I welcome Mr. David Donoghue and Mr. Frank Sheridan from Development Co-operation Ireland, a division of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Mr. Donoghue is the director of the division while Mr. Sheridan is a counsellor in the division. They have been invited to address the sub-committee regarding Ireland's ODA programme and progress on the expansion of the programme to meet the millennium development goals and the UN target of 0.7% of GNP by 2007. The delegation will also brief the sub-committee on progress on the implementation of the recommendations of the Ireland Aid review committee. Following the presentation, there will be a question and answer session. Members are covered by privilege while witnesses are not.
Development Co-operation Ireland: Presentation.
Mr. David Donoghue
I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss the Government's development co-operation programme. The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Tom Kitt, sends greetings to the sub-committee. He is attending the EU-ACP ministerial meeting in Botswana. I am in the Chairm an's hands in terms of how the discussion is structured but I am aware of one or two points of interest on which the sub-committee would like me to dwell.
Since I last appeared before the sub-committee, the programme has received a new name, Development Co-operation Ireland. We have also been subjected to a peer review by the development assistance committee of the OECD, which produced a positive judgment on the Government's programme and which largely supported the policy direction set by successive Governments and Ministers.
The Government abides by its commitment to achieve the UN goal of 0.7% of GNP by 2007. It set itself this objective a number of years ago and it continues to make progress towards it. The question of the different aid modalities operated under the programme is among the issues of interest to the sub-committee. Interest was also expressed in the procedures we have for planning the allocations made to individual programme countries. There was also interest in the question of multi-annual budgeting. By that I assume the sub-committee means the arrangements we have introduced in regard to NGOs. I may be wrong and it is possible a wider theme is involved, namely the desirability of having multi-annual budgets for the programme as a whole. A further area of interest is the question of conflict resolution and what is happening under the DCI programme to support that, particularly in Uganda. Interest was also signalled in regard to the question of a regional approach on our part to the various issues arising in Africa. I am happy to talk about these and other issues members might wish to raise.
With regard to aid modalities, over the past eight to ten years, we have moved into a scenario in which, on the bilateral front, three modalities are used. The bulk of our expenditure under the programme is devoted to bilateral co-operation in six so-called programme countries, previously known as priority countries, and in a number of other countries. Bilateral co-operation takes three forms. First, area-based partnerships, meaning regional involvement. Typically we take a large region in one of our programme countries and support, in an integrated way, the health, education, infrastructure, governance and other policies being pursued there. It has a number of advantages. One is it brings Ireland into a condition of familiarity with the problems at local level in the country. We do not, therefore, operate in an abstract way at the national or federal level. It also raises our profile as a donor, given that our overall resources, while significant in percentage terms, are still relatively modest compared with those of other donors in value terms.
The second modality on which we rely is the so-called SWAP or sector-wide approach. That means that in a country such as Ethiopia or Tanzania, we support specifically the health sector or the education sector at national level. We work with other donors, principally like-minded partners such as the Nordic states, the Netherlands and the UK, to support the government concerned in the design and implementation of its health or education policy.
The third modality is an instrument known as general budget support, which we have operated up to now in only two countries, namely Uganda and Mozambique. We join a wide range of other donors and the World Bank in helping the governments concerned to address their comprehensive needs across a range of policy issues on the basis of a budget and plan agreed with the donors. Those are the three primary instruments we use in the bilateral programme.
Beyond that, we have significant multilateral involvement through our support for individual UN agencies and our mandatory contributions to the European development fund. A significant part of our budget also supports NGOs, both Irish and foreign. That is in response to a recommendation made by the Ireland Aid review committee, chaired by Deputy O'Donnell, a few years ago.
I refer to planning procedures. We approach each of our programme countries on the basis of a country strategy devised in collaboration with the authorities of that country, civil society, other donors and a wide range of relevant interests. The strategy is considered and approved by our own processes and a budget is assigned to cover it. It will typically cover three years. It is increasingly important that development involves a longer term commitment to our development partners. They need predictability in terms of funding and support. We try our best with our donors to ensure they can see over three or four years the range of resources across the board they will receive. Partnerships with the governments concerned are vital principles for the Government in designing aid programmes. Gone are the days of the top-down approach with policy being decided in a vacuum. Partnership and ownership are absolutely essential principles on the basis of which our other donors and like-minded partners operate.
On the principle of support for NGOs, Ireland Aid Review recommended a more strategic partnership with NGOs to harness their energies and contribution towards achieving the Government's development objectives. We see them as very important partners and we wanted to bring them into a new relationship with us, involving a more intensified policy dialogue and greater support with resources. A condition of that new partnership would be that they align their objectives with what the Government wishes to achieve. Very important progress has been made with this new scheme, the multi-annual programme scheme or MAPS. So far five of the larger NGOs receive increased support from the Government on the basis of a programme of activity and a set of agreements worked out with us. There is obviously potential for more NGOs to join the scheme as they develop their own programme orientations.
The scheme is bringing us into a situation where NGOs are actively serving the Government development objectives both in the programme countries and elsewhere, which is important also both in terms of our co-operation with civil society in those countries and in support here for the programme and what it seeks to achieve.
Conflict resolution is also a priority identified by the Ireland Aid Review report and we are devoting increasing attention to it. Conflict resolution is not only important to the aid programme but also to the Government in terms of foreign policy. There is an important link between security, peace and stability and development. It is not possible to achieve sustainable development in conditions of conflict and instability, so there is an onus on donors to try to foster conditions in which the development we are trying to achieve can be effective. The issues covering governance and human rights are also linked to this. We try to address the root causes of conflict and pre-empt factors which might spark or deepen conflict. We also try to develop programmes dealing with the consequences of conflict in countries emerging from conflict.
There is a wide range of challenges involved with conflict including issues related to preventing conflict, dealing with conflict as it exists and dealing with post-conflict situations. We devote resources under the bilateral programme and a separate human rights and democratisation scheme to issues relating to conflict resolution. We have also, incidentally, here and there in our bilateral programme been directly involved in activities which have defused conflict, and I will ask my colleague, Mr. Sheridan, to deal with an interesting aspect of one such activity in Uganda when our mission in Kampala became involved in defusing conflict.
It is increasingly important to recognise regional approaches and that new states in Africa do not exist on their own but are part of regional groupings. Tensions at regional level often contribute directly to tensions within a given country and its neighbours. It is important that we as a donor, acting with like-minded donors and the UN and the EU, should support new groupings which are emerging in Africa. The biggest and most important is the African Union and through our mission in Ethiopia we have intensive contacts with that organisation, as well as dealing with it in our capacity as EU Presidency. In addition we support the NEPAD initiative under the African Union, which offers a real chance to address the problems of democratisation and good governance in the areas where we operate.
There are also smaller groupings, such as SADC in southern Africa. The Ireland Aid Review identified South Africa as a country which, while not a programme country for us nor likely to become one, presents particular challenges arising from the fact that a large part of the population suffers from the extreme problems we are addressing in our programme countries. In South Africa those are obscured because its average income places it in the middle income category. The review recognised that South Africa's majority population has enormous problems, including HIV-AIDS, which should be addressed by us. In that context we are looking at ways to co-operate with South Africa and the countries around it on a regional basis.
Another issue is the promotion of regional approaches to HIV-AIDS. We have an initiative underway involving nine countries in southern Africa and in particular to raise public awareness by promoting prevention.
I have a number of questions. I have heard Mr. Donoghue and Mr. Sheridan contribute to seminars outside the House recently. I attended one in Buswell's Hotel and another in one of the universities and their contributions were excellent. I pay tribute to them for that. As we have this chance I want to raise some issues which concern me.
The development debate has moved away from the Dáil and Seanad. I welcomed the review chaired by former Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, but I must ask certain questions. What do I know of its recommendations since then? What progress report has been made available to me? The answer is none. The monitoring committee is chaired by a distinguished former chair of the Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs, former Deputy Des O'Malley, but has it met? Who attended the meetings? What did they discuss? I do not know and though I have tried to find out I was unsuccessful. That leads me to two conclusions. The political debate on development and other issues to which I will refer is dying. The opportunities for discussing crucial aspects do not exist. I hoped that following the review there would be an opportunity to have an open debate on the philosophy of development. I am at a stage in my parliamentary life where I will not run away and apologise for using the words "philosophy of development" because it is something that must be debated. It is not an issue only for those who give and those who receive or about the construction of models to deal with poverty or whatever. It must take account of new realities in regard to thinking about economics, the social sciences and so on in different countries and different continents. There is no space for discussing this aspect. There are no position papers coming to me as a member of the sub-committee, or I suspect coming to those before us. What one is getting is descriptive.
In an article in Trócaire's review, written by Róisín Shannon, I was fascinated by one finding she listed on page 35 when she looked at all the people involved in conflict resolution. As a social scientist for more than 25 years, I notice that everyone had a go at it. In the 1950s, there were quantitative analyses of incidents of war. These people had a good run and got professorships out of it. The analyses included game theory, analysis of traditional diplomacy, sociological analysis and anthropological analysis. Everyone has been in and out of the development field. In the 1990s, it has become entirely quantified and there is no qualitative thought in regard to models of development and development relationships.
I looked at conflict resolution. There is hardly a single study in this area dealing with the issue of power. Instead of dealing with powerlessness, which is the other side of the coin, people have made bland statements inviting people to partnership and so on. NEPAD was discussed at the Committee on Foreign Affairs when there was a very cross response from the then Minister. It was made very clear that one could not contradict it. I was referred to offensively as just an "old Lefty" for raising a question about it. NEPAD prioritises the requirements of multinational corporations. Its main aim is to increase foreign direct investment in South Africa. I have no difficulty with that but I wanted to be free to raise a question about NEPAD. Buried in the NEPAD structure are ground realities like, for example, the 2 million people who have had their water cut off because of the multinational which has a private arrangement in regard to water, the 2 million who have had their electricity cut off and the 5 million who have been made homeless through evictions. This is directly related to a privatisation component in the adjustment process in South Africa.
I am totally in favour of co-operation and discussion. I warmly welcome the positive approach of the South African ambassador to Ireland, who is a distinguished ambassador and makes very good contributions. I was disappointed that because of not being able to discuss these issues in parliaments in many cases, we are presented with a situation where one cannot question NEPAD either. NEPAD has not been discussed in the Seanad or Dáil. I was practically insulted when I raised a few questions about it which I thought were logical. I would not stop a first year student of mine in the old days asking questions such as where does it come from, how many countries initiated it, with whom were there discussions, was it capable of amendment, was it possible to accommodate many models within it and so on.
If we are not able to discuss the fundamental questions of politics, philosophy, assumptions and the nature of economic models, how will it be fed into a development education strategy? The review committee correctly stressed the importance of development education and what is happening in development education. Is there a suggestion that funding development education, which should be about educating ourselves on our inter-dependency, might be deflected into anti-racism? In other words, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform manages to put its hands on what is effectively development education money. Is this not so? These are interesting questions.
Mr. Donoghue suggested that progress is being made on our United Nations pledge of 0.7%. He must be a genius with figures because I do not know how he calculates it. If we missed the target of 0.45% for 2002, and if we are stuck at 0.42%, is there a new maths which tells one this is progress? What will the figure be next year or the year after? How is the achievement of 0.7% in 2007 structured? One need not spend much time on this question if one can give a straight answer. Perhaps we are just drifting along. I am not suggesting that there is an enormous difference in the way the 0.7% is calculated, but I do not think we can make the case that there was a shortage. If one makes a commitment, one must keep the commitment.
On multi-annual funding, it involves more than just the NGOs use of the concept. It involves the Government's commitment to other partners' projects and multi-annual funding. If one looks for coherence from the principal NGOs, one should look for it from oneself in regard to the partnership arrangements one makes with partners in respect of multi-annual funding.
On the coherence unit, I do not think the agenda of the NGOs can be reduced to the Government's agenda. It is useful if we get coherence in regard to the Government, but the function of NGOs should not be absorbed in the Government's development programme. It should be making new and innovative arguments and bringing new ideas into play. I am interested, for example, in studies that might have been carried out on religious assumptions and whether there is an impediment to development, which still floats around in literature. No work is being done on that.
Has there been an increase in staff, as the development review anticipated? How many and where are they? The organisation is not as bad as Britain. I read recently that it spent £700,000 on nutrition in Zambia and £54 million on adjusting the coppermines for privatisation. We are not on that scale. Where are the staff and how many are there? What happened to APSO? When one asks about APSO, one is told "We are still looking after the missionaries." I am interested in more than that. How do people volunteer for service abroad and what replaced APSO? Many people with skills want to work abroad. The suggestion is that the remnants of APSO is looking after the missionaries, much of which I support. The entry for many people willing to serve abroad was closed off. Occasionally I meet people who have public service experience and want to volunteer for such exotic activities as election-watching. What happened to that list?
It will be recalled that we spent several days over a number of years asking questions about Mr. Poulsen's section in the European Union, where committed European Union funding, which in some cases was delivered, remained unspent, when 1.4 billion people were living on less than $0.70 cents. What is the proportion of the backlog of unspent resources that has been eliminated in the past year? I am making the case for a regular review paper that will provide information on the situation which will provide options and opportunities for discussion on different theoretical models, not apologetics.
I welcome Mr. David Donoghue and Mr. Frank Sheridan and thank them for their presentation. As a former Minister of State with responsibility for that division, I welcome the opportunity at this remove to pose questions on our commitment to reach the UN target of 0.7% of GNP by 2007. In the year the aid programme was reviewed, as instructed by the Cabinet in the context of the expansion of the programme to reach the UN target, we had reached 0.41% of GNP. Regrettably there has been an appalling slippage in our progress to reaching the interim target of 0.45%. This is a serious issue for the Government. It is not just an issue of domestic politics, but of Ireland's integrity as viewed internationally in the context of our standing at the United Nations. Following a Cabinet decision which had the cross-party support of the House, the Taoiseach made a commitment to reach that target. The collective understanding of the Houses of the Oireachtas was that this was a genuine commitment made with great passion, and I believe in good faith by the Taoiseach. If at this stage we are languishing at expenditure of 0.41% or 0.42% of GNP how will the Government achieve its stated mantra? It will not be achieved if we leave it to the vagaries of the Estimates process. That is very clear from the last two Estimates round, even though there was a volume increase, which was welcome and was possibly acceptable to the division in terms of its capacity to manage such an increase in volume terms of the programme budget.
Nevertheless, this still leaves a question mark internationally as to when, how and in what time frame Ireland will reach the UN target of 0.7% of GNP. Will Mr. Donoghue and Mr. Sheridan explain what has happened to the schedule, agreed when I was Minister of State, which was an agreed trajectory for the various years up to meeting the target? That schedule has not only disappeared but gone off track, leaving us open to be seriously embarrassed internationally in the coming years. That is a disappointment, because a great deal of political investment went into achieving a consensus at Cabinet and the agreement of the Department of Finance, the most important players in terms of the expansion of the overseas aid budget. There was also certain trading of that commitment as we sought votes on the UN Security Council. It was also welcomed among our peers at the DAC and among our European partners because we were taking a stand to increase aid when other countries were slowing down their aid contributions.
It is a source of great regret that we have fallen from our upwards trajectory to reach the target. Surely the best way to reach it is to agree another multi-annual agreement with the Department of Finance. When I was Minister of State in 1999 and following a row, agreement was reached that for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001, there would be guaranteed increases in volume terms to reach a certain percentage. I believe the only way we will achieve clear progress towards the UN target is if we liberate the programme and the officials who plan and administer it from the vagaries of the Estimates process. Will the Minister open discussions with the Department of Finance for another three year programme of guaranteed expansion of the budget? He should be mindful that he has the support of the Oireachtas in doing this. There will be no opposition to it. That gave me and will give the current Minister a very strong hand. The Fine Gael Party has recommended that we legislate to reach the UN target but I believe the same outcome can be achieved by political agreement and agreement between the two Departments.
The Advisory Board for Ireland Aid, ABIA, was meant to be a strong, independent body, which would oversee the Department. The review body and the Cabinet recognised that such a body was needed to oversee the departmental handling of the massive expansion of the budget. It is worth noting that the scale of the expansion is breathtaking and puts huge pressures on the division. The review committee recognised that one could not expect a division overnight to plan for the disbursement of a significant multi-million aid budget. Aid must be planned properly and carefully with our partner countries so that the money is not provided to our development partners in a state of unreadiness. It was genuinely recognised that a gradual expansion with a planned expansion of human resources in the division was necessary and that the advisory board would report to the Oireachtas as to how the review was progressing. I know Mr. O'Malley has had to resign and has been replaced by the former Deputy, Mr. Chris Flood, who I understand is Chairman of ABIA. The fact that we do not know is a measure of the fact that the supposedly strong independent body is not visible to the members of the committee and other Members of the Oireachtas.
I do not know how it was decided to change the name of Ireland Aid to Development Co-operation Ireland. It did not come from the review of the programme. It was one area about which I found no criticism. Ireland Aid was a brand, recognised everywhere in Africa, like Coca Cola. I remember during my reign that we got a brand new logo and other expensive material. What has been the benefit of the name change? It has resulted in a loss of identity of the programme as people do not know DCI. It took a long time to stamp a brand of ownership over Ireland Aid. It is a pity that has gone.
One of the key recommendations of the review committee was that, in line with the expansion of budget, there should be a strong focus on engendering public, or citizenship, ownership of the aid programme. This is not merely for the sake of publicity for the endeavour, which is important, but in order to shore up popular and citizenship support for the aid programme. Such public ownership and understanding of the aid programme, particularly among our young people, would protect the programme against attack, diminution or budgetary distortion. I would like a report to this committee of the progress of the recommendation by the review committee of a programme of increased public ownership and awareness of the aid programme through our schools, colleges and the wider public. How is that public ownership programme progressing because I am not conscious of it?
After much support we agreed that we would continue our focus on the existing poor countries in Africa and that if we were to expand we would expand into another least developed country in the same region. We considered Malawi, for example. I do not know what has happened to that proposal. I understand that it is now intended to go into Vietnam. At one point Vietnam was mooted as a country we might go into if we were to move into a different region of the world. However, the review committee felt we should confine ourselves to a least developed country. Vietnam is not a least developed country and has, in fact, been called miraculous in terms of its economic development. Laos, Cambodia or another country in that region would be a more worthy recipient of Ireland's aid. We are in danger of drifting from our traditional focus on the poorest countries in the world and on the poorest communities in those countries. How has Vietnam shot to the top of the expected new country programme in south-east Asia instead of a poorer country, as we had considered?
Budget support was a huge issue in our review of the programme. We moved from working in a programme way with our partner countries to a different relationship, as other donors have done, of channelling money into the central exchequers of some of our partner countries, such as Uganda. This was always controversial in Uganda because of the governance issue. What is the current situation with regard to Uganda? Are we still working with that country through the health and other sectors or are we continuing to give budget support? There was some controversy in that regard and some change of direction announced by the Minister.
And primary education.
Indeed. Those are the principal areas on which we have traditionally focused in Ireland Aid.
The politics of this issue centres on money and on having enough money to live up to our commitments to the international community and to the poorest countries in the world. How is the magic to be performed if our contribution is still at 0.42% and we expect to reach 0.7% in 2007? Who will perform that magic if not the Ministers for Finance and Foreign Affairs?
Is there a programme for recruiting voluntary workers for the least developed countries? There is a flood of goodwill in the country. In a former life I was involved with the Wexford hurling team. One of the players who was a civil engineer once told me he would like to offer his services wherever they were most needed but he did not know who to talk to.
Mr. Donoghue
Deputy Michael D. Higgins called for a debate, particularly in the Oireachtas, on the philosophy of development. I accept there can never be enough debate on the issues with which we deal. There is regular contact between the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, and committees of the Oireachtas but there is always room for an intensification of this dialogue in various ways. We produce an annual report which is provided to this sub-committee and if that is not done we can arrange for it to happen systematically. That report would show what is happening in any given year and how the recommendations of the Ireland Aid Review are being implemented. Those recommendations are now largely implemented. There is endless scope to do more in any given area but we have made considerable progress in the past couple of years. I can deal with those recommendations in a moment.
Deputy Higgins's key question was how members of this sub-committee are to know this is happening. This is a fair point and I will take it back at official level and see how we can improve the flow of information about what is happening under the programme. The OECD Development Assistance Committee carried out an exhaustive analysis of the programme last year and produced a report which has been published. I am fairly certain that was made available to members of this sub-committee. If not, we can provide it. That review looked in detail at how the recommendations of the Ireland Aid Review were being implemented. Needless to say, it entirely endorsed those recommendations and thought they got the direction absolutely right.
The advisory board, which Deputies O'Donnell and Higgins mentioned, meets regularly. It was formerly chaired by former Deputy Desmond O'Malley and is now chaired by former Deputy Chris Flood. That change took place about six months ago when Mr. O'Malley resigned the post. The advisory board is functioning in the way it was always intended to do. For the first few months, the members of the board had to familiarise themselves with the many and complex areas in which we operate. Although the members have important contributions to make from their various backgrounds they needed to come to terms with the bilateral programme and the multilateral work with support for NGOs. Therefore a degree of familiarisation was required. The board has made a number of visits to our programme countries and has reported on those. The board's work, so far, has largely taken the form of advice to the Minister, given internally. The board has produced public statements.
That is not the board's sole function. The review group's recommendation was that the board would be an independent source of oversight. I hoped to have heard by now the studies the board had commissioned, the questions it had asked and what parts of the programme it thought should be refocused. That is what the board was set up to do. The problem is that while it may have been informally or formally advising the Minister, we heard nothing from it.
Mr. Donoghue
ABIA's role is three-fold. First, it was and is expected to provide policy advice to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and his Minister of State on issues relating to our programme. Second, it is expected to oversee expenditure. That aspect is being efficiently carried out in conjunction with a newly appointed audit committee under the terms of the Mullarkey report. It is being given as much priority as the policy aspect. Third, it has been given responsibility for the administration of a research budget. The board, with the secretarial resources available to it, is currently commissioning research. In that regard, there are two major subjects of interest, one being coherence and the other relating to civil society. ABIA is in the process of inviting applications for research projects. That work is underway. All three strands are moving ahead in parallel.
I recognise the Deputy's point in terms of communication of its activities and role. I recall that after its first meeting, a statement issued from the advisory board on the question of ODA resources. In that regard, it demonstrated its independence at an early stage. However, an issue arises in terms of publication and communication of its activities and I will bring that to the board's attention.
The ABIA has not produced position papers and though it is open for the board to do so if it wishes, it is not intended it will do so. The board is commissioning outside research which is intended to be of benefit to the programme. It has produced reports for the Minister but has not, up to now, produced public work. It was never specifically intended it would do so.
Who makes the decisions in terms of public work? Would it not be perfectly reasonable to expect that the Sub-committee on Development Co-operation, as part of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs committee, would have an opinion on what studies should be undertaken of civil society? The civil society project has gone to tender without any opinion from this sub-committee or the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs. I have no difficulty with the board in terms of it offering advice to the Minister but, as established, the board was to have a role that would embrace the Oireachtas. The production of an annual report some 18 months after completion of the civil society report does not do that.
I have ideas on the type of civil society studies that should be carried out. They would differ not only between Asia, Africa and Latin American but between countries in Africa. We wanted an opportunity to hear what was being done and to make a contribution in that regard. However, we have been excluded from doing so.
Mr. Donoghue
Research can be approached in different ways. It can involve ideas from the board and requests which we make of it. It can also include proposals from third parties. There are many channels through which the board can reach a view on what research is required. It has a budget and we leave it to the board to implement it. It is open to Members of the Oireachtas to have contact in terms of feeding in views. That said, I will ask the board to consider how it can ensure a more structured liaison between the research aspect and this sub-committee.
And on the policy aspect.
Mr. Donoghue
Yes. On that point, the board is independent and it is up to it to formulate its advice to the Minister as it sees fit in the light of many meetings and discussions they may have. I am in a slightly awkward position in that it is for the advisory board to provide advice to Government and to choose to meet with members of the committee. I believe it is a good idea to do so but it is a matter for consideration by the board. It is not for us to dictate how the board produces its advice.
Mr. Donoghue
However, the Deputy's suggestion makes good sense. We could suggest that more structured ways be found for it to interact with the committee.
It should change its name to the Minister's advisory board if it cannot meet with us. However, we will delay on the issue though I am sure Mr. Donoghue can see the contradiction.
Mr. Donoghue
Yes.
Is the Government, or Minister representing it, compelled to accept the advice given?
Mr. Donoghue
No.
I empathise with Deputy Michael Higgins. I am not sure what role a politician plays in what is being done for the least developed countries.
Mr. Donoghue
Members have an opportunity to ask questions of the Minister of State when he attends the committee, as he does on a regular basis. I have no doubt he will respond to all questions. I will reflect on what can be done to ensure members of the board have the widest possible contact with members who have views to offer. It is in our interest to foster the widest possible debate.
Deputy Higgins also asked about NEPAD. We are not in the business of debating NEPAD per se but it is an African-owned initiative involving a peer review mechanism which we consider to be a particularly significant aspect. However, perhaps that is a debate for another day.
It is an issue in which African countries are involved.
Mr. Donoghue
There is no question of funding from our development education being side-tracked into the anti-racism area. Development education funding is provided for that purpose. Previously, there was a separate body dealing with that area but it has since been integrated with DCI and the arrangement is working efficiently. The NGOs in question are content with the new arrangements. The budget has increased modestly during the past year or so. We envisage a certain role which development education can play in terms of widening public understanding of issues in general and of our own programme. To some extent, the two go hand in hand. There are precise guidelines on what constitutes development education.
Does it include immigrants from developing countries? I am not arguing against funding for anti-racism rather I do not believe the money should be absorbed by other Departments which should pay for it from their own allocations. Do you include programmes that deal with issues regarding migrants, immigrants and transient people from developing countries?
Mr. Donoghue
NGOs or other interest groups submit proposals for particular projects which they would like us to support under the development education budget. Those projects might individually have an element which deals with economic migrants and in that regard, that dimension is covered. However, anti-racism as a specific area of policy is not covered by development education or our budget.
The sensitive question of progress towards the UN target was raised by Deputies O'Donnell and Michael D. Higgins. This is a matter for Government at political level. On the issue of multi-annual agreements reached with the Department of Finance, there was one such agreement under the previous Government but there has not been a successor agreement under the current Government. Rather, the budgets have been negotiated on a year to year basis. There is a certain planning advantage in having a multi-annual agreement and I will take that point back for consideration at political level.
The Government emphasises that the volume of resources continues to be at the highest level ever. There is a long way to go towards the 0.7% target. It is difficult to achieve that. However, the volume of resources is rising steadily and it is right to consider this significant. We still fare reasonably well——
It is important to bring back the message and emphasise that Deputy O'Donnell's viewpoint has all-party support. We are not talking about volume as we have always opposed that argument. We have also opposed the percentage and have been sensitive about the measure by which the percentage is calculated. The measure began as 0.7% of GNP and we are committed to that; it has all-party support.
Mr. Donoghue
Indeed. We still fare reasonably well by international comparisons.
That is the excuse du jour.
Mr. Donoghue
It is still the case. On the question of the lack of support for NGO activities, I agree the NGO agenda cannot be reduced to the Government's agenda. There is no ambiguity in that regard. We support Irish and foreign NGOs in so far as their long-term development work coincides with and enriches ours. We do not purport to take over the NGOs in any way or to support everything they do. We want to channel the long-term development work in which they engage in a manner which will support what we do and achieve a composite success. We are quite clear on the role of NGOs and civil society as partners for Government, but with their own strong identity and interests. There is no problem in that regard.
Staffing numbers have increased somewhat over the past couple of years since the Ireland Aid review was completed. Numbers have risen in line with the increase in our budget. I believe the current resources are adequate in terms of the tasks we are asked to perform. If the budget was to increase greatly, there would need to be a commensurate increase in staffing. That is the approach the Ireland Aid Review committee took. Our staffing levels are broadly satisfactory for the volume of work we now have to do.
Staffing covers diplomats, general service staff and specialists. We have some capacity to increase the number of specialists as short-term needs arise. For example, in the context of people working on contracts, it is easier for us to recruit such experts than to recruit permanent civil servants. We have the capacity to meet needs as they arise on that basis. This is an aspect which the advisory board was asked to keep under review and I know it is examining the matter.
The failure to explore and develop the policy side internally in the Department in ratio to the recruitment of contract staff, would work against policy formation. I understood the review group made specific recommendations for an increase in the permanent core staff dealing with development issues.
Mr. Donoghue
The review report made a number of recommendations in the area. We have had approximately 30 additional staff allocated over the past couple of years. They are a mixture of diplomats, general service and specialist staff. Therefore, the core staff is being increased.
On the issue of APSO, a new unit was established by the Minister of State within DCI, which we call Volunteer 21 and which carries on and extends the work of APSO. The APSO organisation was integrated at the end of last year with DCI, and the work it did, which had changed to some extent in the past few years, is being carried on within DCI. To be specific, in the past couple of years, on the recommendation of the Ireland Aid Review, APSO began to provide a dedicated support service for missionaries. That work is continuing under a specific service we have set up. At the same time we have examined more generally how to support volunteers. The Minister was anxious to ensure there would be no lacunae following the ending of APSO, or its integration with us. He wanted to ensure Irish people who wished to work as volunteers abroad would have the same or greater financial support from the Government than was available up to now. That is now the case and within a dedicated unit of DCI the work of APSO continues. The name has gone but the staff has largely transferred into our new unit. There is continuity.
Is Volunteer 21 up and running?
Mr. Donoghue
It is up and running.
Has it been advertised?
Mr. Donoghue
A conference on volunteering was opened by the Minister about three weeks ago. It received a certain amount of publicity and brought together people in the volunteer movement in Ireland from all fronts. It was made clear there exactly what the Minister plans to do with the new unit. The people concerned have got the message but I see there is a need to go beyond that and provide wider information.
Did the Department place advertisements in the public press dealing with the kind of people the Deputy mentioned?
Mr. Donoghue
There have been some——
To my knowledge it has not. Many people have asked me about this agency.
Mr. Donoghue
I am open to correction but my memory is that we issued a public invitation for contributions on the subject. There is clearly more to be done and we will take that point back to the Department.
The work on election monitoring also continues within DCI. It was previously done by APSO, and the same arrangements continue. I am not aware there is any particular confusion in that regard.
Who does it now?
Mr. Donoghue
It is done by the civil society unit within DCI. I understand it is awkward when a name like APSO, which has been a household name for many years, disappears and is absorbed into a wider organisation. We have had no complaints so far that people do not know where they should apply. There will be an election register. APSO was already physically in the same building as us so it has not moved at all. The people are still on the same premises. People who are used to dealing with APSO work out gradually that although the people working there are the same, there are new telephone numbers to ring and the people are working for a different organisation. The problem is not as acute as one might imagine. We have been giving thought to ways in which we could communicate more broadly that the same arrangements, which were well known, are continuing in the civil society unit of Development Co-operation Ireland.
Would Development Co-operation Ireland consider the use of workshops at university level to proactively create awareness?
Mr. Donoghue
On the issue of volunteering, that would be the next step from the conference which recently took place and in which universities participated. I will send the Deputy information on that conference if he wishes. It is an ongoing process managed by the volunteer challenge unit within DCI.
On the question of the uncommitted EU funding, DCI is familiar with this issue as it has been raised many times in this committee. In overall terms it has been a priority of the Irish Presidency to encourage faster progress towards reducing aid backlogs and the number of undischarged commitments. A figure which the Commission recently provided was that by the end of 2003, the level of budgetary commitments made prior to 1995 had been reduced by 91%, compared to November 1999. Some overall progress has been made but there is still a long way to go. Under the Irish Presidency DCI has managed to direct attention to this aspect and it featured at the recent meeting of the General Affairs and External Relations Council where development Ministers looked at a range of development items including this one. DCI will keep up the pressure in this area.
The Commission is aware that it needs to take the reform programme forward more rapidly and we have been pressing the Commission to do so. Some progress can be measured. The problem is not quite as rampant as it used to be several years ago.
No decision has yet been taken by the Government regarding any new programme country, such as in the case of Vietnam. The recommendation of the Ireland Aid Review was that there would be an additional programme country. I think there was a reference to the idea of it having a regional role. Whether the text contained that or not, that is the thinking. If there were to be an involvement in south-east Asia, it would involve an office covering several countries which could include Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. We are very conscious of the needs of Laos and Cambodia. The Deputy can be assured that will not be lost sight of.
Regarding additional programme countries in Africa, DCI examined a number of candidates at official level. It was not easy to identify an absolute front runner. The Minister of State recently launched an involvement in west Africa to which I draw the committee's attention. A small office will be opened in Sierra Leone later in the year to develop our aid activity in both Sierra Leone and Liberia. There is a certain value, particularly given that Ireland is now on the ground in Liberia through the military presence, in intensifying our overall involvement, both humanitarian and security, in that region. It was against that background that the Minister of State decided to open a small office in Sierra Leone, a country which has many long-standing links with Ireland. That is not to say the issue of further expansion in Africa is off the agenda. There are always candidates but for the moment there is no immediately obvious candidate and so work continues. Resources are also clearly an issue in that case.
On the question about the change of name, the decision was taken by the Minister of State a year ago. The background to the decision is a sense that development co-operation is perhaps a more attractive term than aid which implies a hand-me-down relationship. Development co-operation emphasises the notion of partnership and equality to which I referred earlier. That was an important part of the thinking behind it. So far, Development Co-operation Ireland is gaining wider recognition. There is a broader issue of public ownership for the aid programme in general. It does not come down just to the name.
DCI has a dedicated website and a communications strategy which builds on the recommendations of the Ireland Aid Review. We are looking at a range of initiatives in respect of schools and universities. The establishment of a resource centre in DCI's headquarters would enable the public to familiarise themselves on a daily basis with the programme. These ideas are being considered. The change of name was seen by the Minister of State as making a contribution to that area of work and a new logo has been created.
DCI is still involved in budget support in Mozambique and Uganda. The Minister of State announced some months ago that a certain portion of our funding in Uganda will be put into a so-called poverty action fund. In practice that means basic needs such as health and education are catered for in a ringfenced fund. It is very similar to budget support but gives DCI more control. It is agreed with the Ugandan Government that money in that fund is spent only on a stated number of activities. The Minister of State intends that we continue on that basis for the moment. We have a lively dialogue with Uganda on governance issues which includes matters such as defence expenditure. We and other donors conduct this dialogue. From time to time we will adjust the manner in which we provide funding to Uganda in order to encourage it in one direction or another. Broadly speaking, budget support has continued in Uganda and Mozambique. Currently, we are not contemplating entering into any other such commitments.
I thank the delegation for the presentation. It has been a very informative discussion. DCI is to be commended on its ODA programme which enjoys a worldwide reputation for effective high quality aid which makes a real impact on the lives of the poorest people in the world. The sub-committee wishes the Department well in its efforts to expand the programme.
The sub-committee adjourned at 1.05 p.m. sine die.