Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS debate -
Thursday, 17 Dec 2009

Impact of Budget on Overseas Development Aid: Discussion.

The next item for discussion is the impact of the budget on overseas development aid. I am very pleased to welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Peter Power. He has responsibility for overseas development. We will discuss the impact of the budget on overseas development aid. His assistants include Mr. Brendan Rogers, whom we know very well and with whom we have held many discussions throughout the years and Ms Fionnuala Quinlan, who attends with the Minister of State. We will also hear a presentation from Ms Helen Keogh, an old friend and a former Member, in her capacity as chairperson of Dóchas, the umbrella group of NGOs in Ireland. Mr. Tom Arnold, chief executive, Concern is also here and is very well known to us. Mr. Hans Zomer will represent Dóchas as well.

The Minister of State has another engagement. As everyone is aware the Minister for Finance is indisposed and the Minister of State must take some of the business for him today. He is under a very tight rein at this stage. The House was delayed this morning because of a series of votes. The Minister of State, Deputy Power, will have to leave us shortly after his presentation. I propose we listen to the Minister's presentation first, followed by questions from Members. Subsequently, we will hear from Ms Keogh and Mr. Arnold.

As the Minister of State is aware, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs has a keen interest in the overseas development programme. As the committee is aware there have been several meeting related to the Irish aid budget during the past year. Members of the committee have visited some of our aid programmes with the support of the Minister of State in all cases. This has been a very difficult year and many of the NGOs with whom we have met have made the point that in managing budget cuts they have generated real efficiencies. They have made a major effort to cut costs and think lean. They have done so assiduously and should be congratulated in this regard. Any further cuts will lead to increased suffering and hardship for some of the world's poorest people.

Given that there is an agreed mechanism to correlate aid with GNP and an agreed aim of reaching 0.7% by 2012, this committee believes it is important to maintain at a minimum the percentage spend on overseas aid in 2010. I understand, based on current projections, aid expenditure this year will amount to 0.52% of GNP. The committee will be keen to know whether this level will be maintained or increased in 2010. Can the Minister of State outline where Irish Aid will make further savings in view of the €25 million cut announced in last week's budget?

I now invite the Minister of State to speak, following which I will take questions from members. The Minister of State has to leave at that point. Following the Minister of State's presentation, we shall then hear from Ms Helen Keogh and Mr. Tom Arnold.

On a point of clarification, will the Minister of State be available after his presentation to answer some questions? I did not catch that.

He will be available to answer questions from members.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to once again address the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, first, in the context of last week's budget and second, to look forward to delivering a quality development programme in the coming year. I appreciate the engagement and focus this committee has directed towards the whole programme of overseas aid and development in the Department of Foreign Affairs. Members, collectively and individually, through work on this committee and through their visits to our programme countries, have shown a real interest in engagement which I very much appreciate.

Members of the committee will be aware of the exceptionally favourable report which Ireland received this year from the OECD, which confirmed that it has one of the most effective development cooperation programmes in the world and one of which all Irish people can be proud. The question I would like to address today is how we can improve on that performance in 2010.

Last week's budget was one of the most difficult and challenging since the founding of the State. Its sole aim was to stabilise the public finances and to position the economy to return to a trajectory of growth and prosperity. Sustained economic growth is a prerequisite for the continued expansion in the aid programme. Many difficult decisions had to be made in the budget on public expenditure, including reducing civil service pay, social welfare and capital programmes. These very controversial decisions were made with the greatest of reluctance.

In the context of this most difficult of budgets, I am satisfied that the overall reduction to funding for development assistance in 2010 is a relatively small amount, at €25 million. This represents a modest reduction of approximately 3.6% in overall aid expenditure — less than reductions made in civil service pay and social welfare. It is an indication of the determination of the Government to maintain Ireland's position as one of the most generous and effective donors in the world.

In 2010 Irish taxpayers, through our development programme, will spend €671 million in some of the poorest countries in the world in the fight against hunger, poverty and exclusion. In the context of the current economic crisis in our public finances this outcome for ODA represents a very positive achievement this year. It also represents a vote of confidence by the Government in the work of Irish Aid and our partners. Over the past six years Ireland has spent more than €4 billion on development assistance. In the current crisis this is a very significant aid programme by any international standard.

On the issue of ODA targets, as members of the committee are well aware the international norm is to calculate ODA as a percentage of a country's gross national product. In this respect, Ireland set itself a target of spending 0.7% of GNP on development aid by 2012. This was three years ahead of the EU target date of 2015. Our aim was set in very different economic circumstances. This year we will be compelled to borrow €24 billion to bridge the gap between what we will take in and what we will spend. Next year we will borrow some €18.8 billion. Were this to continue it would represents an unsustainable position for this or any country. To borrow for development co-operation as part of this borrowing is equally unsustainable.

During the estimates process we carried out a rigorous assessment of our capacity to meet the 2012 objective and crucially our capacity to sustain it thereafter. It became clear that in strictly financial terms we could not meet this target in the current economic climate. That said, we have now stabilised our aid spending at 0.52% of GNP — still ahead of the EU target of 0.51% by 2011. In this respect we continue to lead most other member states of the EU in our development cooperation expenditure. Ireland will still remain one of the most generous donors in the world. As soon as our economy begins to grow again our aid programme will also resume a growth path. To expand our aid budget without this economic growth would be unsustainable.

Earlier this week I attend an important meeting of EU Development Ministers at the Copenhagen climate summit. My colleagues in the EU, many of whom are struggling with their own economic difficulties and the effects of the downturn on aid budgets, are very aware of our substantive achievement of delivering 0.52% of GNP at this time of national crisis in our finances. I have also had conversations with members of the development NGO community and their representatives and while they would like to see increases in development aid — as we all would — they are very much relieved at the very small level of reduction in 2010, in the context of this most severe budget.

There are two key elements in any effective aid programme. One is the volume and the other is the quality of the aid programme. Our volume for next year will be €671 million in total. Of equal importance is the quality of the programme, which has been improving over many years. In recent years there has been a significant move away from measuring aid quality merely by looking at inputs such as money spent, placement in the field or even construction completed, to a much more results based agenda. This approach to development expenditures puts the real emphasis on the results and the outcomes achieved. For example rather than simply counting the numbers of classrooms completed, a results based approach looks at the quality of teaching, the participation rates of boys and girls and most importantly the educational outcomes. I strongly support this new approach and am keen to pursue it further, next year.

This way of working is about getting the best possible value for money and achieving outcomes which will last the test of time. In the current global economic climate it behoves all donors, aid organisations and recipients to adopt a more results based approach. The money goes further and the results are better. Ireland is one of the world leaders of this results based business model, which is designed to ensure aid is effective. Its ultimate aim is to foresee a time when development assistance, as we know it, will no longer be needed, in other words, that the money is spent in a way that makes our priority countries sustainable in their own right without development assistance.

I referred to the OECD report on the quality of Ireland's official aid programme. As members of the committee are aware our aid programme received a very strong endorsement, following a detailed and comprehensive review, including a visit to the field. The OECD congratulated Ireland on its "cutting edge" programme and on being "champions of making aid more effective". The report also adverted to the fact that we were "embedding aid effectiveness in Irish Aid's systems". I therefore strongly believe that our systems are agile enough and honed sufficiently to maximise the effective use of the funding available in these difficult times and will also be able to respond to growth in future years.

An aid programme does not begin and end in any particular calendar year. It consists of a series of rolling programmes which are carefully planned and executed over a period. By the end of 2010 Ireland will have delivered, through all its partnerships and programmes approximately €5 billion in development assistance in the past seven years. These are enormous sums, by any measure. The budget for development aid in 2010 is now set. The reductions which were necessary, beginning particularly in 2009, were implemented in a way which protected, as far as possible, core elements of our programme such as the work in programme countries and our work with missionaries and NGOs. The small reduction in the programme next year will now enable all of our partners to adjust their programmes where necessary. In the coming weeks my officials will present me with detailed allocations for consideration over the coming weeks. Our focus will be on meeting existing commitments before embarking on any new programmes.

In 2010 I expect that we will allocate well in excess of €100 million for our missionaries and NGO partners. We will also provide more than €100 million to address the continuing scourge of HIV and AIDS and other communicable diseases, more than €50 million to emergencies and additional funding to fragile states. We will continue to work in our nine programme countries and currently new planning cycles are under way for Uganda, Timor L'Este, Malawi and I expect to be able to finally approve the new country plans for these countries in 2010.

The publication 15 months ago of the report of the Government's hunger task force set a very high benchmark for ourselves and for the international community in addressing global hunger and food security. The presence of the Taoiseach, the Secretary General of the United Nations and many others with a deep interest in food security at the launch was testament to its importance. That launch propelled Ireland into a strong global leadership position on hunger and food security.

At this stage, I recognise the presence of a very important member of that hunger task force, Mr. Tom Arnold, who is here today. He played an instrumental role in ensuring that Ireland takes a real leadership role globally in this area. I am fully committed to giving effect to the recommendations of the hunger task force. Hunger reduction is a key element of the aid programme and will become even more important over the coming years as we begin to put in place our new programme cycles. I have already established a hunger unit in my Department. Next year I will allocate significant resources to the fight against global hunger and to food security. Our new country strategy for Malawi is being designed and planned with this objective in mind.

We are taking a lead role in agriculture in Tanzania and I am allocating significant resources to practical pro-poor agricultural research as recommended by the task force. We are also beginning to focus more on maternal and infant nutrition. There are very exciting developments in this area as proposed by the hunger task force and other research fora.

Other programme countries also have significant hunger and food security elements. I am glad Deputy Deasy and Senator Hannigan, both member of this committee had an opportunity to witness these efforts at first hand in recent weeks in Mozambique and Lesotho. By the end of 2010 more than 15% of our programme will be focussed on hunger and food security related sectors. Mr. Kevin Farrell the special envoy for hunger is continuing his work and I expect his report on our progress in implementing the recommendations of the hunger task force in our programme in the third quarter of this year.

I will touch on the international climate change negotiations which, as we meet, are reaching their final stages. I very much welcome the proposal made by Deputy Michael D. Higgins before the beginning of our deliberations, that this committee would support an ambitious outcome for that climate change conference. The Taoiseach travels today to Copenhagen to head Ireland's delegation. We all share a desire that an ambitious political agreement be reached that includes the essential building blocks of a new legally binding treaty.

There is an inextricable link between development and climate change activities. On Monday I was in Copenhagen to meet other EU development ministers and ministers from developing countries including Ethiopia, Lesotho, Bangladesh, Ghana and Mali. We focussed on ways in which the EU can support developing countries to respond to the huge challenges of climate change. Two things became very clear to me at this important gathering. First, development programmes worldwide, including Ireland's programme have dealt with climate change issues for many years now. Second, our existing development programmes contain a deep reservoir of knowledge and expertise on how to effectively channel new climate change financing. We will not reach our development goals unless we address the addition challenge of climate change. Conversely, we will not be successful in supporting the climate change actions of our partners in developing countries unless we make full use of our experience of delivering aid in an effective and transparent manner. Climate change and development are effectively two sides of the one coin.

While in Copenhagen I also held meetings with representatives of civil society and assured them of the Government's commitment to increase our focus on supporting developing countries as they cope with the key issues of adaptation and mitigating the impact of climate change within our development programme. I also reiterated the EU's strong view that significantly increased financial resources will be needed to support the necessary adaptation programmes in developing countries.

Ireland is fully committed to paying its fair share within a new global climate change agreement. It is essential that climate change funding does not undermine the fight against poverty and food security and that it delivers in a way that complements development assistance. At last week's meeting of the European Council in Brussels it was agreed that the EU and its member states would contribute €2.4 billion annually in fast start funding for the three years 2010-1012 to support the climate change needs of developing countries. The Taoiseach has pledged that Ireland will contribute up to €100 million in fast start funding over the three year period. The exact composition of Ireland's fast start package will be finalised by Government. It will include substantial additional funding for developing countries.

It has been a challenging year for our aid programme. I would be less than honest if I did not say that Irish Aid and its partners faced real challenges in making do with less funding than planned or anticipated. All concerned made real and sustained efforts to protect core activities and operations throughout the year. We succeeded in this regard. We have now stabilised a budget and can plan for 2010 with certainty. The vast majority of those directly involved in development assistance believe that the budget for 2010 is fair and reasonable given the crisis in which the country finds itself. The challenge for all of us now is to ensure that the considerable amount of precious tax payers money available for development in 2010 and beyond is directly linked to results and outcomes. Our conversation must now move from how much money to how well we do the job.

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for their ongoing engagement in this issue. I apologise to all members of the committee and our partners Mr. Tom Arnold and Ms Helen Keogh that due to the absence of the Minister, Deputy Lenihan, I have been asked to take financial legislation in the House later on and will unfortunately have to depart after questions.

Thank you, Minister. The Minister of State mentioned outcomes and changing the system to focus on outcomes. I know that is what we want and what we need, but we have to be careful about who will decide the outcomes and the best outcomes for the smallest people in particular. When we develop a system it is amazing how we tend to forget the smallest people and their right to develop and their right to a future. Among those people are very often the women who with very little resources can do a great deal. We found that everywhere. It is something that needs to be borne in mind in any development.

I appreciate the difficulties the Minister of State has and I take this opportunity to thank him for the courtesy he has always extended in more detailed discussion of items in the budget.

I disagree with him in his conclusion in which he suggests that now is the time to concentrate less on the volume than on the quality. I would put it the other way. The quality of the Irish Aid programme is incontestable. Outside evaluations have been very effective. Our concentration has now to be on the volume. It has to precisely be on the consequences of reducing aid. We have had a €25 million cut and so on.

I appreciate that time is limited so I will make my points briefly, they have been made before and are easily understood. The significance of Ireland's original statement at the United Nations on the 0.7% in 2007, and later statements made in front of the Pope and the Secretary General of the United Nations, was that they were moral and political commitments not conditional on economic factors. For that reason, when discussing Irish development aid, volume, effectiveness, which is regularly reviewed, and reputation are all factors. The reputation relies on the moral and political significance of the commitment. It is saying that those in receipt of the assistance we give have a right as fellow humans to be free from hunger and preventable disease, irrespective of the growth rate of any country, including the donor country.

I understand up to 40 people in the NGO sector, with a considerable intellectual memory of aid and effectiveness, will lose their jobs. That is a real and significant loss.

I see a serious problem with different strands of the development discussion. The Minister of State has raised some of them about the approach to hunger and the definition of end objects. There is another partner involved in development, the academic community, but I have not seen coming from that community any radical thinking on technology transfer, which is a topic in the environs of the Copenhagen debate. I have not seen any rethinking of the paradigm of economic development after the collapse of the current paradigm. It is as if the development countries can be part of the recovery of a model we have not yet thrown aside ourselves but that we know has failed.

In many cases, the literature is missing what it contained in the 1970s, an academic investigation of indigenous knowledge systems, a debate about technology transfer and a debate on food security and land tenure. In some of the academic institutions that seek assistance from Irish Aid, bankrupt models of land tenure are being used, particularly the de Soto model. It is not abstract to introduce this point, I am conscious of what has happened in the past six months and the enormous sums of money that have gone from Saudi Arabia, China, Japan, the United States and Britain to purchase vast tracts of land in areas where people are struggling for food security.

The Chairman mentioned the absence of significant consideration of the role of women, who are in west Africa responsible for more than 80% of production but responsible for only 10% of land titles. These are real issues. When people speak about end points and objectives, there is no agreement from people who are serious. We will not be able to feed people and eliminate disease using the model that is failing the poor here. We are experiencing social welfare cuts because of the failure of a model. We must wake up, we do not need more of the same. The same applies to thinking in the developed world. These are not the views of a crank, they are informed over a long period.

A further issue that was not mentioned is the need to integrate the approach with that taken to trade and debt. I welcome the statement from the Minister for State in the Dáil yesterday on his view of what might be defined as illegal debt and odious debt. Again, is there evidence from the interdepartmental committee that has anything radical to say about a new approach that would be led by Ireland through Canada to debt? I do not see any evidence for it.

We on the committee decided to invite UNCTAD, which had a particular view, to appear before us. People do not say often enough in European parliaments that the OECD is welcome where UNCTAD is not because UNCTAD has an uncomfortable story. All those who go along with that notion do not represent the views expressed in European parliaments.

Comparisons are being made on climate change. There have been discussions in Europe and the Minister of State mentioned a figure of €2.4 billion, with €100 million from Ireland. When that was announced the impression was given that this is additional funding. We would like to confirm that, or that it would at least be part of the claw-back of the cuts that have been visited on Irish Aid.

Credit is due to Ireland for the way it works its aid. There is, however, a danger. I mentioned technology transfer. In previous years, we were able to discuss appropriate indigenous technology. In the 1980s and 1990s, with hyperinflation and the market model imposed on one country after another, the technology transfer argument also suffered. We shot limited view accountancy into African economies, where we all called for transparency and good bookkeeping. We are no position morally to talk about that in light of our own banking sector but we all want good accountants. We do not, however, want this as a substitute for a transparent economy based around people's needs, with those needs defined for their security. They must put indigenous strategies of growth and surplus at their core.

This is the question foreign affairs committees across Europe never discuss. It would be obscene in thousands of old cultures that there would be a surplus produced and it would then be regarded as unbelievable that someone would be want to hand it to someone else. The idea that a person would want it to go gambling internationally was left mostly to dictators. It would be a significant initiative if the dean of the diplomatic corps in Switzerland, the papal nuncio, could get the Swiss banks to open their books to tell us what has been robbed from countries with which we have a special relationship.

The technology transfer issue is a good point. The Minister of State mentioned the pro-poor agricultural research, which is vital technology transfer.

I thank the Minister for State for the outline of the present position. It shows he has mastered his brief and that he is committed to the job.

We could get greater value from the overseas development aid figure because costs have gone down. What is the position in the countries in which we are operating as far as costs are concerned? Will we get better value with the amount of money or is it the other way around?

My second question refers to the third paragraph on page 2 of the Minister of State's speech on the rigorous assessment he has done in his capacity to meet the 2012 objective. He stated that the target will not be met in the current economic climate. Has another objective been set in terms of when we will meet the 0.7% of GNP? What discussions are ongoing in that regard? As a result of his assessment, what are his next steps in regard to it?

I thank the Minister of State for his contribution and compliment his staff on the excellent work they are doing. I was in Mozambique and Lesotho recently with Deputy Deasy and saw first hand the tremendous impact their work is having for the good of humanity. It is something of which every Irish person can be proud.

Deputy Higgins mentioned the loss of up to 40 jobs in the Irish Aid organisation. I want to ask the Minister some specific questions but when we come to hear from the other visitors they might tell us the impact on programmes that will have on the ground in real terms.

I have two questions for the Minister of State. First, the Government recently announced €100 million of fast-track financing for climate change initiatives. Can the Minister of State explicitly state today whether that will be entirely additional financing? The Danes and the Dutch have given a commitment that it will be 100% additional financing. Can the Minister of State give the same commitment to us today?

Second, today may not be the occasion for him to answer this question but it is important that the Minster of State makes a statement on one of our programme country's proposed laws, namely, the anti-homosexuality law in Uganda. At some point, perhaps not today, I would like to hear what the Government is doing in regard to representations to the Ugandan Government.

I, too, welcome the Minister of State and the NGO representatives to the meeting. I compliment the Minister in particular in regard to how well he keeps us informed of the updated position on overseas aid and also the way he creates that link with the NGOs and the missionaries in those countries. Having visited the poor countries and going on site visits, it opened my eyes in terms of the kind of programmes being implemented.

The thrust of this presentation is value for money. In light of the cutbacks the Minister of State said there was a reduction of €25 million, and we discussed the business model that appears to be our way of doing things. While the Minister has said we must get value for money, I was impressed with the programmes in these countries and the fact that they are working effectively. I wonder how best we can improve them. What would concern me is that they would be cut back and that would affect core elements of programmes. How do we go about assessing value for money in the context of his work with the NGOs on the ground? Some rationalisation will have to come into play but how will we go about that? It is important that this committee is kept up to date on the way taxpayers' money is being spent. While we acknowledge that Ireland is taking a major lead on this area, nevertheless we must go further than that and lead the way in ensuring these poor countries will not be cut back in any way.

I apologise to the Minister of State that I could not be here earlier. I have two brief questions, one of which concerns the quality of Ireland's official aid.Is the Minister of State satisfied that the decentralisation of the aid section to Limerick has not had a negative impact on the delivery of Irish aid?

Second, with regard to the funding given to the NGOs, does the Minister of State see any scope for greater efficiencies with the NGOs?

The visitors will appreciate it is a day when the Minister is facing special problems which he will have to leave to address. I see a Dáil quorum has been called but I hope there will be enough Members near the Chamber to make up the quorum. People have been upset because of the delay through the Order of Business, which continued for some time. Deputy Rory O'Hanlon was here but had to leave to another committee meeting, and gave his apologies in that regard.

The question about loss of employment directly within Irish Aid——

In the NGO section.

I took it to mean the NGO section. We might discuss later with the representatives the type of special programme that could be developed, given our current position where we are getting into exports and in terms of the work that is going on. It is another aspect of that work, in conjunction with our ambassadors in the different countries and their work with the other ambassadors. We might talk to the Irish Aid representatives particularly and the Minister about that. We are doing a report on it which we hope to have soon after Christmas.

The second question included also the technology transfer and the land and titles. I am pleased to see the emphasis being put on the pro-poor agricultural research because the organisation can build up from that point. Given that the holdings are so small, the lack of water and so on in particular holdings, the organisation can build up the groups of producers, regardless of the format they take. We have seen that going on but it is hugely important, especially given the other point Deputy Higgins made about the land and titles. It is in that way that they can see a future for themselves if they can get some land instead of massive companies taking over huge tracts of land, which is something that appears to be happening at a fair pace. It emphasises the urgency of that pro-poor agricultural research, technology and transfer.

Everybody is delighted with the work that has been achieved in recent years and the increase in the allocations from Government in that period. We appreciate the difficulty the representatives have had in holding on to the money they were allocated, as the Minister explained, but people would like to have an assurance that they can build on that rather than go backwards, so to speak. The Minister of State might like to deal with the questions.

Yes. I thank all members for their questions. The Chairman raised three issues, the first of which is the employment issue, which he has asked me to leave to be dealt with by people separately. Second, he asked me to deal with the pro-poor agricultural research idea and to put that in the context of an answer to Deputy Higgins question. Third, he raised a special issue, namely, the importance of women in all of our development efforts. That is something which is close to my heart and of which I have a real recognition. At all times we try to incorporate that focus into our programme because it is only when one is literally in the field and seeing the women who are doing the farming, with the men sometimes drinking tea and coffee locally, that one has a real recognition that the agricultural production often depends on women and that the social fabric of the wider family rests on the shoulders of women.

Not alone do women have to deal with the issue of childbirth, which is a difficult and challenging one in Africa and elsewhere in the developing world, they also have to raise the children. They work in the fields and are often the breadwinner for the household. There are consequent maternal health and nutrition issues which cause major problems. That is an area on which we are focusing. The hunger task force report calls on us to concentrate on three specific thematic areas, one of which is the issue of maternal and infant nutrition. That is an area we are focusing on in all of our programmes. I hope that deals with the Chairman's question.

I am thinking particularly of the economic contribution of women and their ability to manage. While I appreciate the point the Minister of State is making, and we are inclined to focus on the health issues and so on, the huge contribution women make to the economic development of the people is not always recognised in the same way as the other areas such as health or whatever.

There is the issue of their right to a micro credit system without having to go to a bank to give collateral they have not got.

I was going to raise that issue in the context of the Deputy's question about land titles. Regarding the Deputy's questions, I take his point about the distinction between the volume and the quality of our aid programme. I made my commentsabout volume in the context of our budget for next year and the fact that we have stabilised it. I agree we cannot ignore it but we must have a wider conversation about that. Last year’s discussion, of necessity, related to volumes because of the huge difficulties facing us but my comments remain in the context of the budget for 2010.

The Deputy made the point that volumes must be made irrespective of economic growth. I respectfully disagree with the Deputy on that, and we have had this discussion previously. I strongly believe we must have a robust and growing economy here to grow our programme. In the context of negotiating a budget in this Department or any other Department, the Deputy, as a former Cabinet Minister, will know that if the economy is declining, the budget will decline. Those are the bald facts. If we make difficult decisions now, including cuts to the aid budget, social welfare and public service pay — decisions which no Government would want to make — we do so with the conviction that those decisions will lay a foundation and a path to growth in the future. If our economy does not grow, our aid budget will not grow. That is a political and a financial fact and is something we have to do. The Deputy and I disagree on that but it is a respectful disagreement.

In regard to the academic community, I share the Deputy's commitment to the fact that it has an enormous role to play in many aspects of our aid programme, not least to provide the academic underpinning of the programme. Such high level academic foundation to our programme is important, especially for young people in the knowledge economy and society in which we now live.

The Deputy's following point on technology transfers is a hugely important issue.

We are under no illusion about it. My concern is that this academic presence, particularly in economic theory and policy, is singularly limited if it is informed by single paradigmatic thinking. I do not see evidence of new original thinking in economic theory and policy, even among some of those coming from Africa and South America. I will put it bluntly. Old, dated 1960s thinking, like the de Soto model on land titles, is being pedalled by two of the third level institutions, which would like it to be the sole model to considered for land security. It is a bankrupt model that has been presented as a success in Mexico when it handed over half of Mexico to the multinationals, but it turned out to be a racket for destroying small peasants.

I take the Deputy's point and my response to it is that we have a particular contribution to make because we know from our own country that fragmentation of land titles and inability to prove land title was a major deterrent to agricultural expansion. When we dealt with that issue here it was the most important contributing factor towards the development of our agriculture sector.

Regarding the economic models——

We should get the Chicago school out of the way.

The Deputy has made his point very clearly.

In regard to economic models, I do not believe we should spend a great deal of time speaking about those because that issue goes slightly beyond the development area but I would make the point that in the case of Ethiopia, when it was based on a model that might be closer to the Deputy's thinking than my thinking in the 1970s and 1980s, that was a recipe for anarchy and destruction in that country. A left wing Marxist model destroyed the country and when there was a change of government——

There is not a choice here.

I am not saying this is a capitalist versus communist or right wing versus left wing argument but it has more to do with the quality and transparency of leadership and the fact that the leadership serves the people, not itself, which can happen in a capitalist or a Marxist model. Ethiopia is a case in point in that respect.

Technology transfers are important to allow developing countries to mitigate and adapt using the most up to date technology. One of the hidden success stories of the Copenhagen summit is the great progress that has been made on the technology transfer issue. For example, the use of mobile phones in terms of the provision of social safety nets is important, and I cite Kenya and Uganda as good examples in this respect.

We unreservedly condemn illegal or vulture debt, whereby those who manage some hedge funds engage in the reprehensible and unforgivable behaviour of buying sovereign debt in the knowledge that it is about to be forgiven. It is part of our review of our debt policy between the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Finance. The way in which that can be tackled at a global level is something that will feed into our policy.

There is the role of UNCTAD.

I was about to say that UNCTAD has an important role to play in that regard and has played an important role in terms of engaging with civil society on that issue.

I want to address the important point Deputy Higgins made about the "fast start" financing mechanism agreed in Brussels this week by the European Heads of State. It will address Senator Hannigan's point specifically. A distinction must be made between short-term fast-track financing, which was agreed by the Heads of State in Europe this week in terms of the €2.4 billion fund and the longer-term financing for adaptation and mitigation, adaptation being more important. That fund was put together by the Heads of State of Europe as an expression of goodwill and good faith. We together with all the blocs and groupings in Copenhagen are putting a specific amount of money on the table and asking other countries to come with Europe on that. Europe is rightly taking a leadership role and it developed that discussion in Copenhagen; it was clearly on the agenda there on Monday.

A distinction must be drawn also between pure financing for strictly climate change activities, in its narrowest sense, and the work we do already in-country. That is the reason I devoted an important part of my contribution to the fact that I firmly believe in the role played in this respect by development programmes such as the Irish and European ones. We have been engaged in climate change issues long before it became an issue between the northern and the southern hemispheres. This was a development issue before it became an environmental issue and there is that knowledge and expertise in development programmes and among our NGO partners who are working with countries to adapt them in the first instance.

This is an example of where Irish Aid development money is spent on climate change but is still spent on overseas development. In the Tigray region of Ethiopia, for example, and the northern regions we spend €15 million every year on social safety net programmes which keep 15 million from poverty and hunger. That is strictly development money but what we get in return is people working on public works programmes almost exclusively devoted towards climate change activities, for example, micro dams, water retention and environmental projects which increase the water tables. There is a blurring between the two.

However, to answer Senator Hannigan's question directly in terms of the exact breakdown of our €100 million contribution, the Taoiseach said, after he gave that commitment in Brussels, that of necessity the Government would have to make a collective decision about it. I cannot give the precise breakdown but I can make two points. Our contribution will be substantial and it will be new and additional. It was clear from my discussions with development Ministers from many countries that they are having a major struggle to find new and additional money to contribute to that fund. I believe Ireland will have a good story to tell in that respect when the Cabinet finishes its deliberations on it.

With regard to Deputy Ardagh's contribution and the ability to get more, it is an important point. In the same way that in the new changed economic circumstances we are getting more for less in terms of our capital projects, we are achieving the same type of results in our developing countries. In our education programme in Ireland we are securing savings of between 30% and 40% because of decreases in tenders. Likewise, we are getting additional value for money in the developing world and in the countries in which we work. That serves to underscore the aid effectiveness agenda which Irish Aid has embraced, not just during my tenure but for many years, of having a clear focus on a small number of countries. It is focused on poverty reduction and on key areas such as agriculture, health and governance issues in those countries. As it is very focused on niche areas, we are getting more for our money. That is not just my opinion but also the opinion of the OECD. It is untied aid; we do not look for anything in return. That is the reason we got that endorsement, to which I believe we were entitled, from the OECD.

Senator Ormonde raised the point of the business model and our focus on the business model. It is important to point out that even though we are focused on a more effective and efficient programme, we are dealing with people, including women and children, in the most vulnerable situations in the most vulnerable countries in the world. We can never lose sight of that. While we strive to be more effective and efficient, we do not lose sight of that very important part of it.

I have no doubt as to whether the Minister, Mr. Brendan Rogers or his staff would lose sight of that, having seen them work. It is a more general point. We all know that when it comes to budgets, Estimates and so forth there are outside people involved who express views on what should be happening.

I accept that.

It was made in that context, that is, keep the feet on the ground.

Senator Ormonde asked how we assess value for money. That is why I devoted a large part of my remarks to how we assess it. We assess it in terms of how many children are going to school, as a percentage of the country's population, not how many schools are built, and how many teachers we train in those schools, the quality of that teaching and how we can retain them in schools and not lose them to the northern hemisphere. That is our results based approach. Sometimes it is hard to point to schools we have built because we are more focused on how we improve the educational infrastructure and architecture of our countries to ensure that the results at the end are stronger. All the statistics prove this. In Uganda, for example, participation in primary education has reached unprecedented levels because of this focused results based approach.

Deputy Timmins asked about decentralisation. I must admit to being a little biased in this area because of developments in my home town in my constituency, and I will not say decentralisation has not worked. That aside, I believe it has worked because of a commitment by management to make it work and because of the use of information and communications technology to communicate better with our embassies in the field. We have very impressive video conferencing facilities. Rather than faxing reports back and forth, there are now long teleconferences between the embassies and the new headquarters in Limerick. As we had the opportunity to install that type of technology it has made our work more efficient. I know that from speaking to the people who are working in that area. That is my assessment.

With regard to the funding for NGOs and efficiencies, I will pass that question to my NGO friends and colleagues. I am sure they will have comments to make on it. I accept that funding has been down and people have lost their jobs. That has been done in the wider context of decisions that had to be made across all Departments, to ensure that we get our finances under control to allow us to return to growth sooner so we can expand our programme. That is our starting point in this. Hopefully, we have reached a base or platform from which to grow in the future, although obviously that depends on economic growth.

I hope I have answered all the questions.

The Minister of State has been very generous with his time. The Department wanted him to finish sooner than this for the work he must do later. I thank the Minister of State for attending the meeting today. Members have raised the points they wished to raise and we will now have a discussion with the NGOs. The committee recognises that the world's poorest people face even more difficult times at present and we hope the Minister of State takes on board the very serious concerns that were expressed by the committee and will also be expressed by Dóchas and Concern.

I will have an opportunity later, thanks to the broadcasting facilities in the House, to look at the contributions of my friends, and I will do that.

Thank you. I intended to make that suggestion. The Minister of State indicated that we have stabilised our aid spending at 0.52% of GNP. I welcome that and hope we can keep it stabilised at that point. We must progress from there. The country has gone through a difficult time in recent months. The major objectives have been obtained and we hope that in the new year there will be some movement in terms of growth and an improvement in our situation. I base that hope on the fact that exports have held up quite well and in some areas are ahead of projections.

I thank the Minister of State for attending. Everybody will agree that he has a great grasp of the subject, although he has only been in office for a relatively short time. We and the NGOs have been dealing with it for a much longer period but the Minister of State appears to have listened to what everybody has said and familiarised himself with the issues. We welcome and appreciate that. We also thank Mr. Brendan Rogers and Ms Fionnuala Quinlan for their attendance.

I invite Ms Helen Keogh, chairperson of Dóchas, and Mr. Tom Arnold, chief executive of Concern Worldwide to make their presentations. I welcome another former Member of these Houses, Mr. Derek McDowell, who is in the Gallery. He is very welcome. I notice he is getting fond of coming back here.

Ms Helen Keogh

On behalf of Dóchas, I thank the Cathaoirleach and other committee members for the enormous support they have shown for development co-operation and, in particular, the work undertaken by NGOs and missionaries. It was a great boost to our efforts to protect the aid budget when this committee, through the Cathaoirleach, wrote to the Minister for Finance supporting the aid programme and requesting there should be no cuts in the budget. In addition, some 30 TDs and Senators called on the Government to protect the aid budget, which made quite an impact. The Minister said there was a certain relief that there was only a €25 million cut, and I suppose one could nearly say that. We had all braced ourselves for the worst and because of the cuts we had already suffered it seemed the aid budget was, to some extent, an easy target. I must pay tribute to the Minister as well because I think we are well served by him. He is really on top of his brief and his commitment is sincere. Unfortunately, that commitment could not stop the €25 million cut. More serious than that cut, however, was the uncertainty over the 0.7% target. The shift from 2012 to 2015 happened on the margins of the budget. That uncertainty means we are not exactly sure where we stand, although the Minister said things have been stabilised and we can go on from here. We hope that is so.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins put it well when he said we have made a moral and political commitment to overseas aid. The 0.7% target was never a promise to aid agencies, it was a promise to the world's poorest people and to other countries. It brought us the respect of world leaders and influence on the world stage. Breaking the promise has, unfortunately, damaged our credibility as well as our international influence. It is damaging to that key aspect of our foreign policy.

Some questions were asked about the effect of the cutbacks. I can speak for our agency, World Vision Ireland, to try to put it in context and get away from an accounting figure. The empowerment of women was mentioned. The stark reality, however, is that because of the cuts that we along with other agencies have had to take, we must decide between programmes that empower women and other programmes. For example, do we say that children in Sierra Leone will no longer have access to a nearby health clinic where they can get basic medical treatment, including vital immunisation? Should HIV-AIDS orphans from Tanzania no longer receive vocational training, which could help them to escape a life of extreme poverty? Will pregnant women in Uganda no longer receive pre- and post-natal care? If so, that would greatly increase the likelihood of stillbirths or maternal deaths during childbirth.

We had a presentation, which was well received by this committee, on female genital mutilation. We are now faced with the prospect of having to withdraw from an anti-FGM programme in Somaliland in northwest Somalia. We have already had to stop such a programme in Kenya, yet these are vital human issues that affect vulnerable people in the developing world.

The Minister talked about a results-based approach to the ODA budget. This is nothing new to us in the NGO community, particularly Dóchas, whose membership has worked hard in recent years on programmes to ensure best practice in all aspects of our work. We want the committee to be in no doubt that this results-based approach is nothing new. It is not a new priority; it has always been a priority for NGOs. For many years, we have done our utmost to work with little money to achieve a big impact.

Earlier, Deputy Ardagh asked about value for money in our programmes. It is a bit strange because in one sense one would say we should be able to get more value for money. Let us not forget, however, that food and fuel prices went up exponentially last year in the developing world. Therefore, what one might gain on the swings, one will lose on the roundabouts, so to speak.

Over the years, we have evolved our understanding of what long-term impact really means in the developing world. We have learned that the best way to eradicate poverty is not to limit our role to that of a band-aid, but to remove the root causes of poverty. In this context, predictability is essential. Cutbacks that interrupt or stop programmes have a catastrophic effect because after a year one may have to start all over again. This lack of predictability in our aid budget is devastating for us. We have developed a considerable amount of energy and expertise on developing solutions, as well as on suggestions for reform of policies and structures that keep people in poverty. We cannot do that, however, if our work is continually interrupted.

Many questions were raised by members of the committee, but they might want to put some specifically to us. We need to get back on track regarding the 0.7% target for the overseas aid budget in order to save lives, as well as for reasons of justice, international credibility and our strategic foreign affairs interests. We are talking about 40 people losing their jobs here within the sector, but hundreds have lost such jobs in the developing world. In addition, cuts in overseas aid mean that poor people in developing countries will die. That is being very realistic about where we are coming from.

I will hand over to my colleague, Mr. Tom Arnold.

Mr. Tom Arnold

I do not want to repeat what Ms Helen Keogh has said, but I agree with it. I will try to be brief. In his well structured speech, the Minister spoke about the quantity and quality of aid. Quantity wise, we were obviously disappointed there was a cut of €25 million, given that it was on the back of very large cuts that had already taken place. That said, we are realistic enough to know the state of the economy and the public finances. The fact the cut was limited to €25 million is an indication of a lot of work by many people. I echo Ms Keogh's comments about the role of this committee and the TDs and Senators who took a stand. In addition, the Minister, Deputy Micheál Martin, and the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Power, are significant advocates in this regard. The real question is where to from here. Given that we are at 0.25%, how can we have a clear, predictable roadmap to reach 0.7% by a particular year? In so far as Irish Aid is concerned, it behoves the Department to spell out that roadmap as far as possible. It is a critical role of this committee to ensure the roadmap is clear and that it is monitored. Whether this should be enshrined in a legislative commitment is a question that has been around for some time. If there was a degree of all-party consensus on this, this could be of value but that remains to be seen. The issue of predictability, from an NGO point of view, is of particular importance. It is a big question.

On the issue of quality, the focus on results is accepted by everyone. As Deputy Higgins said, the issue of quality is indisputable. We know the aid programme is effective and it is legitimate to ask how it can be made even more effective. Important efforts are needed on behalf of all of us to do that. This is not a simple matter. Many aid agencies and government agencies all over the world struggle to find proper measurements of how one improves the measurement of quality in aid but it is a direction in which we have to go. The focus on the aid effectiveness agenda over the past two years is welcomed by NGOs. We are doing it among ourselves and, increasingly, we are doing it in collaboration with Irish Aid. Given resources will inevitably be tight over the coming years, however well we can make them more predictable, the issue of quality is legitimate for Irish Aid to use in making decisions about resource allocation. Many of us contend that many of the programmes operated in partnership between Irish Aid and the NGO sector are giving results in terms of quality and impact on poverty which stand muster with any of the other mechanisms within the aid programme.

I welcome the emphasis the Minister of State put on hunger in his contribution. I recognise Irish Aid has effectively used the report of the hunger task force to help make decisions and prioritise resource allocation within the aid programme. The purpose of the task force initially was to set out an agenda through which Ireland could attain a degree of leadership at international level on this issue, which is becoming more important at this level year on year as the numbers of hungry people increase. There is an opportunity for Ireland to play this leadership role. I acknowledge the Minister of State is personally committed to it but it is an area where we need to maintain our focus and crucial to that is what the Chairman has emphasised, namely, the issue of pro-poor agricultural research. It is only fair to acknowledge that over the past decade Irish Aid has played a role in promoting quality international agricultural research through the consultative group of international agricultural research. That focus is important and it needs to continue. Ultimately, the measure of how we are delivering on the hunger task force will be the measuring rod of the special envoy, Mr. Kevin Farrell, who is due to produce a report that needs to be examined critically and fairly when it is produced to make sure we are delivering on this commitment.

I would very much take account of Deputy Higgins's comments on the issue of land in Africa. There are major matters happening regarding land ownership, use and acquisition. It is a large contextual issue that needs to be monitored closely because, depending on how that goes, it will have an impact on agricultural development in Africa.

With regard to climate change and the critical issue of whether the €100 million funding that has been announced will be taken from the aid programme, the Minister of State has given some level of reassurance to the committee but this is a crucial issue, which we must monitor over the coming months. We all want a fair and balanced settlement from Copenhagen. Critical to that will be long-term resilience and adaptation funds and in the short term, the critical issue in an Irish context is how we will deliver on the €100 million and how much of it will be truly additional. That will be the most important issue from our point of view going forward.

I have a number of questions for Ms Keogh. What NGOs remain outside the remit of Dóchas? Why is this the case? Is there an opportunity for greater efficiencies among aid agencies under the aegis of Dóchas? Could they concentrate on several areas rather than several agencies concentrating on one area, notwithstanding the fact that they might have different specialties?

Mr. Arnold has great experience. What has been the impact of the cuts in aid over the past 18 months? Has this changed the view of his international peers about Ireland? He referred to the purchase on land. Does he foresee a grave danger in China's policy of supporting African economies?

We are grateful the budget was only cut by €25 million but this must be put in context. The ODA budget was cut by a much greater percentage than most other budgets. It was the easy target. Ms Keogh said poor people in developing countries will die.

I do not sign petitions, although I do not have a difficulty with people doing so. Both Ms Keogh and Mr. Arnold extolled the virtue of Oireachtas Members signing a petition but I would despair at politicians signing a petition when they are prepared to support the measure they are seeking not to have implemented. I do not have a difficulty with a politician signing something if he or she follows his or her claim to the letter. I will not give credit to those who sign petitions and are happy to support a budget that includes a measure that directly contradicts what they are calling for. I realise we have the party whip and so on. Please spare me the utterances beforehand. I do not expect the witnesses to comment on that.

It is the season of goodwill.

The development discourse needs to be addressed as an issue. There are in it, for example, people in the NGO sector who work and continually add to their experience and it is part of their career. I regard it as an important component. There are then as well people working with Irish Aid and, in turn, people working at European and global level. For example, some interacting with the Norwegians, who have a fine model. There are different parts of the academic system and the traffic there is very thin. One can say this when one is an ex-academic like me — no more than Deputy Peter Power talking about the status system in Ethiopia or whatever. I remember being on a trip abroad and an old colleague I knew in the United States taking out his modernisation files from his briefcase and saying "I never thought we would have any more need for these again, and here I go" and he was on his way to liberated Russia. In many cases I find the theoretical work old and poor and the discourse insufficient. I also found other things dangerous. The dangerous side of it is that if this is not put right and quickly with regard to some of the third level institutions, they are contracting to this committee and they will contract to Irish Aid on the basis that they are the appropriate people to evaluate what is going. I am happy to sit here and listen to the evidence outlined here today. That is an opportunity that the likes of me will not readily have with regard to these other places who are putting in bids. I am a university person. I am not happy that so many of the universities decided to call themselves corporations and I am not happy at the bids they are making on poor and limited scholarship. I occasionally pay my fee and go to some of their seminars in different parts of the country but I am getting tired and now I sit near the back because I do not get much support. There is, frankly, a very spare, thin, limited critical intelligence in the development field. This is a matter of concern and I would be less than honest if I did not say so.

Ms Helen Keogh

Deputy Timmins asked who was not involved in Dóchas. One of the major agencies is involved in Dóchas and is very willing to invest in collaborative work. Unfortunately, GOAL is no longer a part of Dóchas and we regret this very much because that organisation has a great to contribute and Dóchas has much to learn from it. We all have much to learn from working together. The Deputy spoke about efficiencies. He is correct in saying this is at the core of much of the work in the field. It is perhaps a little invisible here at home but the collaboration in the field is quite substantial. I think in particular of the area of humanitarian response. It is increasingly evident in development work. I was in Nairobi recently and I met one of my colleagues from World Vision. He asked me about a couple of colleagues in Trócaire and Concern with whom he shared a training course. Even at that level I see evidence of collaboration between agencies and which is vital. We do not want to have duplication of services or some form of competition between us as this is not the way we work because we collaborate. Mr. Tom Arnold told us about a meeting he attended in Berlin with other colleagues from other agencies where issues related to the future of the work of NGOs were discussed.

I must stress that within Dóchas we try to set the bar higher for standards for agencies. This aim is supported by our members. I refer to our code of conduct and governance which has been cited in the EU as being best practice as also is our code relating to images and messages. We have learning groups within Dóchas on HIV-AIDS, humanitarian aid and so on. There is significant collaboration both here and in the field.

One of the good things about this campaign on the cuts in Aids funding is that we worked solidly together on the campaign and this has resulted in a feeling of fellowship within the sector which we can build upon. I was very taken with Deputy Higgins's comments about discourse and academic standards. I would like to return to that topic at a later stage. The Deputy is correct in that we need the highest standards within the sector and this should also include the academic field.

Mr. Tom Arnold

I will follow on from the point made by Ms Keogh. This is probably not the time of day to begin a debate on the issue of discourse but I was interested to hear Deputy Higgins's comments about UNCTAD and the alternative discourse that it is now beginning to reassert. I refer to a new biography of Raul Prebisch which has just been published. Were I not to risk offence under the bribery and corruption Act I would offer a copy to Deputy Higgins in honour of his long service to discourse here and on this matter. It is an important issue. We have had a systemic failure at international level in so many ways. We are going to have to find new forms and models of discourse. It may well be that some of the things we were talking about some decades ago, may be relevant again, or we need new ones in any event.

In reply to Deputy Timmins, the impact of funding cuts has been real in terms of programmes cut and in the case of Concern we have had to let go almost 600 people world-wide. This has a direct impact on the quantity rather than the quality of our programmes.

The issue of land is still a very open question. There is no doubt that if land grabbing is done in the wrong way, it will have a major impact. On the other hand, sensible investment, according to sensible guidelines which are transparent, could bring a degree of agricultural development to certain countries. The jury is out but it is an area that needs vigilance. To quote Edmund Burke, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

I thank the delegates for attending this meeting and for their submissions. From what we have heard today and from what members have said, they can be assured that this committee shares their view that Ireland needs to maintain and to grow our percentage expenditure on overseas development aid, as has already been promised.

Ms Keogh stressed the fact which is not always recognised here, that food and fuel increased in price so much in the developing world in the period under discussion and she also stressed the need to get back on track. We hope we are close to track in any event at this stage but this will be a major objective.

Mr. Tom Arnold also spoke about quantity and quality but said that thankfully the cut was limited to €25 million. I share his feeling about that because there was a great fear it would go a good deal further than that. Everybody who worked on trying to limit the cut, given all that had happened, is to be thanked. It is a question of where we go from here. Mr. Arnold emphasised the need as soon as possible for some clarity, a road map. I am always fearful of using that term because this committee deals with the situation in the Middle East and the road map has produced a bumpy ride there. There is also the question we will continue to pursue of the €100 million climate change fund. We do not want anything taken from the funds allocated to overseas development aid. The Minister of State would welcome greater clarity on that himself, from what he said on the matter.

I thank the witnesses and our members. There may be a vote at 1.45 p.m., although I hope it will not come about. There are other committees in session now and as times were pushed back, people are under some pressure. I thank everyone for attending, including the representatives from NGOs and embassies, including ambassadors, in the Gallery. I take the opportunity to wish everybody a very happy Christmas and peaceful new year. Enjoy the Christmas. I always find that when I get to midnight mass I can relax for at least a week. It is bedlam running up to Christmas for all sorts of reasons but I hope everybody has a healthy and happy new year. We will keep up the effort during the year to come.

Ms Helen Keogh

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee, as well as the clerk and staff, for the ongoing work. It is important that we get the opportunity to hear from the Minister of State and that representatives of the NGO sector get to speak. I ask that the committee ensures we have the blueprint for the 0.7% target. This might also become a forum allowing the opportunity for cross-party talks on future legislation on the issue, if that is possible. Ultimately, we accept and know that this committee has been a great champion for overseas aid, and we hope that will continue. I wish everybody all the best for Christmas and the new year too.

I thank Ms Keogh and Mr. Zomer for coming along.

The joint committee went into private session at 1.45 p.m. and adjourned at 1.50 p.m. until 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, 27 January 2010.
Top