Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for the excellent presentations. I join others in commending the great work done by NGOs with funding from Irish Aid. As Ms Keatinge said, it is timely and important that we review the Irish Aid programme. It is great to hear from all the witnesses and from Mr. Niall Burgress and Mr. Ruairí de Búrca.

On the issue of the 0.7% target, on 5 October I asked Mr. Burgess when he was here about the Government's commitment to a roadmap to reach that target, on which I know the witnesses are all in agreement. The response was not entirely positive. The response was that as the Irish economy was growing, this 0.7% would in fact be a large amount of money in absolute terms. Will any of the witnesses say a little more about how they anticipate the realistic prospect of reaching that target, particularly in the wake of the recent budget and the increase there? Do they see that as part of a process or do they feel that was somewhat disappointing? I would be interested to hear how they feel we are approaching the idea of a roadmap. The issue of multi-annual funding and long-term funding is crucial. I was at a recent seminar with fundraisers where they made the point that it is crucial that one is not limping from year to year with annual funding. Multi-annual funding makes it much easier and more efficient to plan and look at sustainable development.

On the question of multilateral aid versus bilateral aid, I am somewhat concerned that there is a message that bilateral aid is good and multilateral aid is bad. I hear a somewhat different emphasis. Mr. Meehan made the point very clearly that he believes the balance has tipped too far towards multilateral funding and that it should be rebalanced. Is that reflective of the entire membership of Dóchas? Is it a particular Trócaire view? The response from Concern was slightly different. There was one line in the Concern submission that I felt was very strong, that bilateral and multilateral channels are critical for systemic change. Looking at the Irish input into the negotiations of sustainable development goals and how important those are, we must see development in multilateral, global terms. It is crucial that message comes strongly from this committee too, particularly, as is in the Trócaire submission, when there are efforts to undermine the legitimacy of multilateral organisations like the UN.

Something we have heard at this committee that is of real concern is that with Brexit, the EU development budget will be greatly reduced. Surely at this time Ireland should be stepping up to the plate, as Mr. David Donoghue has done for us at UN level, to restate firmly our strong commitment to multilateral development and to reaching sustainable goals as part of a united group of nations. We all have criticisms of UN bureaucracy but I refer to Mr. MacSorley's point about reforming from within and Coalition 2030. There is an enhanced role, as I understand it, for NGOs at UN level and that seems to be a better way forward rather than saying we must rebalance our aid programmes and being so critical of multilateral organisations. I hope I have not got that wrong. I just want to be clear that the message from this committee is not that we feel that bilateral is better than multilateral. Clearly our bilateral links and the strength of organisations on the ground that have long relationships are hugely important. However, we have to work really intensely at the multilateral level. To me it is not a bad thing that our ODA spend in multilateral organisations has increased. I did not really hear why Trócaire is saying it should be rebalanced other than concern about bureaucracy in the UN, but I think there are other ways of dealing with that. I am sorry for going on about it but I feel so strongly that with Brexit, Trump and so on we must restate our commitment to multilateral efforts.

Following on from that, Ms Keatinge mentioned the day of the girl and Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned the UNFPA report. I know we have a submission from the Irish Family Planning Association and I am a member of the all-party group which it facilitates on sexual and reproductive health. Crucial to attaining so many of the sustainable development goals, STGs, is a commitment to improving sexual and reproductive health and rights, particularly for girls and young women. Ireland has been a stalwart supporter of UNFPA. To me that is one of the strongest multilateral programmes in development because that is the UN agency that provides sexual and reproductive health services in over 150 counties and territories so it is hugely important. Do the witnesses believe Ireland should be doing more on this? We are already have a strong commitment. However in the wake of Trump, clearly UNFPA funding is under threat. Can the witnesses comment on that?

To come back to the issue raised by Mr. MacSorley of Concern about the review of key partner countries, as he pointed out, Ireland traditionally has a commitment with key partner countries in southern and eastern Africa. I have been to some of those countries and I have seen the great work being done but the witness asked if we should also have a commitment to the Horn of Africa and central Africa. I would like to clarify that. Does the witness mean we should be reduce the commitment to some of the current key partner countries or that it should be in addition to those countries? Again the multilateral approach is crucial because we have committed to certain countries, as I understand from having visited them, and other EU countries have committed to countries they might have stronger bilateral links with. That is very important that there is no duplication and that we are efficient in terms of delivering development aid. Can we refocus our efforts in other countries in the Horn of Africa and central Africa without negotiating that with other EU countries that may already have strong bilateral programmes running through which we could channel our funding more effectively to deliver real change for people on the ground?