JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sub-Committee on Overseas Development) debate -
Thursday, 2 Apr 2009

Overseas Development Aid Budget: Discussion with Dóchas.

Chairman

I welcome Mr. Hans Zomer, director of Dóchas, the Irish Association of Non-Governmental Development Organisations. Mr. Zomer is accompanied by Mr. Tom Arnold, CEO of Concern Worldwide, and Mr. Jim Clarken, CEO of Oxfam Ireland. We are under no illusions as to why it is so pertinent to have these gentlemen present. There have been cuts to the aid budget in recent months and it is not beyond the bounds of reason to expect some scrutiny of the aid budget as we approach the budget next week. Non-governmental development organisations, NGOs, and Dóchas have made it very clear that this would be a serious mistake considering the impact it would have on people's lives. Members of the Government parties should note this hearing was not scheduled for this reason. They should note that, while I am a member of the Opposition, the arrangement with Dóchas is long standing.

I invite Mr. Zomer to make a presentation. If Mr. Arnold and Mr. Clarken would like to do so also, that will be fine. Afterwards, we can open up the discussion to members.

Mr. Hans Zomer

I thank the Chairman and the members for the opportunity to discuss Ireland's aid programme again. We would like to use this opportunity to express our disappointment over the circumstances that have led to our being here today. We understand the Government is making difficult choices in rebalancing its public expenditure but we believed there was cross-party support for overseas development. We believed our Government understood the central importance for Ireland of international co-operation. We are extremely disappointed to find ourselves in a situation where the Government has, in the space of eight months, found €7 billion to assist the banking sector that had brought itself into disrepute and is now seriously considering making the world's poorest people pay the bill. We find ourselves having to remind Ministers of their own promises, made at the highest level and the most public of public fora, namely, the United Nations. These promises have brought Ireland great gains in terms of international influence and respect and have raised the hopes of billions around the world such that, on this occasion, it would not be business as usual and that rich countries such as Ireland — despite all the doom and gloom, we are still rich — would do their best to address the enormous injustice that is global poverty.

Let me remind the committee of the promises we made. At the UN Millennium Review Summit in 2005, the then Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, made a commitment that Ireland would reach the UN target of spending 0.7%, or 70 cent of every €100, of our GNP on overseas aid by 2012. In 2006, in the White Paper on Irish Aid, the Government declared that development co-operation was an integral part or central plank of Ireland's foreign policy. It stated the overarching objective of our development co-operation effort is to reduce poverty and vulnerability and increase opportunity.

As late as September 2008 and January 2009, the Taoiseach, Deputy Cowen, reiterated our solemn promise. In his response to Pope Benedict's new year message this January, he said:

I welcome the commitments made in the Declaration that issued at the Doha Conference in December and note that, despite serious economic difficulties, Ireland remains on course to achieve the target of spending 0.7 per cent of GNP on Overseas Development Aid.

In this time of global economic crisis, His Holiness' message is a timely reminder of the obligation that we in the developed world have to assist those in greater need. Poverty destroys human potential, increases vulnerability and limits opportunity. We must ensure that progress already made is safeguarded and that commitments made in fulfilment of the Millennium Development Goals do not falter.

With public statements such as this coming from our Head of Government, what reason could we have to doubt our Government's commitment? Yet, a few weeks after the Taoiseach's statement, the Government cut overseas aid by 10%. We cut the aid budget precisely at a time when we need more, not less, international co-operation, when the world's poorest people need our aid most. In a briefing we sent to all Members of the Oireachtas in early March, we detailed how poor countries and poor communities are suffering hard as a direct consequence of the global crisis. Ireland is now cutting its aid budget, and considering cutting it again, because we want to get out of the crisis by adjusting our Government spending – and we have turned to our friends in the US and Europe to help us. The irony is that by cutting our overseas aid we are denying poor countries the very type of support that we ourselves are seeking abroad.

Ireland's tax income is down and our options for dealing with the crisis are indeed restricted, but in comparison with poor countries, our options are limitless. We have the fiscal space and the economic buffers to shield us from the worst effects of the global crisis. The poor countries have seen most of their safety nets disappear. Government income from trade is down as demand for development country produce is drying up. Foreign direct investment is down as western companies shun countries that are deemed to be too risky. Remittances are down as millions of workers are losing their jobs or returning home. National income, too, is down in developing countries as currencies lose their value against major currencies. In short, poor countries are becoming poorer.

It would be unthinkable to abandon these countries now in their hour of need, because it would be wrong in light of our solemn promises. Rich countries have caused this global crisis and rich countries such as Ireland have the responsibility to resolve it and shield those who suffer most from its consequences. Millions of people have already fallen into the poverty trap as a result of the global crisis – and it will take them decades to get out of poverty again. If we in the developed world can find $7 trillion for bail outs and stimuli, and if Ireland can find €7 billion to help our banks, it is hard to maintain that we cannot find a fraction of that amount to help developing countries. Finding this money is not simply a matter of charity or ethics but rather is fundamentally a conflict of interest strategy. The world is on a road to collision between North and South because developing countries are suffering the consequences of crises for which they are not responsible. Climate change and the financial crisis are not the responsibility of and are not caused by poor countries. People in poor countries know this very well and they are less and less likely to put up with it.

There are many reasons Ireland cannot and must not reduce its investment in overseas aid. Ireland believes in development co-operation because it is the right thing to do and because we believe it is possible to make poverty history. If we want to reach the Millennium Development Goals, we must stick to our end of the bargain. We promised to help development countries by providing our fair share of the resources to deliver on the global plan to halve poverty. We call on all politicians in Leinster House and particularly the members of this sub-committee to show that Ireland has not forgotten its reasons for investing in aid and its promises to the world's poorest people. We know that aid works and that it makes sense. We know that all parties represented in Dáil Éireann and the Seanad support overseas aid. Therefore we call on all elected representatives to show that this support is genuine and to remind the Taoiseach that they will support him and his Government in protecting our aid to the world's poorest people.

Mr. Tom Arnold

As we meet, we are extremely conscious of the background to the two crises we are facing — the broad economic international crisis which the G20 is considering in London; and our domestic financial and economic crisis. We are acutely aware of all of that. However, our starting point is that if it was right for all types of reasons to commit to a small percentage of national income to be given as aid when we were wealthy, then it is even more important, perhaps, to stick to that resolve when we are less well off, because of the wider economic circumstances. I say this because of the role I believe Ireland, even though it is not at the G20 conference, has to play as part of the wider group of rich countries.

I shall just talk briefly about the G20. Mr. Robert Zoellick, the head of the World Bank, said in an interview last night that there are two basic reasons the G20 must take account of the plight of the poorest countries. One is the basic issue of compassion, the safety net for the very poorest. Second, keeping purchasing power in the hands of a larger group of poor people has to be part of any strategy or vision for the world to start working its way out of this crisis. Some of the things being discussed by the G20 in London, today, hopefully will address those two issues. It is in that context that the symbolic importance of the Irish decision on aid should be seen as part of a wider responsibility on rich countries to, in a sense, chart the course for the future.

When we look to our own situation, there are clearly great issues of distress at home as more people lose their jobs. The graphic image on the front of the Irish Examiner this morning showing people queuing for food brings home, in a very stark manner, that there are hungry people suffering at home — to the extent that they are queuing for food. However, to put this in the wider context of the world all of us, the NGOs, are working in, in the past year because of higher food and energy prices an additional 100 million people moved from not being hungry to being hungry. That was before the impact of the current economic crisis. That is part of the context as well. As we consider the plight of the people queuing on the quays in Dublin today there has to be a sense of solidarity with the additional 100 million people who graduated into hunger over the past year. Our response in this area is not just a matter of charity or of putting in safety nets. Ireland’s role — and this sub-committee has examined it — in providing leadership at international level to deal with this problem of hunger is very well recognised. The report of the Hunger Task Force that was produced last September has been widely acknowledged as very progressive, for which Ireland has gained a great deal of credit. If we are, in a sense, to cut away the possibility of implementing that report, we are also going to lose out.

My final point is important for public understanding. Irish Aid, over the past decade in particular, has built up a very strong important and productive relationship with Irish NGOs, through the MAPS programme as well as other means of co-operation. It seems to me that Irish people want this co-operation and want Irish Aid, the taxpayer and the NGOs to work together. In effect, it means that two plus two adds up to six. The resources NGOs have in terms of their personnel and commitment added to the money Irish Aid gives really makes an enormous difference to poverty in the developing world. Again, if there are significant cuts in the programme, it will significantly undermine the capacity of all of us — the people we are representing here, supported by the very broad public — in terms of our ability to make a real impact on poverty.

Mr. Jim Clarken

I thank the sub-committee for the opportunity to address it, today. I am the chief executive of Oxfam Ireland. I want to talk briefly about Oxfam, in case anybody is not fully aware of what we do. Then I shall give some examples of how the Irish aid programme has directly assisted what we are doing and demonstrate how any reduction in that will devastate our efforts.

Fundamentally, we believe that we collectively have the power to end poverty and injustice. Just as with apartheid and slavery, we need the commitment and the willingness to do it.

Oxfam has been in Ireland in one shape or another for about 40 years. We are an independent Irish NGO working on an all-island basis, with more than 100,000 active supporters, including donors, volunteers and thousands of campaigners throughout Ireland, in every village, town and city. They range from passionate young campaigners to retired old people who volunteer in our shops and who support the work we do. We are an independent organisation, but we are also part of the Oxfam International confederation, of which I sit on the board. We work collectively in more than 100 countries, so we have a global reach. We are part of a global movement for change. The honorary president of Oxfam International is Mrs. Mary Robinson.

We work in three main ways. We provide humanitarian work in sudden onset and long-term emergencies such as in the DRC, northern Uganda and Darfur. We do long-term livelihood work and HIV/AIDS work in Tanzania, Malawi, rural South Africa and other countries. We also work in campaigning and advocacy for the issues that affect people in the developing world, such as debt relief and climate change, and we highlight the effects of the current food price crisis and the global financial crisis.

One of our successes has been to begin the fair trade movement in Ireland, and this has now gone mainstream. A few weeks ago, Cadbury announced that all its dairy milk bars would now be made with fair trade sourced cocoa from Ghana. Tens of thousands of farmers will benefit from this. GlaxoSmithKline announced recently that all drugs it provides to the 52 poorest countries will be reduced in price. These are examples of the power of campaigning and the effectiveness of advocacy.

I could provide many examples and statistics about the effectiveness of the aid that Irish Aid provides to us and our colleagues. We work in a district in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo. We work through partners to provide clean water and good sanitation facilities for communities along the shores of Lake Albert. Before we arrived, the area had no clean water sources and no sanitation facilities. There were thousands of cases of cholera each year. Due to the provision of clean water and education, the incidence of this disease has been reduced to fewer than ten cases in 2007. That is a direct result of the funding received from Irish Aid. We provided new bore-holes, repaired existing water supplies, paid for public health promoters and provided emergency stock in the instances where cholera broke out.

The funding we received for that programme has since been eliminated. It is gone. There are 182,000 people who will no longer have secure access to clean water, and they will not have the capacity to respond to outbreaks of cholera that may arise. Prior to that, we were the main source of contact for that community to alert the international community and to instigate work on that. There are other programmes, such as protection programming, which will now be gone and may result in an increase in attacks on locals, particularly women and girls gathering wood and water and who will have to go further than they used to go to obtain clean water sources. If we stop funding this programme, people will die. It is as simple as that.

In the past 24 hours there has been escalation of the conflict in the DRC. Members may be aware that the conflict there has claimed approximately 5.4 million lives in the past ten years. It is the worst conflict since World War Two and we have been working there for a long time, as have several of our partners. As a direct result of the cutbacks, we have had to dip into the emergency fund we would normally put aside for this kind of relief that is required by the 220,000 additional displaced people. We must spend it now on the water and sanitation projects I mentioned. I will travel there next week to assess the situation, but it looks pretty dire from where we stand now. It is much the same in southern Sudan, where I lived and worked a few years ago.

We support many local partners globally, one of which is AFRIWAG in Tanzania. We have been working with this organisation since 2004, providing various vital supply services to orphans and other children made vulnerable by HIV and AIDS. If the Irish Aid fund to Oxfam Ireland drops, we will have to reduce that dramatically. At the moment we are working with 16,000 orphans in primary schools who receive scholastic support, 2,000 orphans who receive medication, 250 secondary school students, 45 households who need essential food items, 150 households caring for orphans who receive social support, and 2,000 children made vulnerable by HIV and AIDS. These are just some examples of real life situations.

I will finish up by telling members about a very impressive lady called Nganashe Lembris, who lives in Tanzania. She has been supported by one of our local partners in that country. She was not allowed to go to school, as she was a girl, so she started capacity building through this programme that we support. The following is her narrative.

I was offered land under customary arrangements, and I use it for farming and keeping animals. I divide the crops I get from this farm into two halves; one half for commercial purposes and the other half as food security for my family. My participation in the course was an eye opener. I learned about land tenure, small business and the benefits of having a certificate of occupancy of land.

I was asked to participate in the village assembly where I was elected to become a community animator for the village. The training has been very useful. I have, for example, managed to improve my agricultural practices by using manure and improved seeds. In the last harvest, I managed to raise production to 12 sacks of maize, from only four in the previous year.

That is a dramatic result from the work being done. She saved the sum of money, she bought heifers and sold them, and invested that money in building her business. Ultimately, her ambition is to send her children to school.

People like Nganashe are real people. These are not statistics or numbers being fired around. They are people like you and me who find themselves in difficult circumstances. They want to raise their families in hope and dignity. They do not want our charity, but they need our ongoing commitment to help them get out of the devastating cocktail of disasters that have been mentioned, disasters that they did not create, but which have combined to put their lives and the lives of their families in the most precarious position.

We appreciate the major challenges that committee members and their colleagues are facing at this time, but we implore them to use their influence to ensure that the overseas development budget, on which the lives of the people I have discussed depend, is not cut even further. These people are already suffering the most as a consequence of the global economic crisis. I ask committee members to please ensure that they do not suffer any more.

Chairman

Thank you very much. I am glad you gave those examples. The debate in recent weeks has been very passionate, but it has been slightly sterile as it has been based on policy. It is worth reminding people that we are not discussing funding for roads. It is necessary that the consequences of any further cuts be specified in real human terms.

Can Mr. Arnold explain the kind of effect that the cuts have had on his organisation? What would be the effect of further cuts in those human terms? The public debate has been slightly faceless and we need to elaborate and draw a picture of those real consequences. I ask the same question of Mr. Zomer.

Mr. Tom Arnold

That is a very pertinent comment. It is possible to be specific in this committee, so let me take the case of Kenya. We are delighted to see the Kenyan ambassador here. I was in Kenya last January and it is moving towards a very significant food security crisis with 10 million people. We had a proposal to deal with part of that problem, which we put to Irish Aid. In effect, it would cover an intervention which would affect perhaps 200,000 people. The proposal concerned very basic measures, such as helping to get food to people and get inputs to farmers so they could look to their own food security. However, because of the uncertainty of funding, Irish Aid is having to make cutbacks, which is one example of this development. The fear is the cutbacks will become more severe.

We are beginning to see signs of this in Ethiopia, which is always on a knife edge in terms of food. There is always a minimum of 5 million to 7 million people who must get food assistance. If the crops grow somewhat badly because of the weather, that figure can rise to 10 million or 12 million. These are the sorts of very immediate issues we deal with. However, it is not just about the safety net and bringing food to people but about the capacity to support people who want to help themselves. Removing that capacity and pulling away the capacity to do longer-term development work, whether it be in education, health or otherwise, is what will undermine this if there are serious cutbacks in the programme.

Mr. Hans Zomer

We are talking about enormous figures, which are not our figures but from the World Bank. The World Bank has stated that as a result of the crisis, this year 40 million people — ten times the population of this country — will slide into absolute poverty. People will have gone from the sort of level Mr. Clarken spoke about — having a little business or a small plot of land — to being destitute. As Mr. Arnold stated, what we will do with aid is keep people from starving to death rather than help people develop. The utter irony is that we have invested so much in overseas aid in the past couple of years but, by now walking away from it when people need our support most, we are destroying not just those people's lives but the investments we as a country have made over the past decade.

The other figure I find truly appalling comes again from the World Bank which states that this crisis will lead directly to the death of 200,000 to 400,000 children more than would be normal. This means that every single day a further 500 to 1,000 children will needlessly die, which is an enormous figure. We in Ireland talk about problems of relative poverty but, in the countries in which the members of Dóchas work, we are literally talking about life and death. This is the main statistic I would like to highlight.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins

I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words because I am not a member of this sub-committee, although I am a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and I am the foreign affairs spokesperson of the Labour Party. I would certainly support a position in which all of the parties suggested to Government before next Tuesday that overseas aid would be left intact and not be part of the cuts.

I want to make some points which arise from the briefing. It would be very appropriate for this sub-committee to pass a resolution and convey it to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Finance along the lines that cuts in ODA are an inappropriate and unacceptable response to the present situation in which we find ourselves. I do this not to take any rhetorical pose. I am aware revenue receipts will be down approximately 30% on 2007, there is an increase in the deficit and we are in difficult times. However, there is no evidence that the poorest people in our society and the people who have suffered any kind of inequality have ever wanted their position to be put in competition with the poorest people in the world. The test of this is the high, sustained and increasing level of donations in Ireland, separate from State donations, to the work of the different voluntary agencies and NGOs.

In the case of Ireland, there is a huge issue in regard to credibility. If one has made two statements to the United Nations General Assembly with regard to the 0.7% target for 2007, and then adjusted the year to 2012, one has a very serious issue in regard to the credibility one loses. While the strategy will be to state one can fall back on a comparison, it is not very wise to state we are better than other OECD countries and that we are still likely to achieve the target before 2015, which is the European Union target year. This leads to individual comparisons which do not stand up. The fact is we have made a commitment internationally to which we should stick.

In regard to the other issue, I have heard that it is in the self interest of Ireland to have an adequate aid programme. When the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, Deputy Brendan Howlin, was general secretary of the Labour Party and I was chairman, I remember signing the Brandt report, which was an appeal to self interest. That old argument is always there but the important point, which relates to the evidence we have just heard, is the impact in regard to the very basics not just in terms of survival but the elementary aspects of development.

There is another issue where one could be very positive and practical. We will have 20,000 graduates adding themselves to a figure for unemployed people in Ireland that could be as high as 400,000. It is a time to give young people an opportunity to work in all of the programmes. What is taking place in the better elements of the fringes of the G20 discussion is that people are not talking about reviving an old model of the economy but about building a new form of economy. That new form of economy would have different views on all the issues one would usually discuss at this sub-committee, such as economic partnership agreements and so on. It is a new form of economy. It would be a very valuable time for younger people who would otherwise be unemployed to enter an expanded programme in which they would achieve experience that would be of great value to them when they came back.

With regard to the false language that might come out of the G20, whatever form the final statement will take, it will have a reference to a general agreement in principle to avoid protectionism. This will ring very hollow for many of the countries which are trying to trade out of the developing world into the developed zones of the world.

In the cut which is suggested from €891 million to €796 million, that €796 million is made up of €671 million to Irish Aid and €125 million to the multilateral institutions. Even if one did not go fully along the way with all of my argument, one should seek to protect that €671 million at all costs. However, I am not arguing this because it would be, to my mind, a doomsday situation. The important point concerns our influence. What we did regarding the commitment at the UN on the first occasion was to lift ourselves out of those comparisons, and we said we would not drag ourselves along with OECD comparisons. We did something that was quite positive and we got the credit for it — we would also get credit for it now from the receiving countries and the receiving zones of the world. Then, when we adjusted the year to 2012, we sought to distance ourselves from the European Union target year of 2015. Falling back on other people's targets means one has walked away from all the gains one had made in regard to international credibility on the development issue.

I hope a resolution can be passed at the sub-committee. It is for members to do so along the lines I have suggested.

Deputy Chris Andrews

While I am not a member of the sub-committee, I accept the figures presented are clear and concise. I agree with the Chairman that one of the real challenges is to get people to visualise the personal story and to make it more real, as Mr. Clarken outlined. I was away last summer with Voluntary Service Overseas, VSO, as was Senator Hannigan. Doing that certainly brings home the reality. One sees the people and the work being done on the ground, the faces behind the statistics. The VSO carried out a postcard campaign that tried to help people visualise and personalise the different stories.

I made my views known. We must build relationships with developing countries as well as with super powers. The developing countries supported Ireland in the past when we looked for political support. By nature I am an optimist and I believe it is inevitable that we will come out of the current difficulties. It is just a matter of time. However, it would be a shame for us to have to look back and regret that we left the most vulnerable people isolated, that we let them down at a difficult time.

Senator Ann Ormonde

I listened carefully to what Deputy Higgins said. Last summer I visited many of the countries mentioned and was very impressed with the kind of work being done and the programmes that have been implemented. I saw the results. I am aware also that we are in a significant global recession and everybody must change now. Our entire lifestyle and outlook must change and we must come up with new ways of implementing policy to try to overcome the cutbacks. I do not want to see any further cutbacks in overseas aid and I hope we will aim for 0.7% of GNP.

However, when I was away visiting these places I felt there should be more tightening up in how programmes are developed and implemented. Perhaps sometimes there was an overlap. Given that we must budget a little better, do the witnesses agree that within their organisations they too must cut their cloth to measure a little better, as we all must do at home? Let us push to hold on to our prime overseas aid contribution but I would like to hear the witnesses' views on this point because today everybody must change. When I go out meeting people they say that charity begins at home. I know of many examples. I visited Malawi and saw the work being done and how all the organisations work in place but now is the time for re-thinking. We will do our best to make sure that there will be no further cuts but I maintain that we must all change in the process.

Chairman

Would any of the witnesses care to respond?

Mr. Tom Arnold

I take the Senator's point but it is fair to say that a considerable amount of this adjustment work has taken place already. In the past year Concern has been doing all sorts of things, looking at every aspect of our operations to ensure they are as efficient as possible and that we are linking in sensible partnerships with people. If one takes that to a higher level, the global aid community has been examining itself for years, through the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the meeting in Accra last September where governments, aid agencies, UN agencies, and so on, were all looking at ways of working together more effectively. There is an acute consciousness that we must look at new models and find ways of engaging, not only at international level, but with local people and their civil society organisations.

The Senator's point was extremely well made but we are faced with a really serious problem at this stage. Nobody suggests that aid on its own will ever be the solution to the problems of these countries. A sensible policy framework is the sine qua non. However, at present, when many of these governments are under such enormous pressure sensible well-targeted aid becomes a crucially important part of their strategy to recover.

Senator Dominic Hannigan

I thank the team for its presentation. I also express my thanks to their staff members who over the past while have been very helpful with their assistance on issues and briefings.

My first point regards getting the message out. I was glad to hear the examples the witnesses gave today. At a national level and in the national media it is clear there is support for the aid programme. However, on the ground, on local radio and at front doors, I have been questioned about the impact of Irish aid. We must get examples out to the general public. The organisations must provide a greater amount of education and create awareness as to the impact any future reductions would have on the programmes they undertake.

In the past year it is clear there has been a disproportionate impact on the aid budget. The order of the decrease is significantly above that incurred by other sectors in our economy. The organisations must get their message across. Perhaps the witnesses might pick up on that point and let us know what they intend to do in the area of increased marketing and creation of awareness.

Deputy Higgins does not believe that direct comparisons with other OECD countries and other European Union countries would be beneficial. It would serve a purpose to know the reductions other countries propose to make to their aid budgets. Could the witnesses do a comparison and let us know whether other countries propose to reduce their aid budgets as Ireland has done? We made commitments as did other countries. Is Ireland the only country to renege on its commitments? That would be useful ammunition for members of the Opposition to have when it comes to debating the forthcoming budget.

Mr. Hans Zomer

I thank Senator Hannigan. His point about what other countries are doing is very important. It shows how important it is that Ireland does not falter on its commitment. One or two countries in Europe have cut their aid budget but these would not be considered leaders in the field. They include Italy and Latvia, whose total aid programme is €3 million. Any of the serious players in Europe, the big countries, have stated the opposite. Although they admit there is pressure on their budgets and that they must cut government spending, countries such as Sweden, Spain, the UK and the Netherlands have stated they will exempt overseas aid, among other areas.

Those countries are showing leadership. Yesterday with the G20 we saw where that can lead. To date, on the strength of commitments made in 2000 and reiterated in 2005, 2007 and 2009, Ireland has been considered among the progressive leaders in Europe and in the world. We would be the first country to say "No" that we will walk away from our commitment. Apart from the impact on the poor people we have been discussing today, there is also an impact on other governments in that there might well be a domino effect. If Ireland is to state that it made that promise but now cannot hold to it, then other countries will be under less pressure to live up to their part of the bargain.

Mr. Jim Clarken

I shall address getting the message out, which is a very good point. I was doing my best to attempt that here today. It is certainly a challenge for the sector but we have all been working quite hard on this over several years. It is starting to become apparent and to resonate with the public. We are getting the message out through literature, promotion and media work. Earlier, I tried to illustrate that there are plenty of success stories. Aid really works. There are challenges for all of us and we must continue to be more efficient and effective. The reason there are lines under my eyes is that we are in the middle of a budgeting process and we are examining how we can ensure there is no compromise on programmes. I will have to make some severe decisions in respect of our organisation. This is occurring globally. We are likely to find more effective methods of working together with partners and other affiliates globally, which is a development common to the sector. As Mr. Arnold mentioned, this has been driven by the Paris declaration and the Accra process and it is taking place and working.

Delivering the message is a challenge and Irish Aid has identified the need to address this. We are working with Irish Aid and we will launch a sizeable promotion in respect of the DRC work later this year and the committee members will be invited to it. It is critical for us to have the Irish public on-side and to ensure it does not have the perception that money is being wasted. I agree with Deputy Andrews that it is a matter of time before there will be a turn around in the global economic situation and the situation in this country. There are good people here who are determined to work their way out of it. If one asked such people, including those who have recently been made unemployed, if they wish the Government to take money from the poorest of the poor in the world, I doubt they would accept that.

As was mentioned, we are working towards the 0.7% of GDP target. The figure towards which we are aiming is seven cent in every €10. It must be emphasised that this figure is directly linked to our output. As our output declines, so does our contribution. We are trying to ensure we do not break that link. It gives us the opportunity in a shrinking economy to reduce our amount, but as long as we continue the link to a given percentage of our output, we are doing at least as much as we can. All the talk is of dropping that which has already occurred. We are starting to move backwards.

Chairman

I refer to the comments of Senator Hannigan with regard to the message and what he has been hearing on the doorsteps and on local radio. Will the delegation try to be slightly inward looking? We are considering public money. Irish Aid is not before the committee. The same applies, whether for NGOs and those who represent them or those involved in MAPS, the Multi-Annual Programme Scheme. Significant sums of money are involved. I saw this coming one year ago. I approached Irish Aid and made it clear this was coming down the road and that there would be severe cuts in the aid budget because of what we were facing economically. I do not work in the aid area, but the pressures which would come were evident. I do not expect the delegations to deal with this, or to become involved in the murky world of politics on a full-time basis. However, the message is important. To a certain extent the horse has bolted. Did the delegation consider this one year ago? Did it consider changing the focus of its message in the sense of getting it out, or what the impact would be if these cuts took place?

Mr. Tom Arnold

Yes. I remember attending an event in Iveagh House in April last year at which all parties and a wide spectrum of the NGO community were represented. I remarked at the time that we were moving into more difficult times and that we had to prepare and till the ground, such that when harder times arrive, people would understand. Part of that is certainly related to communicating what we do more effectively. There is no doubt about that. Much of that work is being done and it is often done with reference to the impact on individuals, which must be part of the story.

There is also a wider story. Some of the work we do is leading to larger policy changes in the world. For example, some of Concern's work has led to changes in international nutrition policy. That story was told in a documentary on RTE in January. That is another dimension of the issue. Another part of it is to appeal to the longer term self-interest of this country.

I refer to some of the issues raised by Deputy Higgins. He remarked on how the country has put its credibility on the line internationally and that if we stick to our word there will be some payback over time. That message may resonate for the public, but it must also be directed to people in leadership positions at political level who, hopefully, will be more willing to take it on board than ordinary members of the public. There are a number of dimensions to this issue.

Deputy Chris Andrews

I refer to some of the points made by Senator Hannigan. My age group seems less aware. There are education programmes in various schools. Recently, I attended a meeting of such a programme in St. Mary's College in Rathmines. Those involved work with Aidlink in Ghana and send people there. Recently, I met a group of young people from Pearse Street. Young people are significantly more aware of the issues of the difficulties and have a good deal more empathy than those in their 40s and 50s. I have hope for the future of aid and Ireland's role in supporting development aid in the long term. However, the political class is not in touch with young people and their attitudes towards overseas aid. The group from Pearse Street is planning to go to the Philippines and is very aware of the issues. I spoke to someone who has recently returned from a short visit there to set up the trip involving the young people. The experience of that person was similar to a religious conversion. She was gripped by it and full of enthusiasm. Perhaps there should be a greater focus on schools and young people. I am unsure whether our age group are something of a lost cause. The young people represent the future in more ways than one.

Mr. Hans Zomer

I refer to the point raised by the Chairman. Dochás, the organisation I represent, is another manifestation of the approach he favours. Through Dochás some 39 organisations work together on a daily basis to learn from each other, to share experiences, to co-ordinate activities and to ascertain if they can improve communications and so on. We have also developed codes of conduct and standards of behaviour. Investment continues in that regard.

I refer to Senator Hannigan's point regarding how to communicate the message. We must get away from the terminology of aid and charity, which is fundamentally misleading. No one suggests that our participation in the European Union and the funding we receive from it is somehow aid. When discussing such issues we speak of international co-operation and that is with what we are dealing. We are talking about international co-operation and not only engaging in "hand-outs", which is the imagery evoked by the word "aid". We are talking about international co-operation. It involves solidarity, but also collaboration in terms of policy work and so on. We must examine whether the language we use is the most suitable given what we wish to achieve.

I refer to the point raised by Deputy Higgins in terms of the next steps. It would be fantastic if the two main Opposition parties represented at the committee would indicate if they would support the Government in not cutting aid. This has occurred in several other European countries in which cross-party political support exists. It could be similar in this country. It would be helpful if the Opposition parties indicated they understand we are in a bind but this area of Government expenditure should be exempt from further cuts. The cuts made already are so severe and disproportionate that further cuts are not warranted.

Mr. Jim Clarken

A further small point in respect of the politicisation of the issue is that it is important to remember that Dóchas represents agencies which have more than 1 million Irish adult supporters who are, presumably, voters. It is a political issue and one that has significant resonance for the public here. Agencies such as ours constantly rely on those supporters and they continue to work with us. The public is committed and has been committed to the aid programme and I have no doubt that will continue to be so, even in difficult times. It will not be content if the programme continues to be chipped away at and our international reputation is damaged drastically as a result.

Chairman

I cannot speak for Senator Hannigan, but I think he holds a view which I share on gauging the public mood when it comes to the aid budget. I think that is what he was referring to. I have a minor point but it is relevant. People who have been involved with aid groups in this country in the past two or three years have said things that have coloured people's viewpoints towards aid. I have not seen many people from sister organisations address that issue. I heard Mr. Zomer counter it inasmuch as he possibly could on occasion, but very few others have done so. Unfortunately, it has been responsible for colouring people's opinions in a negative way on the entire aid project. Personally, I believe that NGOs should be a bit more proactive and forceful in countering arguments which they know are completely spurious. I have a deep concern about the effect that has had politically. We all know where we stand on this issue. I appreciate the delegation coming in today.

The sub-committee adjourned at 12.05 p.m. sine die.