I thank the Seanad for arranging this debate and for inviting me to address the House. I have spent some time here during other debates. It was said by the Leader and others that this Chamber has its own unique character. I agree with that because such debates are conducted less acrimoniously and it is useful parliamentary work. I thank Members for the all-party support for increasing the budget, which I will speak about later.
The programme of assistance to developing countries has received a strongly favourable review from the member states of the OECD Development Assistance Committee. It took many hands over a considerable period to build the programme which drew many plaudits in Paris last week. On their behalf, I accept the favour implicit in this motion and I thank the Members for the strong support it demonstrates.
I welcome the opportunity to explain some of the elements of the programme which have attracted such a positive assessment. However, I agree that we must continue to do better and maintain a professional and effective approach. While the public may not know every detail of the official programme, there is evidence of strong support for the concept of providing assistance to poorer countries. Our own folk history of famine, the path-finding role of our missionaries and the current positive profile of NGOs have all created a public sense of understanding for the underdog in development terms, for those whose starting point, by virtue of disease, deprivation and history, is so far behind as to make the process of catching up all but impossible.
As the DAC concluded last week in Paris, and as will be shown when its printed report appears next month, the Irish programme of development assistance is a strong one. Through its focus on capacity building and partnerships and its adherence to the best practices in development policy, the Irish programme, by the judgment of its peers, is strong and has a reputation for high quality aid. While aid includes responding compassionately to emergencies such as Liberia, for example, it is especially about addressing long term development needs, the slow building of the capacity which enables poorer countries to help themselves, and sustainable development.
The programme is an integral part of Irish foreign policy and is strong in policy and in implementation. Its components testify to the concentration on long term development. The bilateral programme focuses on just six countries in southern and eastern Africa and one in Asia, where we are a significant player in helping them to develop all aspects of their social and economic infrastructure, playing a role not unlike that which the EU played in our development. Our multilateral aid assists UN agencies which play leading roles in development and agencies which deal with children, refugees, AIDS and other health issues, human rights, mine clearance, environmental degradation and women's issues. We have a well regarded programme of debt relief and, not least, we have a strong programme of assistance through NGOs which have developed outstanding international reputations and high profiles at home.
The issue of the quality of aid is crucial. Some 50 or more years since western countries began trying to bring about development, the fact that there is so little progress speaks for itself. The emphasis of the programme must be on quality to have any prospect of success and, moreover, it must be seen to have this focus. The review by the OECD has found that, as acknowledged earlier, Ireland channels half of its overseas development assistance to least developed countries. This is the largest share among the 22 member countries in the DAC and contributes to achieving the millennium development goals. The programme has a long-standing focus on health and education, which is now complemented by a major focus on HIV and AIDS. We have maintained a laudable concentrated focus on a select number of very poor countries in our bilateral programme and we have moved in recent years to establish a strategic partnership with NGOs.
This high quality aid, which is at the heart of the Irish programme and to which the OECD peer review is testament, took years of patient work to build. A real working partnership with a developing country begins with building an understanding of its people's reality and getting beneath the skin of the daily challenges. A social worker in Dublin or an aid worker in Africa will tell one of the slow, patient work needed to move beyond the barriers of low self-esteem which are common in any environment of poverty. It is also slow work to break down the assumption that outside know-how is better and to reach a common understanding of needs and the tentative beginning of genuine partnership.
In the bilateral programme, all our engagements are driven by three year country strategies. The same three year process applies to NGOs and multilateral agencies. In each case those strategies are preceded by significant evaluation to assess the value of the engagement, identify lessons and adjust the engagement to take them into account. Most importantly, in the case of our programme countries it is not Ireland which is in the driving seat but the authorities in those countries. Hard experience has shown that if we do not create a sense of ownership, a sense that it is the country's development priorities which apply, there will be no sustainable progress.
Our strategy is summed up in the old adage of helping people to do things for themselves. Progressively, over the years, we have moved away from donor-owned projects to working in partnership to support self-sustaining development within poor countries. The key requirement in terms of effectiveness is to work with partner countries to create an enabling environment. Our own recent experience of development has shown the central requirement of creating the conditions to promote the growth of indigenous industry and the promotion of exports and inward investment. A key part of our approach is to work with partner countries to create such an environment. Time permitting, I will deal later with the issue of trade, which was rightly referred to by Senator Mooney and others. Lastly, we do not work alone. As mentioned, we work with partner governments; we also avail of the huge capacity and experience of the UN agencies and we work with international, Irish and local NGOs. Together, this represents a wide alliance for a war on poverty on a broad front.
To fuel that war we need resources. Our funding this year and next year will be the highest in our history. This year our overall official development assistance stands at €450 million, taking account of other Departments. This may be compared to a little over €40 million a decade ago. Next year there will be an increase of €25 million to almost €480 million, as mentioned by Senator Ormonde. Given the constraints on our public finances, it must be acknowledged that the development programme continues to enjoy prominence among the Government's priorities.
As Senators know, we are committed to reaching the United Nations aid target of 0.7% of GNP. Obviously the slowdown in economic growth and its impact on tax revenues has affected all Government services, including the aid programme, which this year will remain at 0.41% of GNP. I acknowledge that it will be difficult to maintain momentum, but the commitment stands, and as the tightness in public finances eases with the growth of the economy, I will be pressing to re-establish momentum. I thank Senators for their support in this matter. I work in partnership with NGOs and the cross-party support I have received tonight is appreciated. It must be acknowledged that the debate on this occasion was tough for everybody who wanted to increase his or her budget. We have seen from the debate in the last week on other domestic and political issues that there are pressures everywhere.
The multi-annual arrangement is the preferred option and it is extremely useful to have such a recommendation made here. We all know that would be the best way of doing things. In the short time allowed to me it is not possible to give a detailed outline of the whole programme. Instead I will dwell on the issue of HIV and AIDS, which merits huge attention. It will be a central development issue in our EU Presidency and has been referred to by a number of Senators. As the world enters the third decade of the AIDS epidemic, which has rightly been called a pandemic, the evidence of its impact is compelling. Dozens of countries are already in the grip of the disease and many more are threatened by it. More than 3 million lives were lost to AIDS last year and 5 million people acquired the human immune deficiency virus, bringing to 42 million the number of people living with the virus around the world. Over the next decade, without effective treatment and care, they will join the ranks of the 20 million who have already died of AIDS. Enabling those who have not yet acquired the virus to protect themselves against HIV, and providing adequate and affordable treatment and care to people living with the virus, represent two of the biggest challenges we face.
In sub-Saharan Africa, the worst affected region, 29 million people are living with the virus. A few years ago, malaria and a host of tropical diseases were the main cause of premature death. That has changed; AIDS is now the main killer. The threat is worsening. In this area approximately 3.5 million new infections occurred in 2002, while the epidemic claimed the lives of an estimated 2.4 million Africans in the past year. Women now outnumber men among people living with the disease, and a chilling statistic in terms of future vulnerability and likely social problems is that 11 million children have lost one or both parents to the disease.
I struggle in trying to bring the scale of the tragedy home to people in Ireland. Perhaps the best way to make sense of it is to go back to a device we used in our advertising campaign leading up to World AIDS Day last year, in which we asked people to imagine that every week the population of a town in Ireland would be obliterated. Senator Norris mentioned this earlier. Another analogy is our own experience of famine and the degree to which it has seared our history and put its mark on much that has happened since. Imagine the impact in centuries to come of a tragedy on this scale and our failure to stop it.
What is the impact of the disease on development in terms of the strong Irish programme I have outlined? It is clear from the statistics I just mentioned that all gains in development are in danger of being undermined by this corrosive threat. The most potent evidence of its impact is the reduction of life expectancy in the continent by more than ten years. Other gains in the area of education and literacy have been seriously undermined. The impact of HIV and AIDS is most severely felt by the poor – effectively those who are disempowered – and particularly by vulnerable groups such as women, children and the elderly. Young women in particular are at risk, both biologically and socially. Women are more vulnerable to HIV infection due to less secure employment, lower incomes, less access to formal social security, fewer entitlement to assets and savings and little power to negotiate sex. They are more likely to be poorly educated and have uncertain access to land, credit and education.
In addition, the impact of AIDS on food supplies particularly affects women and children. Women contribute over 50% of food production in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia and typically carry out the labour intensive elements of farm ing. Women are responsible for subsistence production, food storage, food preparation and water collection. The recurrent food crisis in southern Africa highlights how vulnerable many countries are to shocks that disrupt food production and consumption. The prevalence rates of HIV are, not surprisingly, high in those countries most affected by food shortages and range from 15% in Malawi to 33% in Swaziland.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the epidemic is its impact on children. More than 14 million children currently under the age of 15, most of them in Africa, have lost one or both parents to AIDS. By 2010 this number is expected to jump to more than 25 million. With infection rates still rising and adults continuing to succumb to the disease, HIV-AIDS will continue to undermine progress in the protection of children and cause large-scale suffering among the most vulnerable for years to come.
As acknowledged by the OECD in its review, Development Cooperation Ireland has a strong policy commitment to addressing the challenge HIV-AIDS presents to the achievements of the millennium development goals. Its policy direction is clearly outlined in its strategy, A HIV-AIDS Strategy for the Ireland Aid Programme. This strategy outlines the direction of our contribution to the prevention of HIV-AIDS infection as well as the mitigation of its impact on development. To accomplish this aim we are giving greater prominence to HIV-AIDS throughout the organisation, including the re-orientation of the programme and the training of staff to be responsive to the epidemic. Increased financial support is being directed to international and national efforts to combat the epidemic and to promoting greater policy coherence between international and bilateral initiatives. In addition, we are supporting specific programmes that have proven to be effective in alleviating the impact of the epidemic.
The year 2001 was one in which the international community demonstrated an increasing commitment to address the problems of HIV-AIDS. A declaration of commitment was agreed following the United Nations General Assembly Special Session on HIV-AIDS in June 2001. Members will recall the Taoiseach made a commitment at that session that Ireland will spend an additional €50 million per year on HIV-AIDS programmes.
Over the last three years the volume of funds we have committed to HIV-AIDS has increased tenfold. In 2002 alone, over €40 million was spent on HIV-AIDS programmes with a similar budget for 2003. Our global response to HIV-AIDS comprises advocating for a sustained and resourced response to the disease, strengthening leadership at all levels and improving co-ordination of resources. The Irish programme provides funding to UNAIDS. Members will be aware that we have been heavily involved with the Clinton Foundation in providing additional funds. Ireland does not just make commitments – we honour them. Ireland has taken a holistic approach and does not simply provide treatment, we also provide for care and prevention. Much of our work is now concentrated in Mozambique.
In 2002, DCI launched a new regional initiative designed to complement HIV-AIDS activities in countries already benefiting from Irish support. The programme supports activities in a number of key areas, including prevention to promote behaviour change; home based care and orphan care; countering stigma and discrimination of those living with HIV-AIDS; and operational research around specific areas and issues. We are involved in this in all our programme countries and embassies in those countries have been asked to ensure they build the treatment of HIV-AIDS into their programmes.
The primary impact of HIV-AIDS is borne by families and communities. Given the limited resources of government, non-governmental organisations and faith-based organisations often bear the primary responsibility for delivering home based care and support to orphans and vulnerable children. In 2002 the Irish programme established the HIV-AIDS partnership scheme and this continues to work well.
HIV-AIDS continues to be the biggest single obstacle to reducing poverty and to attaining the Millennium development goals. To fight it, so many things must work together, including strong leadership, allocation of adequate resources, co-ordination of planning and promoting a best practice approach. Monday next is World AIDS Day and we intend to highlight the issue as we did last year. We are organising a major conference on this issue during our Presidency. This conference will relate the problems caused by HIV-AIDS in central and eastern Europe and central Asia. The head of UNAIDS has spoken about the need to urgently address the problem in that part of the world. As Europeans, it is important that we do this.
Senator Mooney referred to the CDI index. This essentially refers to coherence and seeks to ensure there is coherence between our policies on peacekeeping, environment and development. This area is close to my heart and there is progress to report in it. In going to Cancun for the World Trade Organisation talks, I initiated a process between my Department and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The Minister of State at the Department, Deputy Michael Ahern, headed the trade delegation. I was involved as Minister of State with responsibility for overseas development aid as was the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh. It is important that we have coherence between Departments.
The distorting effect of subsidies emerged at Cancun. We have made progress since the index assessment was carried out and changed our policies during the mid-term review of the CAP. This ensures the issue of subsidies has been disconnected from production. I consider this to be a key development and I warmly welcome it. We recently held a forum on agriculture where, for the first time, there was an exchange between farming organisations and NGOs. Prior to the talks in Cancun, I had made a suggestion that such an exchange should take place. I met a representative group of NGOs yesterday and members of it told me the dialogue is continuing. This is the first time NGOs are getting the opportunity to debate these issues with farming representatives. This is a tremendous development as, with the decoupling of production and subsidies, there will be common ground between those that represent the least developed countries and organisations that represent Irish farmers in disadvantaged areas. I am referring to the west, in particular, an area about which I know something. There is a common ground in the need to look after the less well off both at home and abroad and this provides good prospects for cohesion.
As regards peacekeeping, we must acknowledge that the index was probably measured following our disengagement from Lebanon. Ireland has sent 430 troops to Liberia and they will be in place before the end of the year. Having visited the country I am conscious that this is a mission not without risk. Liberia gives Ireland a huge opportunity to play its part, and not just in peacekeeping. I am convinced that we can do much work on development and human rights and carry out humanitarian works. A number of Irish NGOs are already active in the country. I intend to ensure we bring cohesion between those elements during our Presidency. While it will be a difficult job, it is one we will rise to and we have the capacity to do it. I accept that more work must be done in the area of the environment. Ireland has made commitments on climate change and we will be raising this issue during the Presidency. We need to do more work in this.
The trade engaged in by the least developed countries to which I have referred constitutes 0.5% of world trade. Those countries earn eight times more from trade than they receive in overseas development aid. This makes clear to me that while ODA is vital – I will do my utmost to keep the graph continuing in the right direction – trade is an issue that must be addressed.
We have carried out some work in this area, such as the CAP reform. We have also had the TRIPS agreement, an important trade issue regarding access to affordable medicines. Since taking up this position we have put much of our resources into capacity building for these countries. Agencies like the IDA and Enterprise Ireland help our companies to trade. We want to give similar supports to these countries to help them to trade. Senator Norris referred to the private sector forum I am establishing. I believe this to be an exciting opportunity to give Irish companies the chance to trade and share their skills and management know-how with similar companies in the developing world. The idea is to establish partnerships with similar companies, mentoring and exchanging personnel, expertise and technical assistance. There is much we can do. I assure the House this will not be part of the ODA budget; it is a separate initiative from which we can derive many benefits.
Senator Ormonde mentioned NGO accountability. We have strong reporting systems with NGOs. She raised an important point. There is charities legislation on the Statute Book which does not come under my ministerial responsibilities. It is the responsibility of the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív. We should be bringing in that legislation as soon as possible and I will investigate the matter.
The issue of communication was mentioned by many Members. We need to find ways to improve our message and that is something we are working on. I am anxious that Members from both Houses of the Oireachtas should be involved in seeing what is going on abroad. I have taken the initiative on that front. Members from this House will be involved quite soon. That will come into next year's programme. It is important that we build up the development community out there. I was asked about the Agency for Personal Service Overseas, APSO, by Senator Minihan. The question is timely because I am pursuing a modernisation programme on three fronts. I mentioned the private sector: an ICT task force is reporting to me in the next week and that will provide new opportunities to help many of these countries on the new technology front. We will come back to that. As regards the volunteers, APSO is being integrated into the Department of Foreign Affairs. We now have an opportunity to progress the whole approach to volunteers and to modernise it.
In early December, I will announce a major initiative on volunteers. During the Special Olympics we saw the tremendous support that exists for voluntarism in Ireland. I believe this can be replicated internationally. We know what is happening in many parts of Ireland, with even young students going abroad to help out in the developing world. Universities are involved and I want to expand the volunteer agenda. We have a tradition of trained people going abroad for periods, and in many cases they have gone for a year or two. We should give people the opportunity to go abroad for a number of months. There are many fantastic young graduates who are keen to go abroad to try to play their part. We have been in touch with the relevant organisations for some months and an interesting initiative will be announced shortly. I am keen to build up a new generation of development practitioners, so to speak. This is quite exciting and I hope we will have Members' support.
On Uganda, I again thank the Seanad for contributing to this debate and for Members' understanding of the complexities of the situation. I have been to Uganda and have seen the high quality work that has been done with taxpayers' money. It includes the work on long roads that NGOs would not be able to build. The idea that NGOs or missionaries can do what we are doing is a myth. It is about bringing water to villages. I have been there when the taps were turned on and seen the impact on the most deprived and disadvantaged communities. I have seen the schools and the training colleges where Irish taxpayers' money is going. I assure the House that the money is being well spent.
There are major political issues with which we need to deal and we are engaged with those. I have met President Museveni twice, when he visited Ireland and at a meeting in Tokyo not long ago. We went through all the issues regarding the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I would suggest that not just Ireland but the Dutch, the British and all of us who were present in the capital, Kampala, through our embassies have managed to exert influence and leverage on this government to do certain things. The obvious one was to withdraw from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. That has happened. There are issues of governance that we need to address. We are in there dealing with building up the police and the judicial system. This is a complex issue. It comes right to the heart of development and how we operate as a nation. Do we walk away from the kind of issues I mentioned earlier? That is a key point. I would find it hard to do that, but if that is what the Oireachtas wants, we will have to think about it. As we debate this issue today, I am satisfied, on balance, that the work we are doing is very valuable to the ordinary people who are detached from the political considerations and have nothing to do with these areas of controversy. I am satisfied we should be with them, as many Members have said.
The question of political issues is one of those subjects that has caused much public debate. This is good because it has brought the issues into the public domain. We will stay with Uganda, but we are not uncritical. We are also in there changing policies also as regards how the government is run. There are issues down the line that we need to address such as the development of a multi-party state and other matters. The bottom line is we have a good programme. It has won support in this House tonight. We are not standing still and are undertaking some interesting new initiatives, thanks to a growing budget.
