Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their patience. The first part of the meeting continued for longer than we expected and I apologise. I am sure the witnesses listened to what the Secretary General and his team had to say, which was of interest to them in their work.

I welcome the following: Mr. Hans Zomer, director of Dóchas; Mr. Jim Clarken, chairperson of Dóchas and CEO of Oxfam; Ms Lorna Gold, a member of the board of Dóchas and head of policy and advocacy of Trócaire with which the committee has very good relations; and Mr. Sorley McCaughey, head of policy and advocacy of Christian Aid Ireland. They are all welcome and represent a broad spectrum of our NGOs under the umbrella group of Dóchas.

The meeting will deal with two important aspects of development policy. There is growing awareness of the fact that poverty reduction cannot be achieved by aid alone and other policies such as trade, agriculture, climate change and migration security have the potential to make positive and negative impacts on the poor in developing countries. Recognition of this important principle is fundamental to our search for policy coherence for development. When I addressed the conference on this issue at the European Parliament in April I drew on the 2006 White Paper which stressed that coherence is about more than vetting decisions for a potential negative impact on development. It is also about harnessing the potential throughout Government for ideas and actions which can contribute to sustainable global development and the objectives of Irish Aid.

I am glad to see this principle recognised and brought to the fore by the new policy document, One World, One Future, which we launched at Irish Aid headquarters recently. There is growing consensus that policy coherence for development should be at the centre of the post-2015 development agenda. This meeting is timely in the context of the post-2015 scenario, particularly in view of the UN special event on the millennium development goals which will take place in New York in September. I hope our discussion today will be a useful contribution to the formulation of Government policy and ultimately EU policy in advance of this very important UN event. It is also in advance of the G8 meeting which will take place next week in Fermanagh and at which these issues will be raised also. I am delighted the witnesses have come before the committee prior to this event and I know Mr. Zomer was anxious to be here.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I apologise for postponing the meeting last week but the witnesses would probably have been speaking to an empty house, and we certainly want to make this much more relevant to the committee so its members are part of the discussion. All members of the committee have an interest in this area.

Mr. Hans Zomer:

I thank the Chairman for his kind words and for giving us this opportunity to meet the committee. In the interest of time I will be very brief. Dóchas represents a broad spectrum of NGOs. As members may know, we represent 51 organisations which work together through Dóchas and learn from each other and improve practice in our efforts to eradicate global poverty. Our 51 members are supported by 700,000 people, employ 4,000 staff and 400 volunteers and work in 70 countries. They bring to bear this experience and breadth of expertise to inform their views on their work and government policies and how these policies support or potentially obstruct our work. My colleagues illustrate this range of expertise and without further ado I will hand over to them.

Mr. Jim Clarken:

I thank the Chairman for inviting us to come before the committee. We have welcomed the launch of the new policy and Dóchas and the individual agencies will put together comprehensive responses to it.

There was a very long consultation process which was run in order to develop the idea in the first place, and that was welcomed.

We welcome a number of key areas, such as the strengthening of human rights language, as we have advocated this, and the strengthening of gender language, particularly the reference to inequality, access to assets, women smallholder farmers and education etc. There is also the pledge to be open, transparent and accountable. Within this there are areas of concern that will require development over time. The implementation of the policy is where the rubber will hit the road and we certainly want to engage in that process. There is a really good opportunity for the committee, as an oversight body, to have an opportunity to consider this and the key areas of concern.

There is the issue of policy coherence, what it really means and how the whole of government policies can either enhance development effectiveness or cause damage to it. That is something in which this group can have a really important role and help in ensuring there is no damage. The Chairman has mentioned his own interest in that respect and I know others will have very strong views on that too.

Climate change is a new theme within the policy but we are concerned about the language in that, including adaptation and the lack of a sense of commitment and responsibility in terms of mitigation. This concerns what we as Ireland will do and what is our responsibility. Those types of issues must be strengthened to ensure we deliver. It was mentioned in the introduction that the policy speaks of going beyond aid, as we know aid is not the solution to global poverty on its own. Nevertheless, aid is important and we are not in a position to move beyond aid just yet; we will not be able to do so for quite a long time. The aid budget has seen a dramatic cut over a number of years to a point where it has been reduced by over a third. The commitment from the Government is to remain stable at approximately 0.5% of GDP and move to 0.7% of GDP when we can afford it. That is a change in language from the original policy and it is moving from the 2015 commitment. We would encourage this to happen as soon as possible.

There are two areas the committee would like us to address. We have been heavily involved in post-2015 discussions and Ireland plays a key role in co-chairing September's important event in New York. That will speak to what the new framework might look like and we have been very involved in feeding into that in many ways. It is important to recognise that this is a moment to acknowledge how far we have gone in delivering the millennium development goals and what can be done between now and 2015. It is not over yet and we can accelerate progress. There is plenty more to be done and it is not a case of just drawing a line under the process. Today we will discuss the post-2015 framework and how that will change the way we think about development. We should not forget that we are not yet done.

With regard to policy coherence, there are several areas of which the committee should be aware, and we will illustrate some practical examples. The committee may have heard of them but not seen the implications they have on our development efforts. They will continue to grow over time and the importance of the committee's role within this will be developed. It has a specific mention in the policy and we are very interested in the committee's thoughts and how we can support it in the work it must do in the area.

I will now hand over to Mr. McCaughey, who will speak about policy coherence issues.

Mr. Sorley McCaughey:

I will get straight to the issue. The new Government policy on international development, One World. One Future, was launched very recently. It rightly recognises that the actions to promote poverty eradication and sustainable development globally go much further than just overseas development aid. The primary responsibility for delivery of overseas development aid rests within the Irish Aid section of the Department but the policies and priorities of other Departments have a significant impact on development outcomes, which has been clear because of recent examples such as the focus on taxation. Christian Aid has documented many times that developing countries are losing much more to tax evasion, facilitated in part by the abuse of the current international financial regulations, and another example is the poverty impact of bio-fuel policies promoted in part by the department of communications, energy and natural environment within the EU, which is having a detrimental consequence on hunger and food insecurity in countries around the world. The commitment to increasing or growing bio-fuels across the world is resulting in a modern day land-grab, with greater carbon emissions, as traditional growth is being cut down and replaced by bio-fuels that will power vehicles in this part of the world. These are clear examples of an incoherence in policy that is having a detrimental effect on developing countries.

I could not help but notice a reference to our emerging relationship with Burma, with the director general referencing our approach both from an aid and trade perspective. This encapsulates the challenges to be faced by implementing an effective policy coherence strategy and what is driving the priorities behind the relationship with Burma. Will policy coherence for development be prioritised or will it be subservient to a more trade-focused approach. We must be mindful of such issues in a policy coherence context, and there are many other examples of incoherence of which we must be aware.

Policy coherence for development is not a new idea and it is meant to address the way Departments can tend to work in silos and without any great mindfulness of what other Departments are doing. As the 2006 White Paper mentions, it is meant to harness the potential across government for ideas and actions which contribute to sustainable global development and the objectives of Irish Aid. That would be at its best, although we are falling quite far short of that now.

As signatories to the Lisbon treaty, the Government has taken on the responsibility to ensure greater coherence between policies so as to ensure the policies in one area do not undermine development co-operation objectives. The following may be a set principle that should be maintained regardless of where we are economically as a country. Ensuring policy coherence is also a value for money issue and a means by which Irish taxpayers can be confident that aid is being delivered and spent in the most cost-effective way. Our efforts with Irish Aid should not be undermined by the efforts or policies of another Department.

Since 2006, successive Governments have taken up a number of measures to promote greater policy coherence and the interdepartmental committee for development was established in 2007, with approximately 14 meetings since its inception, averaging three a year, although the frequency has diminished recently. The initial intention was for it to meet six times a year, with non-governmental organisations to be briefed following meetings to invite their views and comments. We are falling somewhat short on that as well but there could be new momentum in support of that.

Two of the more interesting developments in support of the policy coherence agenda have been studies commissioned by the Irish Aid advisory board with Trinity College to understand the main areas of policy coherence. Some 91 recommendations were made but it is unclear, as yet, as to what extent they have been absorbed or implemented by the relevant Departments. In 2011 the advisory board again commissioned Trinity College to develop a framework of indicators for monitoring policy coherence for development across eight areas, and that framework needs work and discussion. It is encouraging that in the new policy document there is a reference to the need for indicators to measure the effectiveness of policy coherence for development in future.

The new Irish Aid policy represents a modest improvement on the issue of policy coherence, although there are some concerns. The policy shifts alignment away from PCD towards a whole-of-Government approach. There is only one reference to the legal requirement of PCD and that is in the context of obligations under the EU. Our view is that while this whole-of-Government approach is useful, as it refers to one of the key processes through which policy coherence can be achieved, it needs to be linked very closely to policy coherence. Otherwise it could risk becoming confused or subject to other non-development interests. I refer to the Burma example. Another concern would be that given the increasing language around building synergies with the private sector, there is a greater need for clarity on policy coherence for development as a driver of the whole-of-Government approach.

The new policy also makes provision for the interdepartmental committee to be strengthened. It will become an oversight body for policy coherence, will develop targets and indicators and will identify specific policy areas on which to focus. It will produce biennial reports for the Cabinet and this Oireachtas committee. This is a very positive move in the right direction, but there is a number of additional measures we believe must be addressed as well. It will require sufficient political backing and institutional support. This is not an easy issue, otherwise it would have been done a long time ago. Policy coherence challenges Departments to do things in a way they have not previously done them and it will require the highest level of political commitment if it is going to work. Given that the agenda spreads across a number of Oireachtas committees, greater parliamentary oversight will be absolutely essential.

If the interdepartmental committee in its current guise is to have a greater role, it must become more transparent. The means for engagement in its work must be made clearer. In particular, the choice of policy issues, the indicators adopted and the criteria for resolving policy incoherence must be made clearer. When issues of incoherence are identified, what will be done with them and how will they be addressed?

I will finish with some concrete suggestions for the committee on policy coherence. We propose that the committee take a much more proactive role in the Department and the interdepartmental committee. Can it review the proposed areas for consideration, its implementation plan and the indicators to track performance? Can there be greater engagement from the interdepartmental committee with NGOs? To date, only Dóchas has appeared before the committee, yet policy coherence regularly features in civil society work in areas such as trade, tax and food security. Similarly, engagement with Irish Aid partner countries could also be strengthened. This would constitute a viable means of assessing policy impacts on developing countries. As of yet, the committee has not received formal presentations from partner country representatives and the developing country component has yet to enter into the Irish PCD institutional structure. A question the committee could ask is, on what basis will the interdepartmental committee have oversight of PCD and how will it exercise that oversight role? Again, this refers back to the need for a high level oversight role for this committee.

Finally, given that this committee's remit only extends to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, will the biennial report also be discussed by other committees, jointly by relevant committees or, given the scope of the issues, perhaps by an Oireachtas debate? In this context and given that this is a cross-departmental issue, we are of the view that the Taoiseach has the key role in both providing the leadership and the oversight for this process. I will conclude with that, although there are many other issues to discuss.

Ms Lorna Gold:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to address it. I will talk about the post 2015 framework, the negotiations that are currently under way at the UN and Ireland's engagement in that.

Over the past 12 to 18 months, Dóchas and its members have been involved in a number of initiatives to feed into the current negotiations on what will succeed the millennium development goals that were signed in 2000. These goals are due to expire in 2015 and current negotiations at EU and UN levels are on what framework will succeed the millennium development goals. Irish civil society has been one of the leaders in this, in terms of civil society in the north. We have had a leading role in the Beyond 2015 coalition and we have been engaged in many thematic consultations at UN level. We have also been deeply engaged, through the coincidence of Ireland's EU Presidency at this time, with shaping the EU position for the EU summit in September.

In addition, Dóchas has hosted a series of discussions and hearings at Irish level involving local civil society and domestic NGO organisations to address what Ireland's role in building a better world could be in the post-2015 discussions. It is the only place in the world, as far as we are aware, that international NGOs and national based organisations have come together to adopt a joint set of conclusions around what should be in the framework. We have been pleased with the striking similarity of what people here are asking for in the framework and what we are hearing from our various partners in the developing world. I will briefly mention the principles people are seeking.

The first relates to addressing growing inequality within societies and between countries. The second is related to the importance of having government and governing structures that are open to citizens' needs. The third is about balancing social and economic models of development that respect environmental boundaries. The fourth principle is about the universality of a human rights based framework which should underpin all decision making. The final principle is the importance of ensuring that economic activity benefits people and not the economy for itself.

With regard to Ireland in its role as Presidency, we acknowledge that the Government has played a really positive role in this negotiation to date. As Presidency, we put into practice some of the principles around policy coherence which Sorley McCaughey just mentioned. The Presidency has shown that where innovation is needed, even at EU level, policy coherence can be brought forward. It has done this in very practical ways, for example, having joint Conclusions between two sets of European Councils, such as the environment Council and the foreign affairs Council. Rather than negotiating two different agreements around the 2015 framework, it brought the different Council groupings together and produced one set of Conclusions that both Councils then agreed.

Ireland will play a key role in the UN event in September. It will co-host the event with South Africa at the UN. Ireland is in a very important position, even beyond the EU Presidency. The Council conclusions on post-2015 are very strong and one can see the influence that various civil society groups have had on them. Particular strengths of the European conclusions are the human rights based language and approach adopted in them, the strength of the gender equality language and an acknowledgement of the need to move beyond GDP as the sole marker of progress in a new framework and to look at what other indicators of national progress can be used in the framework. There are some weaknesses, including the lack of timeframes and solid commitments on how the EU will show leadership and strong commitment to action before September. Showing leadership and commitment, particularly around financial commitments on development aid, is a key marker in terms of the success of the UN process and how the UN process could go in the September summit.

I have outlined Ireland's role in the EU conclusions. As we draw closer to the September summit, countless reports are coming out and there is the beginning of negotiations between governments on what the negotiated position might resemble in September.

We have some concerns about the direction it is taking. The first is whether the strength of the EU position on human rights will make its way into the negotiated final text. There are moves to water down the language and this applies in particular to the language used with regard to gender equality. The second concern is that while there is rhetorically a commitment to sustainability, looking at what is beyond growth and finding other indicators that can be used, the high-level panel report commissioned by the UN Secretary General fails to address the incoherence between trade, regulation of business and foreign direct investment, especially in respect of environmental sustainability. There is a sense that the approach is a rhetorical acknowledgement of the issues on the one hand but a business as usual approach on the other. One can see this in terms of the language of the report and the moving away from environmental sustainability towards sustainable growth. There is confusion in the language.

The final concern is our view that the agreement must be universal, with differentiated responsibility but equal accountability to the global framework. In the last round of the millennium development goals, one goal applied to northern donor countries, NDG No. 8, and included commitments to trade, aid and debt cancellation. The commitments were never adhered to and the indicators for them were very weak. Now, it is proposed there will be 12 goals, the 12th of which will be the northern commitment to a global enabling environment. These commitments must be strengthened, in particular the commitment to trade regulation, climate change and development finance.

On the topic of what this committee can do with regard to the post-2015 process, the Chairman referred to the EU position on September. Our understanding is that the position has been agreed and signed off and it is now moving into intergovernmental negotiations. This committee could have some joint sittings to cover this and while other relevant committees could scrutinise the EU position and Ireland's position on that. This might not be possible before September but beyond September the negotiation will take place until September 2015. Once it goes into intergovernmental negotiation, there is scope to engage the Government and relevant Departments. If possible, it should be some process that involves more than this committee alone, although that would also be valuable.

The second point concerns Ireland's role in the United Nations Human Rights Council. Our membership of the council could play a key strategic role in strengthening and sustaining the human rights language in the post-2015 framework. It might be possible for the committee to engage with the human rights unit and to encourage it to take up the issue of human rights within the post-2015 framework in the United Nations Human Rights Council.

The third point concerns the event in September and the importance of having Oireachtas representation at the summit. We have also spoken to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on the question of engaging civil society. It is very important, given that key negotiating positions are being decided at EU level. There is a danger national-level parliaments could be left out of the negotiating process.

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Gold for her interesting thoughts and thought-provoking ideas. Some were simple and some were complicated. Trying to criss-cross all Departments would be difficult but, in theory, it is possible.

Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the work of all NGOs, not just for work on the ground but also the policy papers that have emerged. They have challenged more traditional thinking on the topic. Trade is a considerable way out of aid. When we look at the extent of the wealth in the developing world, such as oil, gas and minerals, alarming is too mild to describe what is being lost to the developing world. The developing world could solve all of our problems in the West if it was done in a fairer way then has been the case.

We know about tax avoidance and evasion and there is no doubt we are seeing a new colonialism. The new colonialism includes trade agreements that are less than fair to developing countries. Some of the reasons include the lack of capacity of the Governments to negotiate fairly, corruption on the part of Governments that negotiate and do so for themselves, and the severe lack of parliamentary oversight. Even when new regimes come into power and one expects better things from them, they fall into old habits very quickly.

I refer to the greater capacity of multinational companies to work systems. We know they are profit driven and whether they are European, American or Chinese, corporate interests are their gods. Policy coherence is going to be very difficult. We are not in the best position to talk about the basic principle of countries being able to decide on their economic policies. We could serve as an example of how not to do it. We can promote what is being called economic democracy.

Bio-fuels are a major issue and we cannot give with one hand and take with another. There must be a stronger voice for, at the very least, achieving the 5% target. The target figure should be 0%. There has not been enough emphasis on labour rights becoming part of trade agreements in a binding way. There is need for support within communities. I attended the Mary Robinson conference. There was a great voice from people who had come from the developing world. They know what to do and they know what they need. They need extra capacity. They need support on complex legal processes involving their land. This is something we can build in.

Wearing the hat of the Association of European Parliamentarians for Africa, AWEPA, we are starting joint monitoring teams and I hope this is something we can bring to the two countries with which we are starting. Deputy Crowe is involved with Tanzania and I will be in Mozambique. We will take with us the points that have been made here and it can be part of a real and meaningful discussion with the politicians we will meet from those two countries. I know some committee members are coming to the AWEPA conference at the end of the month. We can engage African parliamentarians when they are here and challenge some of their thinking.

Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Gold for her presentation, which was, to put mildly, the solution to all the world's problems. It is hard to respond to it. Mr. Jim Clarken mentioned the need to put on paper how all of the aspirations expressed in the document will be implemented. The Minister has indicated that the next step is to publish an implementation document. That is coming but the point is well made.

Policy coherence is a huge area and it is hard enough to get policy coherence within one country. Then, it must be done throughout the EU and the rest of the world. On bio-fuels alone, the EU policy was introduced with the best of intentions and was seen as an environmentally-friendly measure but it took years to get it introduced and it is now a big ship that must be turned around. There were unintended consequences, which have been recognised, but turning it around will also have consequences for European farmers. It will take time to completely undo what was done for the best reasons, which turned out not to be the best idea. Environmental policy changes all the time in any event when things like that happen.

At least there is a recognition that there is a major problem in regard to tax evasion.

On the millennium development goals' which are very close to my heart, I have raised a number of the issues involved by way of parliamentary question or Topical Issue debate with the Minister. There was a move to change the language used in terms of a commitment to gender equality, maternal health and reproductive rights. There was pressure from other European Union countries and the last meeting on 28 May agreed a draft EU position and the language was changed. I was pleasantly surprised to see quite strong statements being made. It will go to the Environment Council of Ministers on 18 June and be formally adopted by the General Affairs Council on 25 June. I was conscious that in our role as President we really would have to push this issue and I am reasonably happy with what has been agreed.

The European Union will have a significant input into what will eventually come out of New York, but it is something of which even little Ireland which will no longer hold the Presidency must be mindful and continue to push at every opportunity. The committee is very committed to doing this. As was said, we are not yet done. It extends to 2015. Are there 15 objectives?

Ms Lorna Gold:

There are 12.

Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The person from the United Nations seemed to talk about there not being a list of objectives, just an overall human rights approach, but I guess it has drilled down to something more definite at this stage.

Ms Lorna Gold:

To clarify, that was the high level panel's report. It proposes 12 indicative goals.

Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Gold.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the delegates and thank them for their informative presentations. Policy coherence for development was mentioned. It seemed to be a strong thread throughout all of the presentations. The inter-parliamentary committee and the need for it to be transparent were also mentioned. From the delegates' experience of looking at other countries, have they identified, through their analysis, a model of best practice that could be applied in Ireland, which might be of interest to us and which we could promote?

The delegates mentioned transparency, value for money and so on. I am sure it was inherent in what they said, but an important component is ethical values underpinning policy which was not mentioned. That should be a strong component of anything we do. In terms of value for money, do the delegates undertake evaluations of the aid they provide in terms of effectiveness and the value they achieve and make recommendations to improve these in the future?

I picked up a comment on Irish Aid partner countries. I have raised this issue before, but perhaps I was not clear about the answer because I am inclined to raise it again. In the European Union in which many countries play their part and are keen to do so there should be more military type co-ordination of how we do this. I know emergencies occur where it is all hands to the pump to drive things, but in other areas one could target or focus on a geographical area in order that everyone is not focusing on the one area, leaving many others neglected. Specific areas of aid delivery should be looked at. For example, some countries would be in a very good position to provide aid and be particularly expert in the field of education, while another might have expertise in a different area. Important in all of this is confidence. The delegates mentioned the need for the State and the private sector to play their part.

I raised the issue of the situation in Ethiopia where Irish aid had gone towards abortion services. Many taxpayers would not be happy about this and it could affect their propensity to donate funds to organisations.

An issue which came up in the not too distant past with NGOs was the salaries being paid as some appeared excessive. The issue of administrative costs as a proportion of expenditure often comes up. Norms and good standards need to be developed. In Uganda money intended for good causes ended up in areas in which it was never intended to be spent because of corrupt governance systems. Will the delegates comment on this?

I think Ms Gold mentioned language and Deputy Olivia Mitchell endorsed the point I will make about the strength of the European Union around human rights and the language being used. I think Ms Gold mentioned gender equality, while Deputy Olivia Mitchell mentioned maternal health and reproductive rights. It is essential that basic and fundamental human rights are part of the process. However, I have concerns that there is a danger of ideology-driven conditions being included which have nothing to do with benefiting countries but which are all about exporting ideologies, some of them feminist. I am a strong opponent of abortion. In Britain and the United States just under one in four pregnancies is aborted. I am told that in New York one in two pregnancies is aborted. These are not the kinds of thing I would like to see exported as part of our aid package to countries which have better values than we do in these areas. We need to challenge some of the language used. While on the surface it may seem like language that is very soft and tenable in some ways, the intent behind it is far from soft and the interests of the populations and people to whom the aid is being given. That needs to be challenged, but, unfortunately, the United Nations is highly deficient in this area in which it should be strong. If one goes back to the 1948 Convention on Human Rights, how far that organisation has strayed from the interpretation of the vision at the time is very significant.

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There will be plenty of time for the Senator to raise that issue in the Seanad during the debate on the abortion legislation, rather than at this committee.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am only warming up.

Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the delegates and take the opportunity to thank them and the many members of their organisations for the work they do around the world. I do not think we do this often enough. Officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade appeared before the committee to talk about its ambassadors, but the goodwill ambassadors for Ireland are clearly the members of these organisations. The transformative nature of their work is fantastic.

I refer to the document sent to us on 5 June. It states poverty reduction cannot be achieved by aid alone and that as "development" is a broad and all-encompassing term, the Government needs to consider how it will impact on the development objectives. Rather than members asking the delegates questions, they challenged us in many of their questions.

In fairness, the questions being put to us have not really been discussed, to my knowledge. Perhaps they have been discussed at Government level or perhaps I missed a committee meeting at which they were discussed. We have not dealt with the question of how we are going to scrutinise and co-ordinate this work. In that context, this committee has been challenged by the questions posed today. I genuinely do not know how we will deal with this. It is one of the big weaknesses of our system that interdepartmental co-ordination or co-operation is very difficult, if not impossible. I do not know how we will co-ordinate the work of the various Departments that are relevant here. There is an enormous amount of work to be done in this regard and that work needs a champion, whether it be a Minister or an official. Someone needs to pull the whole thing together. That is probably a discussion for another day. Perhaps the Department of the Taoiseach could be the lead department, although I do not know if the Taoiseach himself would have enough time. Certainly, someone needs to take it on.

We know that reducing poverty and lifting people above the $1.25 per day income level is extremely important. We must focus on the question of income poverty and, in the context of the post-2015 framework, we must focus on those who live on $2 per day, $4 a per day and so forth. How important is the question of income inequality in the context of the post-2015 framework? What targets should be set and how will progress be measured? I do not know the answers in this regard. Where will we be at the end of this process? I ask the witnesses to give their opinion on Ireland's policy document, One World, One Future. What, if anything, has been left out of that document? What has been ignored or overlooked in the context of the post-2015 development framework?

On the issue of income inequality, recent events in Bangladesh hit the headlines here and changes have been made to the terms and conditions of some employees in the garment sector there as a result. Those dreadful events had a big impact and served as a wake-up call for the West in terms of how our purchasing decisions can have an impact on the quality of life for those in developing countries.

In the context of climate change, I am interested in the witnesses' views on the carbon credit system, whereby richer countries buy carbon credits and dump their waste in Third World countries. We buy carbon credits from developing or Third World countries while continuing to pump out fumes and so forth but the planet is still suffering. The world is still getting warmer and this does not make sense to me. I have seen film footage of nothing but miles and miles of palm trees being grown to feed our ferocious appetite for fuel.

What do the witnesses believe the Irish Government can do to make Irish Aid more accountable and transparent? I ask that question against the backdrop of what happened in Uganda recently. How do we make EU aid programmes more accountable and transparent? Scrutiny by these Houses may be of some benefit but are there other options we should consider?

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I now call Deputy Byrne and ask him to be brief.

Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To tell the truth, Chairman, I am a latecomer to this millennium goals debate because I was not around when the goals were being formulated. In that sense, I am in catch-up mode. In that context, I thank Dóchas for assisting me by providing some clarity on the issue. I also educate myself by attending Irish Aid functions, the most recent one involving Ms Mary Robinson in Dublin Castle, which was very interesting. I thank the witnesses for praising the Government's policy document, One World, One Future, and for their constructive contribution today. However, I am still struggling to understand what we can do. The oversight issue is extremely complex. The witnesses suggested that this committee should be overseeing the work of the interdepartmental committee. The question of the scrutiny of EU positions was also raised. While I do not wish to speak for my colleagues on this committee who may feel they have more time for scrutinising, I can say from my experience over the past two years that there is not even sufficient time to scrutinise the EU documentation we are obliged to scrutinise.

We are all very conscious of the millennium development goals and the new goals that will come into effect after 2015. Ireland is a small country which is praised highly for its development goals and its Irish Aid programmes. However, one must put our contribution in a global context. In terms of aid to refugees in Syria, for example, Europe has contributed €400 million, while we have contributed €9 million. If one takes the aid budget of all countries into consideration, Ireland is only a minnow. Therefore, I must ask how we can have the influence the witnesses are calling for in terms of the 12 new goals that will be set. As I understand it, those goals are predicated on the enormous budgets of the EU and the UN. This is a small committee that also deals with trade, among other things. The committee does not just deal with Irish Aid and our overseas aid programmes. I am doing my best to understand how we can reach policy coherence here. I am relying, in that context, on our Chairman, who has vast experience in this area and who will guide the committee.

I have two specific questions for the witnesses. First, is GOAL now an affiliate member of Dóchas? My second question relates to an issue that is frequently raised and which was referred to by my colleague, Senator Jim Walsh, that is, fertility in the context of women's rights and human rights. I understand that Christian Aid is an affiliate of Dóchas. We have occasionally had witnesses in before this committee explaining such matters to us. We had, for example, a lesbian leader from Uganda who explained that attempts are being made in that country to change the law to allow for the execution of lesbians and gays. The witnesses were very critical of the role of the Christian churches in Uganda, and indeed I have heard that replicated in the context of other countries. It appears that Christian organisations, be they evangelical or Catholic, are very unsympathetic and do not assist such people in upholding their human rights. I ask the witnesses to comment briefly on that.

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all members for their contributions here today, which were varied. Christianity, health and many other themes were covered. I will now hand over to Mr. Zomer.

Mr. Hans Zomer:

My colleagues will deal with the questions concerning scrutiny and trade. Senator Walsh's questions were probably most particularly directed at me in terms of the oversight of NGOs and the co-ordination of aid. We always maintain that the co-ordination of aid needs to happen on site, that is, in the recipient countries. In most countries, there is an effective government and it is our role as NGOs to co-ordinate through government structures, either at national or local level. However, in some situations, the task of co-ordination overwhelms governments, usually in a crisis.

In those cases, there are co-ordination mechanisms through UN agencies and there is also self-regulation of the aid agencies. In the humanitarian sector we do this on a thematic basis. We call these things clusters, so organisations working on water or shelter projects would get together, usually under UN leadership. Many of the structures are in place; people just do not see them.

There was a question about the overheads of NGOs and the salary levels and whether there were norms and standards. There are standards, but it is up to each organisation to set its own level of remuneration for its chief executives. We say they must be transparent about that. If anyone is unhappy about the levels of salary, there can be an open discussion. Dóchas members have all signed up to a code of conduct on corporate governance which sets explicit standards on transparency and accountability that we demand of our members. We offer an invitation to anyone in Ireland - particularly the committee, as law makers - to test us to see if the information we are providing is adequate for the committee to judge whether too much is being spent on salaries or other overheads. I would argue that overheads are not a helpful measure of the impact of an organisation. The best measure of the quality of a development NGO is to ask the people we are serving if they are happy with our work. That is difficult for practical reasons, so we look for proxy indicators. The overhead levels, however, are unreliable. What one organisation refers to as an overhead, another organisation might call a programme cost. There is probably a case to be made that the organisations with higher overheads are more effective because it means they are investing in research and quality control in the evaluation the committee is looking for. Most of us would feel restrained because people would say these are overheads, we call them quality control costs. I will send the committee the material we have on the demands on an NGO and I suggest that overheads and administration costs are not a good starting point.

Corruption often arises as a concern when discussing development aid. The vast majority of corruption in the world does not happen in an aid context, but in the interface between government and private sector. Research shows the net benefit of development is that it reduces corruption. That is not to say there is no instance of malpractice in the sector - this is a high-risk business - but Irish development NGOs have the structures in place to reduce the potential as much as we can. The bottom line is that overseas aid helps to build those checks and balances in the countries we are working with to reduce and fight corruption.

Mr. Jim Clarken:

The big question is how we manage policy coherence for development. It is not easy. We must be committed to it and acknowledge that it is important and that it must happen somehow. Other countries have done well in this area, such as Sweden and the Netherlands, and we can learn from good examples elsewhere. We are committed to coherence; it can really enhance the good things Ireland has done through the aid programme, working with its partners. At the same time, we acknowledge the detrimental effects it can have if it does not work properly, and then look at how we can come up with an appropriate mechanism. We have made some suggestions today and, as a sector, we would be more than happy to engage in a positive way to provide some suggestions and ideas and work with the various bodies involved. We have experience throughout the world of what works well.

We welcome the comments from Deputy O'Sullivan on our work on trade and biofuels. People talk about trade being a way out of poverty but we must be careful about linking trade and development. We have a long, proud history in the field of international development of our aid being untied. It does not come with conditions, and we stand over that. When trade is linked with aid it must be done in the positive sense. It must be a two-way street, where it is not just about Irish trade missions and creating opportunities for Irish organisations but creating opportunities for developing countries to trade with us. We must enhance that.

The ethical value underpinning this policy is the human rights approach and we must agree the fundamentals on human rights, as we try to do. I take issue with using feminist ideology when we talk about women's rights; women are 50% of the world's population and they are much more likely to live in poverty. We believe that if women can be supported properly in working their way out of poverty, the face of poverty will be changed and it will be reduced and ultimately eradicated. We are talking about the right to own land and funds, not to be beaten and to give birth safely - childbirth is still the biggest killer of women in some parts of the world. We must be careful not to narrow this down to a particular contentious issue; we are talking about women's rights across the spectrum, including reproductive rights.

We must think about climate justice. It involves responsibility. We work with developing countries to help them adapt to climate change, but it cannot be left up to those countries entirely to come up with ways for them to survive the damage we have done to their environment through what we have done in the last 50 or 100 years. It must also be our responsibility in terms of how we change the way we continue our development.

Deputy Crowe's point about $1.25 per day is very important. We talk about 870 million people living in extreme poverty, who are going hungry tonight, but just above that another 1 billion people are not far off that. The concept of inequality being a driver of development goals must be a fundamental part of our policy.

Ms Lorna Gold:

Deputies Mitchell and Crowe raised the complexity of policy coherence for development. Where do we start with it? We acknowledge its complexity and the fact that it is cross-departmental makes it a complex and entrenched issue to get traction on. Where other countries have been successful is in prioritising, and we are lucky to have the huge study that was commissioned in 2009 and again in 2011 with recommendations. Trinity College has done the hard work in terms of identifying where the difficult issues lie. This committee could play a key role in prioritising one or two key issues where there is a demonstrated policy incoherence that is core to the mandate of the committee and bringing in the relevant people from the Department or interdepartmental committee. It could even carry out its own research to drill down into where incoherence exists.

It might be a good idea to look at where other governments have got this right. I do not know if the joint committee has the scope to invite representatives of a committee in another country that has coherence policy to learn how they address this policy. No country is perfect at it, but some countries put in place institutional processes to facilitate it. I appreciate it is very difficult, especially given the limited resources and the way that things are currently set up. Trócaire has done research on this and we will be launching it in the coming week. We will invite the members of this committee and others to a round table discussion on the institutional frameworks for policy coherence in the near future.

In response to questions on the effectiveness of aid and our evaluations of the aid, I know from Trócaire's perspective, and that of other organisations that are recipients of Irish Aid funding, we are obliged to produce regular evaluations and an annual report to Irish Aid which is based on a results-based framework. This looks at the impact of our work across the world and is very detailed in its analysis. It is available to anybody who would like to look at it. We are getting much better at looking at how we monitor our impact as opposed to the outcomes of the work we do.

There is an international process - I am not sure if members are aware of it - around aid effectiveness. Senator Walsh talked about the multiple actors engaged in aid in different countries and it can seem incoherent and there is a lack of collaboration and harmonisation of policies. This issue has been acknowledged by the OECD as far back as the early 2000s but since the late noughties there has been a process to improve aid effectiveness on a number of different levels such as lead countries, lead agencies on different thematic issues and in different geographic areas. Irish Aid could discuss the intergovernmental process around that. As development NGOs we are involved in a parallel process which links in with a set of principles called the Buisán principles which are about how NGOs will in a sense improve our own effectiveness. This is internationally agreed. Hans Zomer has been involved in the process and when Mr. Justin Kilcullen retires from Trócaire he will take up a role as ambassador around improving aid effectiveness across the world in civil society organisations.

Deputy Crowe raised the issue of inequality in the post-2015 framework. We are bringing this to the fore in relation to the framework. At present there are no goals but the high level panel report proposes a target of zero in the number of people living on $1 a day. That would be an improvement of 50% on what was set in the millennium development goals but as he said, people live on $2 and $4. When we start to move towards the higher level we get into the bigger issue of global inequalities and how one addresses the sustainability around the universal framework. Where does one draw the line in terms of the post-2015 global framework? My view is that we need to set universal goals that are indicative but individual countries have a right to set their own goals. What is applicable to India might not be applicable in terms of a goal in sub-Saharan Africa. There needs to be flexibility. The millennium development goals were never intended to go down to the national level, they were to be set as a global level framework. I think they have learned there needs to be flexibility around the framework. Likewise, Ireland should have its goals. We need to have our own goals that are indicative along the lines of what comes after the millennium development goals but they need to be appropriate to the Irish context. My colleague, Mr. McCaughey, will address other issues.

Mr. Sorley McCaughey:

Let me reiterate very briefly that the challenge of PCD is massive. We are a long way from getting to where it becomes impossible. There is a great deal we can do in the meantime to improve our performance in that front. To give a very practical suggestion as to what can be done in the meantime, in 2011 the OECD, IMF and the World Bank made a recommendation to all OECD countries that they conduct a spill over analysis of their tax policy to ensure it was not impacting negatively on developing countries. That has not been implemented or acted upon by the Government as of yet, but it is a very practical example that the committee might consider pursuing in support of policy coherence.

On the issue of carbon credits, Christian Aid and some of the organisations would share the concerns. On a more positive note, we were happy that the Irish climate Bill does not include the provision for carbon offsetting in the heads of the Bill.

I am not quite sure if I understood the question but in relation to Christian Aid and lesbian people in Uganda, all I can say is that Christian Aid works with people of all faiths, religions, sex and gender. We do not discriminate on any basis. We work with people in pursuit of the fulfilment of their human rights, the entire gamut and spectrum of human rights. We work with human rights defenders who are in many cases under pressure on the basis of their sexuality, ethnicity or race. I am not familiar with the particular case mentioned but our position would be to support any marginalised group which is under pressure from authorities or groups.

Pat Breen (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you very much. I am sure your view is reflective of other NGOs as well. The committee will visit Uganda later in the year. This is more a Government policy than an NGO policy, and we will be dealing with it ourselves when we visit Uganda to have discussions with various NGOs and Government officials.

I thank the witnesses sincerely for their contribution. We have been given food for thought. Their ideas are very interesting but obviously will need further discussion. I will be there with the committee to meet the witnesses on where we should move forward post-2015. The year 2015 is the target for everybody at present. The meeting in New York in September 2013 will be important. Obviously the goal will be to try to ensure that countries of substance and means will achieve their millennium goals by 2015. That is very important. The Irish Aid document, One World, One Future: Ireland's Policy for International Development, is a very important document as we go forward. I hope we will get a more detailed analysis of that document from the witnesses in the future. The Minister of State, Deputy Joe Costello, will appear before us in the next two weeks to discuss that document and other issues.

I thank the witnesses sincerely for coming before us. A great deal of work will arise from the contribution of the witnesses. The members are up for it but we probably need more resources. It gives the committee more work, but we know that the NGOs value our work. That is important as well because we value the work of the NGOs.