to creep in as the problem in the country is still great. We used an organisation in Uganda called the Creative Research and Evaluation Centre to prepare policy proposals for us. These have now been turned into action plans in all our countries of operation, but particularly in Uganda. Natural resource management is another key cross-cutting issue that must be mainstreamed to overcome the problems of deforestation, overgrazing, inappropriate farming systems, soil erosion and so on. The final issue to be mainstreamed is gender. In our submission we have given an indication of the timeframe of operations and we have included information on the model of economic progress for Uganda that we have adopted elsewhere.

The issues that limit our activities in Uganda can be divided into two parts: external influences and internal influences. The major external influence is political insecurity and conflict and most of the delegates have spoken about this already. In those circumstances, there are inevitably internal issues from an organisational point of view such as staffing, high turnover, low morale and so on. The opportunity to accelerate development in Uganda centres around the resolution of these other issues. From an internal point of view, a focus must be placed on improved marketing. We hear so much talk about marketing in the context of globalisation. For many of the peasants in the developing countries, the marketing to which they refer is to get their produce to the nearest town. Matters of scale must be addressed in these issues.

On Ireland's development priorities in Uganda, I will now make my regular plea for the practical development of the complementarity that must exist in capacity building between the activities of the major official aid organisations and the NGOs. One of the challenges facing all of us in the future is to evolve the obvious and accepted complementarity of all sectors involved in development into cohesive and effective partnerships. We must find a way to make the sum of the parts greater than the whole. In recent times we in Ireland have looked at these things in a positive way and the potential has been recognised. More must be done to turn these good ideas into practical operational partnerships on the ground.

One of the millennium development goals covers conflict resolution and conflicts are internal and external. While some action is evident in addressing external conflict, questions arise about internal ones particularly when they exist in those countries which Ireland has designated as a priority. This is the case in Uganda. Our beneficiaries have experienced in a very particular way the consequences of this kind of conflict. Apart from the long-term damage to development potential, other issues arise such as the displacement of communities, the abduction and induction of child soldiers, the supply of arms and landmines, and so on. Where are the arms and the mines being sourced? Who is providing the finance? Should Ireland attempt to play a role in the resolution of the conflict? That touches on the issue Mr. Arnold raised about the conflict between different approaches to engagement or disengagement. One of the points often lost in the debate on these issues is the long-term effects on the people, the Ugandan peasants, whom we are trying to help.

In Uganda certain public services are being privatised, including the agricultural extension advisory services. Is this an appropriate strategy for a country such as Uganda at its present stage of development? There is little doubt that these services will now be beyond the means of the average peasant farmer and present another hurdle in the way of development. On whose advice or at whose initiative is this being taken and how appropriate are some of the prescriptions proposed or imposed by multilateral agencies? Privatisation of extension services might be a viable strategy for consideration by relatively advanced economies such as Ireland's but is it really appropriate for Uganda?

This raises two questions for Ireland. Where we are active in one of the priority countries to what extent should we try to influence the prescriptions being proposed for these countries by the multilateral agencies? In so far as it channels a considerable proportion of its aid budget through such agencies, to what extent does it attempt to influence, and to what extent is it successful in influencing the policies and strategies of these agencies?

Deputy Carey

I must take over the Chair in the Dáil Chamber in a few minutes. There are some matters I would love to address but I cannot stay. Would the Chairman permit me to flag them before I leave? Could Mr. Kilcullen elaborate on the protocol for Sudan? I would like Mr. Jordan to take up the last two paragraphs of Mr. O'Shea's letter to the committee which states that it is outrageous for Ireland to continue supporting the regime on moral grounds and urges the committee to adopt a different approach. There is an apparent conflict between Trócaire and World Vision about the civil society. The former says it is weak, whereas the latter is happy that it is vibrant. Other questions have arisen. I apologise that I must take over the Chair in the Dáil.

Chairman

There is a system by which certain distinguished Deputies are asked to take the Chair in the Dáil at different stages during the day.

Senator O’Rourke

I am an undistinguished Senator but I too must leave to do my duty in the Seanad soon.

Chairman

Our final contribution is from Oxfam Ireland, with Aodh O'Connor and Clodagh Heagny.

Mr. Aodh O’Connor

I thank the committee for inviting us to speak here today. It is a useful part of the critical dialogue that needs to take place between the NGOs, Development Co-operation Ireland and the Department of Foreign Affairs. Oxfam Ireland is one of three international Oxfams involved in Uganda, the other two being Oxfam GB and Oxfam Netherlands, or Novib. Oxfam Ireland is not directly involved in the programme but we support two Oxfam GB programmes in Kotido in the Karamoja district and in Rwenzori in the western province. Oxfam GB is very involved in the northern province where the conflict impinges on its work, and Novib is involved in building the capacity of civil society around the country. The paper we submitted deals with our programmes so I will focus on the substantive issues.

Oxfam is a rights-based organisation and the key rights on which we focus in Uganda are sustainable livelihoods, the right to life and security, and the right to be heard. The need to uphold those rights was echoed in the other submissions here. Allied to this we feel strongly about supporting the increased accountability of institutions, in particular to support civil society's capacity to monitor and influence local government work. We try to focus on the building of local government capacity which links closely with the focus of Development Co-operation Ireland.

Oxfam has identified three factors as limiting its development work in Uganda. The first is governance and accountability. For example, the marginalisation of pasturalists is a crisis of governance and can be seen as a failure to take into account the needs of Ugandans in planning and implementing development interventions. One can say the same of the north. The second factor is the deepening humanitarian crisis wherein over 1.6 million people have been displaced causing grave concern. The third issue, which has not been dealt with in any great depth here and has a significant impact on people in Uganda, is the negative impact of global terms of trade, particularly in the coffee crisis.

Good governance is a key issue for us and Development Co-operation Ireland has identified it too. Donors need to be clear about expected standards and invest in developing adequate internal and government capacity to follow up on how money is used. We are closely involved in this process, through a variety of networks, the Anti-Corruption Coalition of Uganda, the National NGO Forum, the Uganda Debt Network and the Uganda Land Alliance, all of which deal with accountability which is high on our list of priorities. With regard to Ireland's development priorities for Uganda, the Development Co-operation Ireland programme is closely related to the poverty eradication action plan which particularly supports four key sectors: education and health, justice and law and order, governance, and agriculture. A total of €30.5 million has been committed this year, through a combination of the poverty action fund, sectoral support and project basket funding. We broadly welcome this approach but want to ensure that Development Co-operation Ireland ensures adequate monitoring and evaluation of that fund.

We also insist that NGOs are not an alternative to governments. This bilateral approach must continue but the way in which it is carried out is critical. If support is well-managed and monitored and these are the key issues, it should also help to make the Government more responsible and accountable which is critical. As a rights-based organisation, having a responsible and accountable Government is a crucial element of delivery of those rights to poor people. We also must ask whether it is more effective to work within and influence, or stand outside and criticise. We favour the first option but acknowledge a role for external criticism and feel that Development Co-operation Ireland is well placed to work within the existing structures to modify and change them so they favour the poor.

Development Co-operation Ireland's decision to re-allocate some of its fund, €12.7 million, last year to the poverty action fund was welcomed but it acknowledged the amount of money coming from that fund did not increase. If we re-allocate, the money must be well-spent where it is intended to spend it.

DCI capacity to monitor what is happening with its own money is also crucial, as is technical support to the Minister for Finance and other Departments. This matter has been raised. While it is important that DCI is cognisant of its own capacity, it also needs to build the capacity of Departments to do likewise. This issue was highlighted in the report of the Ireland Aid review committee in 2002 which states:

Budget support is an effective vehicle for bilateral aid, which can make a real impact on poverty reduction in certain countries. However, there are risks attached, including the serious incidence of corruption and mismanagement in many developing countries which give rise to legitimate concerns.

We have heard about some of those concerns. The report continues:

While the risks associated with budget support may be no greater than those which attach to any form of bilateral intervention, they must nevertheless be weighed carefully and regularly evaluated.

This is partly what the process is about. With other bilateral donors, DCI supports the World Bank-led poverty reduction support credits. It has also acknowledged the need to move outside that and outside the World Bank mandate. This is where Oxfam fits very closely with DCI's work. Over the past couple of years we have seen the development of the governance matrix in Uganda. Four primary issues have been identified in this approach. They are the democratisation process, the human rights situation, transparency and accountability and national and regional security interests.

Oxfam Netherlands is part of the joint Uganda governance monitoring project. This initiative of Dutch NGOs and national NGOs which the former supports monitors these four benchmarks. The monitoring report is then to be used by the Dutch Government to hold critical dialogue with the Ugandan Government. Oxfam Ireland is collaborating with its Oxfam partners in looking at how this is working and how we can apply it in our own work. DCI can learn from this process because with regard to a governance monitoring project such as the one put in place by the Dutch NGOs, the applicability of such a project to how the DCI works with the Ugandan Government could be replicated with a strong impact on how DCI funds are used.

Oxfam acknowledges DCI's support for its programmes, particularly in Kotido, which has been very difficult to support, partly because it is building the capacity of pastoralists to work through local governments and local government institutions. It has been difficult to fund that from other sources and DCI has been very supportive in funding that.

Another initiative in which Oxfam has been involved and which has proved very difficult to support other than by means of Oxfam's own funds is the "right to be heard" programme. This deals with anti-corruption, gender, budget monitoring and such issues. Oxfam has taken the rights-based approach, of which the right to be heard is a critical element. I agree with previous speakers in their remarks about the civil society. In Uganda the civil society is vibrant and needs to be supported by international NGOs like ourselves. NGOs have a particular role there, and Oxfam is well placed in that area.

Chairman

We have had extensive contributions and I thank the NGOs for the thoroughness with which they approached the issue. Their contributions will be very valuable when we compile our report. We would like to come back to the NGOs later when preparing the report.

One trend running through all this is the great concern about Museveni and his efforts to change the Ugandan Constitution before the elections in 2006. At our recent conference, a gentleman attended from Uganda, Norbert Mau. He is an MP and he plans to contest the Ugandan election in 2006, so at this stage he is preparing himself. As part of the Irish EU Presidency, we plan to publish the various contributions made at that conference on development co-operation. The representatives of the 30 different countries, including Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Croatia and Turkey, were very impressed with the work presented by the NGOs who came along to the conference, by the discussion and by the nature of that EU Presidency conference. It had quite an impact on the foreign affairs committees of the 30 countries, which is helpful. That was our intent.

The Museveni situation is important. We hear a great deal about corruption all the time and, as we know, Uganda is ranked seventh in the list of corrupt countries. It is very difficult to deal with that issue but it must be dealt with.

The question of the NGOs having to re-register each year is one we might try to take up ourselves as a committee. A new ambassador was appointed yesterday and we look forward to speaking to him in the first instance. The role of NGOs and their importance was raised by Justin Kilcullen. I was in Prague in early 1990 just after the Berlin Wall had come down. Ireland held the EU Presidency at the time. While in Prague, we went out to help people after the Berlin Wall fell. That was a policy on the part of the Irish Government. I was in what was then Czechoslovakia and we were giving assistance in computerisation, pension arrangements, social security and so on.

It was very striking that those who worked with us wanted to know if we could get NGOs involved, because no NGOs were assisting in their situation. If one were to do a study or thesis in a place with no NGOs, one would find it just did not work. I support the NGOs present in saying that, but throughout the whole of the society there are people doing a great deal of voluntary work, and people occasionally say there should be no need because the work could all be done by governments. That is largely nonsense. The NGOs and the volunteers are a crucial part of the fabric of the society. The people I spoke to wanted the church bodies representing different religions to return and they wanted NGOs which were not church related. It was interesting to see a situation where there had not been any of these people for quite some time.

Justin Kilcullen mentioned the World Bank and the shift to the higher poverty areas. The bank was represented at our conference and it intends to work much more closely with us. There has been a brake on the bank in terms of becoming too closely involved with politicians and governments The World Bank has tended to stay aloof, but is now coming closer to us. About a year and a half ago, its president informed us his people were available for anything we wanted, but when we sought people we could not get them. That situation is now changing, which is a good sign. We will get more practicality into the area. The World Bank has, for example, shifted its concentration to high poverty areas, which is quite a substantial shift.

Museveni featured strongly in the statement by Ray Jordan of GOAL. It was suggested we should visit Uganda and we plan to go there. We will talk of that later.

There were many other interesting and valuable contributions that will be of great help to us, for instance, the major role of the international NGOs and the question of needing and wanting to work in partnership. That is also something on which we can work and try to develop. I also noted what Mr. Williams referred to educating girls about HIV-AIDS. One fact that I came across is that, if one can keep girls in education up to 15, one is more than half way towards winning the battle. It is essential to keep them in education for that length of time. That confirms the point made.

We have also made a note of the Great Lakes conference. I have taken down everything that Noel McDonagh said, since I cannot pick up all his points immediately. It is a bad habit from my days in research. Marketing needs were mentioned, and he spoke of what are effectively the first steps. How does one get to the local village or town? If one thinks back on the Irish situation, that is exactly what we did at first. We got the milk suppliers into the nearest small town, and that became a community centre in many ways, since people came to visit. It was not until very much later that one was able to pull those together. When one knows how it should be done, one can do it a little more quickly than we did in our time. However, if one does not go through those first steps, one will probably not get anywhere.

The witnesses referred to privatised agricultural services. It seems extraordinary at this stage to be moving on to privatisation. There may be a case for the large operators, but it would seem extraordinary, with a substantial number of small producers, to be privatising agricultural assistance, support and extension services. They have a great part to play in that development. It has been referred to by one or two people that 80% of the population is involved in agriculture. When I came to examine these issues, I knew that it would be so. I sought out the figures which exist. One must go through a very long process of transition.

Regarding the negative impact on the global terms of trade, we have a delegation travelling to São Paulo for the UNCTAD conference. I agree that it is a major issue for us all.

Senator Kitt

I was going to ask a question to which Deputy Carey referred before he left. He said that he would consider it outrageous on moral grounds for Ireland to consider supporting the Ugandan regime. He spoke at the recent conference to which the Chairman referred. The question concerns helping other programmes. He spoke about redirecting money and how one can ensure that the money is spent if, as he says, one should not be giving it to the regime. That is one issue. He also spoke at the conference on the idea of people such as President Bush, European leaders, and the President of the European Union making contact with people such as Museveni and those in other countries where there is corruption. He made it sound very simple, as if a telephone call would do. It certainly would not do any harm, as we say in the west. If it were as simple as that, it would be lovely. However, if that kind of approach is adopted, there is still a chance for the Taoiseach, as President of the European Union, to do that. I wonder whether that is a possibility.

Regarding our own DCI programme, I am interested in what has been said about laying down criteria for capacity, and we should examine that at a further meeting. The difficulty today is that there are so many NGOs present — perhaps too many for one meeting. We should probably return to the issue. There may be other NGOs which also wish to put forward their case. I hope that we will do so.

Chairman

Will some of the delegations reply?

Ms Healy

Perhaps I might clarify something before dealing with Deputy Carey's questions. The issue of re-registration and the requirements of the Ugandan Government in that regard apply to local NGOs and not international ones. It is not a great issue for us here today, but it is a serious and substantial issue for local NGOs and a further manifestation of the serious issues concerning governance in Uganda.

Regarding Deputy Carey's queries on Sudan, at the end of May further protocols were signed as part of ongoing negotiations between the Khartoum government and the Sudan People's Liberation Army movement. Those almost bring the peace agreement to a conclusion. The relevance of that for Uganda is that Joseph Kony, the mystical but by no means magical leader of the Lord's Resistance Army, has many bases in southern Sudan, where he resides himself for the most part. It is from there that most of the incursions against the Ugandan Government and the people of Uganda are made. The peace agreement in Sudan provides a golden opportunity to root out the LRA bases in the south of the country and, one hopes, contribute to peace in northern Uganda.

Chairman

There were some questions for Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Jordan

I shall refer to John O'Shea's letter regarding our view on the withdrawal of bilateral aid from Uganda. At the opening of my own presentation, I said that from 1994 we saw Uganda receiving €1 million. In 1999 that had risen to €10 million. From 1999 to 2003, it went from €10 million to €30 million. In that time, we have seen 3 million to 5 million people killed in the Congo. It is internationally recognised that the elections in 2001 were not completely free or fair. Between 2002 and 2003, DCI funding in Uganda went from €21 million to €30 million. That is exactly the time during which the number of IDPs in northern Uganda went from 500,000 to today's 1.6 million.

When are we going to say that our approach is not on track with the reality on the ground? That is our entire view of the bilateral aid programme. We recognise the successes in the south and south-west. We would be the first to say that, although there are a certain number of question marks about HIV-AIDS. However, if one has the time and commitment to go to the north of the country and the Congo and see what is happening there, one sees at what regional cost, as Mr. Arnold said, that measured success in health and education has been won. We believe that the cost-benefit analysis of the DCI programme in Uganda shows that the benefits are not worth the lives and suffering of 1.6 million in the north. We must sit down and have some hard talking and direct action.

We have all said that the Government should be responsible and accountable. It said that in the executive summary of the evaluation of the DCI country strategy. On the other hand, pervasive corruption is acknowledged as a serious problem, as are doubts over the Government's full commitment to democracy. We have been addressing all those things, which we have been seeing since 1994, through 1996, the time of the first election, to 2001. Now we are in 2004, faced with the prospect of elections in 2006 and having the same conversation. The problem is getting worse rather than better in the macro-context of the humanitarian suffering in the north of the country. We could stay here forever discussing the relative merits of the successes, which I definitely recognise. We are not on the right track and we have disagreements with the strategy of DCI. We also have had robust dialogue with some of our NGO colleagues. We want it to be taken as seriously as the suffering of 1.6 million people in the north of the country.

Chairman

It brings up an issue that has been pertinent for some time. The work carried out by DCI and the other NGOs is very valuable. However, these great political problems override that. A peace process and an agreement of some sort is required first and foremost. As Ms Healy of Trócaire already stated, if peace protocols can be agreed in Sudan, it grants an opportunity to work in the northern part of Uganda.

In many ways it is similar to the situation in Northern Ireland only greater. We must keep working. People worked for contacts and development on a North-South basis in Ireland and on an east-west basis with the UK. It was not an easy time. At times people became frustrated and felt the work they were doing was only partially successful. They carried out tremendous work only to see it washed away by political movements. It brings home the need for political leadership at a high level and the opportunities exist for that at this stage.

We note that and will consult some of the NGOs present before we complete the report. The clerk of the committee Mr. John Hamilton made the point at the conference we had earlier with different countries. I try to make the point to those people that the EU needs to take a greater interest. It pours the greatest amount of money into these countries and continues to do so. We can not keep telling people that what they are doing is a waste of time as they will begin to believe it after a while. That is where the conflict comes in. One must have clear objectives and criteria. How do the NGOs relate to the local authorities and administrations?

Mr. Jordan

Nobody claims that there is a quick-fix solution to this. The former Ireland Aid priority country was Sudan which received bilateral assistance from the 1970s until 1998. Eventually someone had to state that the programme was not going well. Our mission in Khartoum was closed down and bilateral aid funding stopped. Yet, here we are today and, please God, Sudan is back on the right track after the signing of the peace agreements. There has to be constructive engagement. For several years distinguished commentators have been saying that the only way to solve the northern conflict in Sudan is to have constructive dialogue using the Acholi religious and cultural leaders and not to increase defence spending.

The European Parliament passed a resolution in July 2003 on human rights violations in Uganda. It was claimed that the continuation of the conflict had led to a 23% increase in the army budget that year to the detriment of education and health. This year there is more talk on increasing defence spending. We are looking at this the wrong way around. We think we can steamroll the north of the country to get it back in line without having constructive dialogue. The Acholi leaders are there and we can speak with them. Our DCI colleagues have been involved in this work. All this has taken place with a DCI strategy that has made quantum leaps on the level of funding to this Government year after year. We are saying that this is wrong and somebody has to do something about it. At the moment it is 1.6 million IDPs. When it reaches 3 million IDPs do we then decide to draw a line under the strategy on capacity building, local government and democracy in the south?

We liaise with the local authorities and administrations through experience. We work with 70 CBOs and NGOs on our civil society programme. We work in 18 of the 56 districts in Uganda with our partners. It has built up relatively small projects over a long time. It is a slow process but it is worthwhile and we are continuing it in the south. In the north, there is a more direct line of implementation on our humanitarian activities because the IDPs do not have the capacity or assistance from governments. From the village to the sub-country to the district of Pader in which we are working, there is nothing to support the people. We have challenges every day and we do not have the golden answer to the problems. We are constructive in our engagement at an operational level. This strong point of advocacy from GOAL is constructive in doing the right job for the region and for the people in Uganda.

Chairman

Everyone is working with small local organisations, building capacity and working on education and health. There are good indicators from Uganda but there are also major problems. We are trying to discover how we can use our political influence to assist the overall situation and the leadership situation.

Ms Keogh

We recognise the problems illustrated by Mr. Jordan and nobody denies that problems exist. World Vision Ireland has huge capacity in Uganda. We work from the ground up with the poorest of the poor to develop a democratisation process in the way we operate. On balance, our view is to support the approach of DCI but we also advise on the checks and balances that take place, the scrutiny that is still wanting and so on.

I do not think there is a dispute among us on the civil society in Uganda. Our experience of the Ugandan people is that there is the opportunity to advance civil society with networks such as Oxfam and ourselves. It is not just an opportunity but also a need and a desire. That is the feedback we get from the 19 districts in which we operate.

Mr. Kilcullen

We find that civil society is very vibrant at the local level. At national level, where organisations can run with these key issues around democratisation and rights and so on, we find that there is a weakness. Organisations like Trócaire are helping to build capacity in that respect. It is accepted that countries that are democratic are countries where people can thrive. We only need to look at the history of India, the biggest democracy in the world. When I was at school, India was the basket case of the world but now it has a fully functioning democracy, people are accountable and it is going from strength to strength. It would be a critical error for parliamentarians and governments in institutions in the West which are dedicated to democracy to withdraw from a country where the promotion of democratisation is vital. Difficult as it is to deal with, we must hang in there and work at every level of national and local government and civil society. If the day comes when it seems no longer worthwhile and we should withdraw, maybe we would need to consider that, but Trócaire does not believe that day has yet arrived.

Chairman

We will leave the discussion for the moment because we will be debating this subject in more detail in July when the preparation of next year's Estimates begins. If there are statements to the effect that the money is wasted, there will be less money available, something of which I am conscious and about which I am concerned. While we must face difficulty and find ways of dealing with it, we should be careful about the impact of what we say and do, especially at critical times. I have perhaps the longest experience of anyone in that area having been five times Minister for Social Welfare.

On behalf of the committee I thank the delegations for their presentations which were most informative and continue to stimulate much debate, and for answering our questions. We have noted the views expressed here today and will take account of them in our report to be published this summer. The report is not the end of the line but we want to put something down on paper and not simply continue talking. We thank the delegations for attending and taking the time to give us the value of their practical and detailed experience which is of great value to us.

The Sub-Committee on European Scrutiny has examined four proposals falling within the remit of the Department of Foreign Affairs: COM (2004) 203, Council decision on the principles, priorities and conditions contained in the European partnership with Albania; COM (2004) 204, Council decision on the principles, priorities and conditions contained in the European partnership with the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia; COM (2004) 205, Council decision on the principles, priorities and conditions contained in the European partnership with Bosnia Herzegovina; and COM (2004) 206, Council decision on the principles, priorities and conditions contained in the European partnership with Serbia and Montenegro, including Kosovo, as defined by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 of 10 June 1999. The sub-committee has recommended that no further scrutiny of these proposals is necessary. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.05 p.m. sine die.