Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Wednesday, 18 February 2015

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade

GOAL Programmes in South Sudan: CEO of GOAL

3:00 pm

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Barry Andrews, CEO of GOAL to discuss GOAL's programmes in South Sudan. I also welcome his colleague, Conor Elliott. We will have an opening statement and then we will take responses from the members - we usually bank a number of questions. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Before we begin, there is the usual reminder in relation to mobile phones. I ask members to disconnect them. Silencing them is not enough as they continue to interfere with the broadcasting system. I also remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person or body outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the joint committee. If they are directed by the Chair to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to 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 person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I welcome Mr. Andrews.

Mr. Barry Andrews:

I thank the Chairman and members for the invitation to brief the committee this afternoon on GOAL's programmes in South Sudan and the position generally in that country. I want to start by extending our condolences, as an aid agency, on the occasion of the death of a British aid worker in Juba last night. The full details of that have not emerged just yet, but it has been confirmed by the Foreign Office that an aid worker from the UK was killed last night in Juba, the capital of South Sudan, and we extend our condolences to his family. It underlines the dangers that many of our aid workers are exposed to regularly throughout the world and the bravery they bring to the discharge of their functions. This also applies to the local aid workers we employ. The work so many of them do is completely selfless and highly motivated. I am sorry to start on this, but I think it is important to note that event.

I thank the committee for coming to see the GOAL Syria programmes last week. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan and the Chairman, Deputy Pat Breen, came over to GOAL Syria to look at our programmes from our base in Turkey. From my point of view, it was a very interesting trip. As Deputy O'Sullivan will know, we saw some very harrowing scenes in relation to the conditions that many Syrians living outside Syria have to put up with at the moment - those who are not in refugee camps at present. There will be opportunities for GOAL and other NGOs to try to meet some of the need.

I am joined by Conor Elliott, our director of international programmes. He has extensive experience of Sudan and South Sudan and he will give a full account of our current work in South Sudan and how things are looking.

I want to create some context. In terms of humanitarian crises, 2014 has been an exceptional year. It is very easy to lose heart or to lose interest because of the number of crises. There is a record number of humanitarian crises going on at the moment. Level 3, L3, is the most extreme crisis and there are four L3 crises going on at present, and that does not include West Africa and the Ebola situation. Obviously there will be serious funding issues due to the large number of crises going on at the same time. For example, the World Food Programme has started rationing in Lebanon in relation to refugees from Syria living there. Rations have been cut by half. This is a downstream consequence of the large number of humanitarian crises happening around the world right now. It has a direct impact on young people who have lost out on their educational opportunities and are now facing other, absolutely unacceptable, hardships. It is also worth noting that in the next few years the population of the world will grow from 7 billion to 9 billion.

Those people are not going to live in Dublin, London or Washington but in Kinshasa, Mumbai, Lahore and places where people have not wished to live up to now. They will live in hillsides, river deltas, perhaps reclaimed land, flood plains - places that are particularly vulnerable to climate events. We also know there are going to be more intense and more regular climate events in the next 20 or 30 years. We have a humanitarian system under extreme strain. We have to see that there are daily consequences for vulnerable individuals who have suffered as a result of conflict or natural disasters.

Although I could say that to any western European parliamentary committee, it is particularly significant for an Irish one because we hold a lot of clout - what is called soft power - and are a real, persuasive influence in large fora like the European Union and the UN, out of all proportion to our size. That power is something we can use for the benefit of the people we are talking about. We have built it up over many generations because of our emigrant population, our missions and our NGOs. As we stand here in 2015, the question is, are we going to continue that tradition, and if so, how are we going to do it? It is not just about funding, but also how we leverage influence in different contexts. The soft power we hold is critical to our business communities, who look to invest and set up companies overseas, and we have to make sure we protect that. Next year we will have the World Humanitarian Summit and one of the challenges I would put to the committee is that we really want to put a distinct Irish stamp on it. There will be a meeting at the end of May this year where the opportunity will arise here in Dublin to begin to develop our narrative of how we will input into the summit.

GOAL has been growing very dramatically over the past few years. We released our 2014 results yesterday, which show that we increased our spend from €70 million in 2013 to €105 million in 2014, which reflects the large number of humanitarian crises that are taking place. Our budget for 2015 is €170 million. A very dramatic and exponential growth can be seen as result of those crises.

I will come back in at the end of Mr. Elliott's presentation and look forward to any questions.

Mr. Conor Elliott:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to talk about the crisis in South Sudan; it is a privilege to be able to do so. I also join in Mr. Andrews's sentiment in thanking the Deputies for their recent visits - two in the last year - when they took the time to come and explore the issues with us in the field.

I will give a quick overview of the situation in South Sudan, provide some of the facts and figures, outline the context and briefly talk about GOAL's response. Hopefully we can answer some questions afterwards and put a slightly more human narrative to the committee. The figure are stark and alarming, and often the human element is lost in a conversation about numbers.

As the Deputies will know, the current conflict in South Sudan began in mid-December 2013, when a long-standing political dispute erupted into violence. An armed confrontation between officers loyal to President Salva Kiir and soldiers backing his ex-deputy, Riek Machar, broke out in a Sudan People's Liberation Army barracks, in Juba. The events leading up to the clash continue to be disputed, but regardless of exactly what precipitated them, the subsequent exchanges of fire tipped the balance from unstable peace to widespread political violence. The confrontation quickly deteriorated as the split in the army was replicated across sections of the population, resulting in widespread violence and killings, largely along tribal and ethnic lines.

South Sudan is already one of the poorest countries in the world with some of the world's worst development indicators, and is now rated as the world's most fragile state. The impact of the ongoing conflict on the overall humanitarian situation has been catastrophic and is showing little potential for improvement. Similarly, there is virtually no sign of political will for an end to hostilities, although we discovered today that a peace accord was signed last night in Arusha in Tanzania. We will wait to see how that progresses - it is one of many steps along the way that we have taken before.

We are now one year on from the UN declaration of a level 3 emergency. As Mr. Andrews has explained, this is the highest classification of a humanitarian crisis. The overall security situation in South Sudan continues to be volatile, unpredictable and extremely violent, particularly in the three states of Jonglei, Unity and Upper Nile, which have been directly affected by the conflict. Meanwhile localised violence, military defections and ethnic tensions have spread to areas that were previously relatively peaceful. Today, over 1.5 million people have been internally displaced as a result of violence and insecurity, while an additional half million refugees have fled to neighbouring countries. Regional and international attempts at stemming the conflict have proved ineffectual, with all cessation of hostilities agreements and ceasefires signed to date - again, bearing in mind what happened last night - proving effectively worthless in practice, with neither government nor opposition forces acquiescing to their terms.

In 2014, urgent action from the humanitarian community narrowly averted what would have been the world's first man-made famine. However, the ongoing conflict, subsequent failed planting and harvest, widespread destruction of assets, poorly functioning markets and increased cattle disease have now left 2.5 million people at risk of food insecurity. There is an urgent need for scaling up the humanitarian efforts in South Sudan now to prevent the widespread loss of life. The situation is so dire that even allowing for large-scale food aid interventions, South Sudan is likely to experience famine in some parts of the country in the coming months.

GOAL has a long-standing history in Sudan and has been operational there since 1985. Its initial programmes worked in the health sector and primary health care remains at the core of our programming in South Sudan, although our operations have expanded over the years to include multi-sectoral responses in water, sanitation, nutrition, livelihoods and emergency non-food item programming. Since the outbreak of hostilities in December, our programmes have shifted in response to the rapidly changing needs of both the internally displaced and the vulnerable and under-served host communities, to include a significant emergency response portfolio, particularly across the Upper Nile state. GOAL has positioned itself so as to meet the needs of people displaced from its historical areas of operation along the corridors of displacement in South Sudan and across the border into the refugee camps in Gambella, Ethiopia. In South Sudan, GOAL has scaled up its programme significantly, providing life-saving emergency interventions to almost 700,000 beneficiaries through 66 health and nutrition centres. This programme is complemented by integrated food security, livelihood, water and sanitation programmes.

In response to the crisis last year, we expanded our operations into new areas following the displacement patterns of the communities forcibly displaced because of the violence. Late last year, GOAL's nutrition team carried out a nutrition assessment in an area of Upper Nile state, which showed alarming rates of malnutrition in this hard-to-reach area, with 47.5% of children aged six months to 59 months presenting as malnourished. This is significantly beyond the World Health Organization's emergency threshold and the worst rates of malnutrition that GOAL's experienced nutrition team has ever seen.

GOAL also works in informal camps for internally displaced people, as well as supporting host communities whose livelihoods and coping mechanisms have been severely stretched by the large-scale presence of the displaced. In Ethiopia, GOAL teams continue to form a critical part of our overall response to the South Sudan crisis by managing emergency nutrition, feeding programmes and other support in Gambella. This region, located just over the border from our programmes in Upper Nile state, continues to experience enormous influxes of South Sudanese refugees. More than 193,000 have sought refuge here since December 2013 and we expect those numbers to rise dramatically again in the coming months.

Working closely together, the two teams in South Sudan and Ethiopia look to provide a continuum of care along this corridor.

The committee will be familiar with the recent visit by President Higgins to the Gambella refugee camps. Mr. Andrews referred to Ireland’s interest and history of involvement and the reference to Ireland punching above its weight. It was great for GOAL, for the beneficiaries and for the wider sector in the region to see the President of Ireland visiting a remote and difficult corner of Ethiopia which is a very challenging environment at the heart of this response. We were delighted to be a part of that experience.

Irish Aid’s support in both South Sudan and Ethiopia is critical in meeting the needs of over 259,700 direct beneficiaries through both emergency and recovery funding mechanisms; enabling life-saving health, nutrition and water and sanitation programmes; preventing further loss of assets and livelihoods; and putting in place foundations for future community recovery. GOAL would like to take this opportunity to thank the Irish Government and the Irish people for the generous support that they have shown to our programmes in South Sudan and Ethiopia. The statistics relating to that support are contained in the submission to the committee. In 2014, the Irish public and taxpayers have, through Irish Aid, given aid worth €3 million for the response in South Sudan. We emphasise the need for continued assistance and awareness to help prevent widespread loss of life.

We were asked to speak to the committee about some of the key humanitarian challenges for operating in South Sudan. I am sure members will have questions about this situation. Due to extreme levels of poverty, the almost total lack of infrastructure and the proliferation of armed actors, South Sudan has long been one of the most complex humanitarian operating environments, a situation that has only intensified since the outbreak of conflict. For this conflict to end, and for GOAL and other international non-governmental organisations to reach as many people as possible with humanitarian aid in the interim, key challenges must be addressed. There is an imperative need for a coherent political solution. Contrary to how it has regularly been presented as an intrinsically ethnic conflict, South Sudan’s crisis is an inherently political crisis and as such, it requires a political solution. The main IGAD-mediated peace talks have proven largely ineffective as have a host of political initiatives in the region over the past 14 months, with a view to resolving this crisis. Equally, the African Union’s decision to delay indefinitely the publication of a report into human rights abuses conducted by both sides – ostensibly to enable the continuation of peace talks – represents a key strategic error, in our opinion. The absence of a meaningful reconciliation process since the signing of the comprehensive peace agreement in 2005 has been one of the primary contributing factors to the current crisis, whereby the main political actors involved have re-ignited long-standing unresolved tribal rivalries in order to serve their own political ends. As such, openly addressing the abuses and violations that have been committed by all parties in this conflict is key to enabling future reconciliation among fragmented and traumatised civilians.

With regard to shrinking humanitarian space, since the eruption of hostilities more than a year ago, relations between the international community – including international NGOs - and the Government of South Sudan, have deteriorated significantly. It should be pointed out that since the eruption of hostilities more than a year ago, relations between the international community, including international NGOs and the Government of South Sudan, have degraded. Initially, increasing governmental antagonism centred on UNMISS and other UN agencies. However, from mid-2014 onwards, South Sudanese government officials have increasingly targeted international NGOs. This has taken the form of an increasingly restrictive operating environment, with bureaucratic impediments, both formal and informal, restrictions on humanitarian access, and proposals to introduce legislation giving the government direct control over humanitarian operations, in contravention of humanitarian principles, international law and South Sudan’s constitution. These policies are having a deleterious effect on the ability of NGOs to impartially provide services to all people in need, regardless of ethnicity or political affiliation.

A critical shortfall in donor support and key logistical assets is a particular constraint for the humanitarian community but the humanitarian needs remain acute. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, predicts that $1.8 billion is required for the 2015 response, of which $600 million is needed by the end of February to make use of the narrow window for transportation of critical supplies and assets, in preparation for the arrival of the rainy season in April or May. Of particular concern is the shortfall in funding for essential logistical services, in particular air support. Given the lack of a road network in South Sudan and the fact that 90% of all international development projects are in difficult to reach locations – many of which are only accessible by helicopter – the international NGO community is reliant on a regular and effective UN Humanitarian Air Service asset which in South Sudan is operated by the World Food Programme. However, funding for the World Food Programme has been problematic and there has been a restriction and a reduction in the number of air assets available for deployment in South Sudan. Similarly, the UN central emergency response fund is exhausted. This has provided an essential pipeline for funding the humanitarian community’s response in South Sudan.

That concludes my brief overview. I would be pleased to answer any questions from members with regard to the context and the challenges.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Deputy Brendan Smith.

Mr. Barry Andrews:

My old habits die hard and I apologise for interrupting the Vice Chairman.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We forgive and we make allowances.

Mr. Barry Andrews:

It is superb that this committee is covering the issue of South Sudan today because it is not being covered in the media and there are no events that would create attention for this issue. The fact that the committee is focusing its attention on this issue is excellent. We in Ireland are sensitive about issues to do with famine. Last year a famine was averted due to concerted humanitarian action and this year we need to think along the same lines. We began by talking about funding and the real consequences to the lack of funding. Mr. Elliott has concluded his presentation by making reference to the lack of air access to some of the most difficult to reach places in South Sudan and the requirement for pre-positioning of stocks in order to avoid the hardship that is being predicted.

I thank the committee for giving us this opportunity.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We also thank Mr. Andrews and Mr. Elliott for making this presentation and for their attendance. As Mr. Andrews knows, the committee has been active in this area and is conscious of the many competing demands. We recognise that it is very easy to overlook one area due to pressure from another area. We continue to discuss the many areas which are competing for attention. I invite all members to ask questions.

Photo of Brendan SmithBrendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the contributions of Mr. Andrews and Mr. Elliott. They paint a very worrying picture of a desperate humanitarian situation in South Sudan. I join with Mr. Andrews in extending sympathy to the family of the British aid worker who has lost his life doing good humanitarian work.

Over the past months I was very glad to see on Sky News and BBC World News, the presence of GOAL workers in efforts to deal with the Ebola outbreak. I compliment all GOAL workers as well as Mr. Andrews, who were out in the field in very difficult circumstances dealing with that very serious virus.

Mr. Andrews stated that 1.5 million people have been internally displaced and more than half a million people have fled to neighbouring countries. What is the total population of South Sudan? I understand that a pledging conference was hosted by Norway last May at which $600 million was pledged. We hear about pledging conferences but the follow-up and the delivery of pledges is critical. Has GOAL access to information on the moneys provided to date by those pledges made by so many countries? The aim of the pledges is to ensure rapid humanitarian assistance and essential supplies.

Mr. Andrews has explained that immediate further assistance is needed because of the onset of the rainy season. The committee received a briefing from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade which stated that Irish Aid will decide in March or April on applications for further funding. I presume it would be helpful if the committee could recommend that the Department would make an early decision.

That would be beneficial to our guests in the context of planning their work programme and getting assistance to those people who are in most need. Our guests stated that in light of their flexibility and ability to deliver a service to those most in need, NGOs are better placed than the UN to provide assistance. The figures I have seen indicate that most of the Irish Aid funding allocated in respect of South Sudan has been given to NGOs. Is that correct?

The picture Mr. Andrews and Mr. Elliott have painted for the committee is frightening. I wish them and their colleagues in GOAL, who are operating in very difficult circumstances, well in their very important work.

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

I thank Mr. Andrews and Mr. Elliott for their contributions. I read their submission before coming to the meeting and in light of it and what they said earlier, I would like to try to get a politics or tribal-ethnic complexities involved. The word "government" is applied in order to apply pressure on the NGO sector. Will our guests explain the political context of what is involved? South Sudan has a President and, I presume, a government. President Kiir is in situ but the former Vice President, Riek Machar, has broken away. There is a crossover in terms of the words "tribal" and "ethnic". Will our guests explain the nature of the conflict? I understand that a tribe is a tribe but does the ethnic aspect refer to two tribes fighting each other or are matters more complex?

It is both frightening and unbelievable to contemplate that 2.5 million people have died as a result of this conflict and that a further 1.5 million have been displaced.

Mr. Barry Andrews:

Potentially, up to 50,000 people have lost their lives. The figure of 2.5 million relates to people who are vulnerable to food insecurity.

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

I was referring to the briefing note which states that by 2005, decades of fighting had claimed 2.5 million lives.

Mr. Barry Andrews:

The figure with regard to food insecurity is 2.5 million. We think that approximately 50,000 people have lost their lives as a result of the conflict, although these figures are not absolutely reliable.

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

By any standards, the numbers involved are huge. The figure of 500,000 for the number of refugees involved is a testament to that. The briefing note refers to the conclusion of a comprehensive peace agreement in 2005 following decades of fighting which claimed over 2.5 million lives.

Mr. Barry Andrews:

I apologise, I thought the Deputy was referring to the current conflict.

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

Our guests stated that this matter is not attracting much publicity and they thanked us for putting it on our agenda. That is great but an article in The Irish Timesearlier in the week suggests that both sides in the conflict are recruiting child soldiers. Will Mr. Andrews indicate whether this is a tribal war or a civil war? Will he also outline how ethnicity is defined? The EU has placed great faith in the Intergovernmental Authority on Development. It may have been that body, or the UN, which, as Mr. Andrews pointed out, announced success last night in terms of the conclusion of a peace accord. Does GOAL support the EU in its attempts to pressure both sides in the conflict through the Intergovernmental Authority on Development or is it of the view that an alternative strategy should be evolved? Will Mr. Andrews indicate whether this is a political issue, whether a civil war is already in train or whether there is a government in place which has control? Will he also outline the position regarding the ethnic-tribal question?

I compliment GOAL on the work it is doing in Ethiopia. Will Mr. Andrews explain how 90% of the populations of the two camps in Ethiopia comprise women? Does it mean that the men are all away fighting or what is the position?

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

I welcome our guests. The presentation refers to the need for a coherent political solution. From where is that going to come? Up to now, nothing has worked. How safe are GOAL's staff working on the ground? Reference was made to road blocks. What is the experience in the context of NGOs trying to transport food into the country? Have GOAL's staff come across evidence of child soldiers being recruited? It may seem to be a silly question to ask but is it easier to obtain funding for an environmental crisis than for a man-made one? Does part of the difficulty relating to this matter revolve around the fact that people have almost walked away from it? The picture our guests have painted seems to indicate that, rather than improving, the situation appears to be becoming worse. The numbers involved are staggering and the potential for famine to strike is terrifying. In that context, the work GOAL is doing is amazing. Is the conflict taking place in the bush or is it centred around urban areas? Do other African countries have a role to play in terms of putting together a potential political solution or does responsibility in this regard lie with the EU, the US or some other entity?

There was an outbreak of cholera in Juba in May of last year. Has the disease continued to spread? Are there concerns with regard to the spread of other deadly diseases? Mr. Andrews stated that as a result of the conflict, people are not planting crops. I presume it is likely that crops will not be planted again this year.

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

I thank our guests for their presentation. It is not that long since they came before us to discuss the Ebola virus and other matters. This committee discussed many humanitarian and other crises but when we hear the words "South Sudan" we feel a sense of hopelessness and despair with regard to a solution ever being found. All of the stories emanating from the country indicate there is chaos there and that conditions are extremely unsafe for people, particularly women and children. Mr. Andrews will be aware of the Association of European Parliamentarians for Africa, AWEPA, which has an Irish section that operates on an all-party basis. AWEPA had a programme in South Sudan but it was obliged to pull out of it because of the unsafe conditions. I am in awe of the GOAL operatives who remain in the country and who are continuing to try to do their work.

GOAL is faced with a number of problems. For example, conditions are dangerous and chaotic and they appear to be deteriorating rather than getting better. In addition, there is no end in sight politically and there is no evidence of an obvious solution emerging. There is also the reduced ability of the various agencies to respond to the crisis, largely as a result of the number of other humanitarian crises that are ongoing across the globe. What would GOAL like us to do? If the UN has no money and is actually halving its food programme in Lebanon, what can we do?

GOAL may be seeking more money from the Government but what difference can such money make in terms of having an impact on a crisis of the scale of that in South Sudan, which may, as far as we can see from a political point of view, continue indefinitely? Mr. Andrews referred to Ireland having leverage worldwide. Is he suggesting that we might use our leverage at UN or EU level? What is it our guests think the committee can do, in practical terms, in order to save lives?

I do not think we can have any input into a political solution at this stage.

Photo of Dan NevilleDan Neville (Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Andrews and Mr. Elliott for their presentation. This is a serious humanitarian issue. We have neglected Africa's humanitarian crisis for too long. If such a crisis took place in a western country the response would be totally different and that amounts to discrimination against African states which are in difficulty. Are the witnesses satisfied that Europe is doing what it can to resolve both the political and humanitarian situation? The European Union has been tardy in paying attention to issues in Africa in the past.

The elections have now been postponed. Is that because there was no constitution or is it because of the conflict? Could an election under strict supervision assist in resolving the conflict or would it exacerbate it? The African Union has done some work to find a resolution but, according to the presentation we have heard today, the likelihood is of a long drawn-out conflict which will escalate and cause a lot of human suffering. The presentation suggests a level of hopelessness in respect of bringing the conflict to an end.

Deputy Pat Breen took the Chair.

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

Mr. Andrews mentioned our visit to the south east of Turkey. I am sure I also speak for the Chairman when I say that the stories we heard there were very grim, harrowing and depressing. I compliment the commitment and energy of GOAL staff in the area and admire the way they keep going in spite of the very difficult situation they face. I also must acknowledge the Syrian people, whom we met living in very difficult circumstances, and the efforts of Syrian civil society groups to help their citizens. This is another crisis which has slipped off the agenda. I do not know where Gaza is at this stage. It was a major crisis last summer and we seem to be limping from one crisis to another.

I want ask a question about the progress GOAL was making in Sudan before the current crisis, and the programmes it was running after the civil war in which 2 million people were killed. Progress was being made but now it seems we have taken two steps forward and four back. The programmes were working very successfully but where are they now? Is GOAL diverting its energy into the latest crisis rather than towards its former programmes which had been working?

Earlier this morning a number of us met a research student who outlined the staggering financial costs of the war in South Sudan, which run to billions. We can only imagine what life could have been like for those people without the conflict. Why is there no political will to address it? Is this driven by the oil industry and the massive profits being made there? Is there something this Government can do to bring transparency to the financial affairs of the oil industry? No pun is intended but somebody is fuelling this conflict and somebody is selling arms to the various groups involved. We must look at the humanitarian aspect of the situation but we must also devote attention to the question of who is keeping this war going and whose interest it is in to do so. It is certainly not in the interest of the ordinary Sudanese people.

It is dreadful to think of the young British lad who died recently. A young Irish friend of mine is working in Juba at the moment with one of the smaller aid agencies but people like him are taking their lives into their hands by working over there. Along with Deputy Mitchell, I would like the witnesses to state what they want from this committee, the Department and the Minister.

Photo of Michael MullinsMichael Mullins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I join other members in welcoming Mr. Andrews and Mr. Elliott and I thank them for their very fine presentation. I join with colleagues in extending sympathies to the family of the British aid worker who was killed in recent days. I salute all the wonderful people who work on the ground in troubled parts of the world bringing hope, aid and humanitarian assistance to the most deprived people on the planet.

The provision of aid is critical to our discussion today but, as others have said, a long-term political solution is a must if progress is to be made. It is clear that the difficulties have their origins in problems between the President and Vice President going back to 2013, and that oil also plays a part. Is there any evidence of willingness on the part of the warring factions to resolve the political difficulties? Is there any shred of confidence that a settlement can be reached?

The witnesses spoke of a shrinking humanitarian space. I understand that the South Sudanese Government does not welcome the aid agencies, NGOs and other members of the international community but if they were not there, providing assistance to displaced people, how would the Government provide assistance on its own? It should welcome as much assistance as it can get for deprived people in South Sudan.

We have built up considerable influence at the UN and in the EU over the years and we continue to use that influence but how can we ramp it up? What suggestions can the witnesses make to leverage that influence even further into the future?

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

The last speaker is Deputy Durkan. I thank the Deputy for taking the Chair for me earlier in the meeting.

Photo of Bernard DurkanBernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also wish to be associated with the sympathy expressed to the UK aid worker who unfortunately lost his life recently. In so doing, we should recognise the risks taken by all the staff at GOAL in the course of the work they do in places which are familiar to us by virtue of their work and the news media but which otherwise would remain distant from us.

To what extent is GOAL satisfied that together with all the other agencies, it can concentrate its best efforts in a way that will maximise the impact, and to what extent does Mr. Andrews believe that will be sufficient?

We speak about the issues of man-made disasters, be they war, climate change or whatever the case may be, here from time to time. In so far as war is concerned, for some unknown reason people across the globe begin to become restless every so often because after a period of peace and calm, there comes a time of war. It is a little like the saying there is a time to be born and a time to die. The number of events that are occurring and the degree of violence are disturbing. There are many situations where the level of violence has been ongoing but it is becoming more prevalent. I do not know what the reason for it is other than that history seems to repeat itself, tragically, again and again and lessons never seem to be learned by the upcoming generation. They always know better or pretend or think they do and inevitably find out that they do not when it is too late. The consequences of that, unfortunately, impact on people, the civilian populations, who pay the price, and women and children in particular pay a huge price.

Our comments must relate to the extent to which GOAL, along with others, can impact in that area as well. I do not know what can be done. We all deal with it in the course of our constituency work because we meet people from these areas who present us with information on a fairly regular basis and it is horrific. The witnesses are very much more conversant with those issues than we are. The question that arises is what influence can the international community bring to bear on the potential hot spots, other than by international peacekeeping forces and what they can do is limited as well, as we know from past experience. How can we improve that situation? It appears nothing can be done and that it is inevitable that huge loss of life and carnage takes place. Everybody condemns it and says these things should not happen but they continue to happen.

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

Thank you, Deputy. Does Mr. Andrews wish to respond to those questions?

Mr. Barry Andrews:

I will ask Mr. Conor Elliott to do that.

Mr. Conor Elliott:

I thank the members for a range of pertinent questions. They give us an opportunity to discuss some particular issues. As there is some overlap in the topics raised, forgive me if I answer some of them thematically rather than by responding to each member. I will start with Deputy Durkan's comment, and a link to the theme of hopelessness has come through in many of the members' questions. The situation is most definitely not hopeless, intractable, predetermined or definite. What is of great hope to all of us is the man-made aspect, particularly of this crisis in South Sudan and, by definition, it being man-made it is within the power of particularly the political elites in South Sudan to find a solution. Our staff, employees, colleagues and other Irish agencies live and work in extremely difficulty and challenging environments but it is never hopeless. Our whole mission is devoted to improving the lives of people and we impact on hundreds of thousands of people every day, particularly in South Sudan and now in Ethiopia in regard to this crisis.

I will briefly run through some of the points raised. The population there is in the region of 11 million. Somebody will correct me on that but it is approximately that size and we can provide the committee with the correct figure. I do not have figures from the pledging conference in Norway but we can get those and provide them afterwards. We can give a better breakdown on the pledges that were made last year and what were, and were not, met and what is the position regarding the current round of pledges.

A question was raised about Irish Aid or at least about the influence this committee can bring to bear on allocations or discussions around funding in Ireland. We have a very positive and responsive relationship with the humanitarian section and the civil society section in Irish Aid, and they are very responsive. We have very close relationships with them, however, we will always request that pressure be applied to the allocation of more fundings to non-governmental organisations. In terms of timing, now is a very good time for that.

The issue of timing links to another Deputy's question. South Sudan has just come out of the wet season. The wet season is a very big event in South Sudan. It is a moveable feast. It can start as early as April or May and as it moves across the country it can run as late as December and even into January. When it rains in South Sudan everything stops. South Sudan has very few roads. I wish I could give the members the figure for the number of tarmac roads there. I worked in Sudan as the country director for GOAL on a long-term placement seven or eight years ago and at that time there were 4 km of tarmac roads in South Sudan. That has dramatically improved today but it gives members an idea of some of the logistical challenges. We have to fly into most of the operational sites in which we work. In the wet season they can only be accessed by helicopter. We access some of our areas by boat and by canoe. There are no standard logistical supply lines into huge tracts of South Sudan.

There has been a poor harvest due to the conflict last year as a result of which there was a failure to plant. South Sudan has just come out of the west season. People have just harvested. Today the indicators are not as bad as they will be in two months' time. Today people are eating the stocks they have just harvested but those stocks will deplete very rapidly. We know they are nowhere yet near the levels they need to be to bring people through until the next harvest. We know that between now and the start of the next wet season there will be pockets of famine in and around certain locations in South Sudan.

Deputy Eric Byrne began the discussion around politics which subsequent speakers all raised, which is central to this whole issue. Ultimately, we are a humanitarian agency that is responding and reacting to the situation on the ground but the underlying causes of this are political and the solution will be political. It will have to be.

I will provide some background in terms of the question of ethnicity, the tribal groups versus ethnic groups and so on. Like all such conflicts, I cannot simplify this as it is very complex. All of Sudan and South Sudan have a very complex and long history of conflict and fighting. Many generations have lived through conflict, conflict with Sudan in the north and also conflict internally within South Sudan. There is a long history of fault-lines between communities, between geographical areas and between ethnic groups or tribes in South Sudan. There is a dominant ethnic group, in terms of numbers, in South Sudan known as the Dinka and it is by far and away the largest ethnic grouping. I could not tell the members the size of that grouping but probably 60% or 70% of the population are Dinka. The next largest group is known as the Nuer and it constitutes approximately 11% of the population and the rest of the population is a range of groups comprising Equatorians and so on. The current split between Salva Kiir, who is Dinka, and Riek Machar, who is Nuer, falls down along that ethnic line, but it is far more complicated than just the Nuer versus the Dinka. Much of this is tied into resources over which there is conflict in South Sudan.

Deputy Durkan raised the issue of natural disasters versus man-made disasters. Often there is a particular link between those in that natural disasters mean competition for resources and the competition for resources tends to lead to conflict and man-made situation around conflict. That is an issue in South Sudan and it has always been an issue. There are always cattle raids and conflict over access to lands and so on, but there is also the issue of oil and access to funding around oil, which Deputy Mitchell raised.

That is a very significant issue and a very thorny issue for conflict. Also, as throughout the history of Sudan and other conflicts, there is an issue of the debate, argument or power being centralised in a very small elite group and that there is an urban-centred approach and an enormous disconnect between it and people in regional and rural areas. Frankly, at the heart of all of this is the disconnect between the ordinary people of South Sudan in the rural areas and a small, extremely powerful military elite political group.

A question was asked about whether we support the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, IGAD, endeavour. This is at the heart of the political issue. There have been many initiatives in the past 14 months. One of the problems in fact has been that the process of trying to transition to a political solution has become fragmented and fractured and there are parallel and different conversations. There is Arusha, Addis Ababa and Juba and all sorts of different avenues of conversation. Also, within the different groups, be it the pro-government or the opposition, there has been a fracturing of the support base within those different groupings. It is a very complex group of different factions that are now involved in a range of different talks. The international community needs to back the one horse in this conversation. My position on this is that IGAD approach is the most likely one to back. It is the most advanced and probably the most credible conversation at this point. There needs to be a very frank conversation where all of these peace talks are brought in under that one stream. That stream needs to be amended, however. It needs to be changed to reflect the diversity of actors that are involved in this conversation. It has been quite limited in terms of who is involved in the process. It has involved the elites and it has not involved the voices of the other stakeholders, which is a very significant shortfall in the process.

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

I wish to ask about the role of the African Union and neighbouring countries such as Ethiopia which has been very accommodating to refugees fleeing the conflict and Uganda. When I was in Uganda I met the foreign Minister and he talked about the role his country had played. Have the neighbouring countries and the African Union made a real effort to try to reach a settlement with these people?

Mr. Conor Elliott:

That is a very good point. In particular, the Ethiopian Government has been superb in embracing and accommodating refugees who have crossed into Gambella and western Ethiopia. Unfortunately, that will get even worse in the coming months. This would have come out through the visit of President Higgins, that we would welcome and applaud the Ethiopian Government. In terms of the other elements, I note - I do not comment on it - the Ugandan defence forces role in supporting the government forces in South Sudan. Regionally, the African actors and heads of state have worked very hard to try to develop a political solution.

There is a problem with one of the issues that we see around the role of the African Union, or at least an issue of note from our perspective is that the African Union has collected and developed a report on human rights abuses and what has happened in South Sudan, but the report has been shelved or at least it is being held back. We know the report is finished. We know that it is ready for publication but a decision has been made not to publish it. We know that the justification for that seems to be that in order to progress peace talks, a certain indemnity or immunity is required to bring people to the table. That is partly why the report is being shelved. We understand that, but I question it. We know the conversation around the sector in South Sudan and the conversation from a number of think tanks including the parliamentary group in the UK whose name escapes me right now. That process of conversation, understanding and transparency about what has happened has to happen in South Sudan. There has to be an openness and a working through of the historical events and incidents and the crimes and the violence that have happened in South Sudan. A lot of actors in this believe that failing to do so continues to support a peace process that does not address the underlying causes of conflict in South Sudan. Without doing that it will never solve the underlying problems anyway. There has to be a process of reconciliation and truth. I hope that goes some way towards answering the question.

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

Is there a government? Is it just based in Juba or does it have any control elsewhere? Is there a civil war? I cannot get my head around the degree of conflict as the death toll is so vast. Does the government have any influence outside the capital?

Mr. Conor Elliott:

There is a government. There is a president, which is Salva Kiir. He terminated – removed from office – many members of that government recently and they have become the heads of the opposition movement in South Sudan. There are government-controlled areas, which are controlled by the Sudan People's Liberation Army, SPLA, the regular army of South Sudan. There are supply lines, towns, and assets – oil fields – that are held by government forces. There are non-government or opposition-held areas in South Sudan that are held by armed elements in the opposition group, but there is a government.

What tends to happen is that the existing governmental structure still remains in place. There have been changes of people in some of the key positions such as state governor or some of the district level positions, depending on whether it is an opposition-held area. Some of that has fallen down ethnically. For example, in some of the opposition-held areas they removed the previous governor or administration and replaced it with their own, but the structures tend to be the same. Obviously, within this type of environment any type of government funding is hugely problematic. There are huge challenges in an effective government because it is very problematic to have government funding flowing into opposition-held areas. This is an issue that we find problematic in some of our work, where there can be barriers put in the way of funds flowing out to things like ministry of health clinics, for example, in opposition-held areas. There is a structure in place. There is a government in place that controls certain areas and the opposition controls opposition-held areas.

Deputy Crowe inquired about the nature of the conflict; whether it is rural or in the communities or what it looks like. It is not in downtown Juba, which is the capital city, today. It was in December. It is however fought largely over urban areas, which are of strategic value, either areas that are on key routes into other countries, close to markets, trade routes or near the oil fields. An example is the town of Malakal, which is close to the oil fields, but which also links Sudan to Ethiopia. Strategic towns are fought over. Malakal is a terrible example. Over the course of several months at the start of the conflict somewhere in the region of 250,000 people who used to be in that town are no longer there. No one has any idea where they are. Malakal was a thriving town but nothing is left but burnt out buildings. There are various villages and towns like that in South Sudan. The conflict tends to be fought over those types of towns, roads and the oil fields, important bridges or strategic assets.

There is a question to be asked and answered about the arming of the conflict and who is supplying weapons. Perhaps we will get into it later. There was a question about cholera in Juba. Cholera is under control there now. That epidemic was dealt with last year, although it continues to be a risk. I think it was in May last year. I am trying to remember exactly when it was. We talked briefly about harvesting and planting.

Deputy Mitchell asked how GOAL's programmes have changed. To be honest, the type of programme we have in South Sudan is largely humanitarian programming. Prior to the conflict in December of 2013, it was the newest country in the world but also the poorest country in the world with appalling indicators, very poor public service infrastructure and poor food security rates. The indicators were very poor. Before the conflict started in December, we were running a very large humanitarian programme. We have changed some of our activities in some of the conflict areas where, for example, we were working with farmers, farmer field schools, agricultural fairs and so on. Those have come to an end but we have rolled out measures like our emergency health care mobile clinics, nutrition activities, water and sanitation projects and expanded them into areas where people have moved from conflict.

We have a new state now, Upper Nile state, in which we operate. Upper Nile is next door to Jonglei, which is one of the primary conflict areas. Many people have left Jonglei and moved into Upper Nile state where we have expanded a very large programme.

Our geography has changed a little. We have scaled up the activities. We have lost some agricultural livelihood activities. The type of activities we undertake are largely the same, but we have many more beneficiaries in new areas.

While the logistics for South Sudan are always very difficult, where we are now in Upper Nile state, particularly in terms of the displaced, there is a community and not much else. There are no services. There is no air strip. There is no clinic; there is nothing. We had seven clinics bombed and destroyed in Upper Nile state. We are currently using mobile clinics. There is no infrastructure in many of the areas we are in now. That is a new challenge for us in some ways. We have had to build our own air strips. We have had to clear fields for helicopter landing areas, so the logistical challenges are more difficult for us now than they were previously. That is why the United Nations support with the World Food Programme, WFP, is so important for us in the region. We always charter our own aircraft, but every time we charter an aircraft it costs approximately $7,000. That flies one tonne of food into an area, but that is gone in a couple of days. We are constantly flying in items, which makes our operations extremely expensive. Our operations in South Sudan are the most expensive operations we have anywhere.

We are trying to compensate for the UN's inability to fund, deliver and put those air assets in place. We are chartering private charters and flying things in, which is a phenomenally expensive way of operating, but it is the only way to get that food, medicines and so on into those areas. A properly resourced UN response in-country would negate the need for that and would be cheaper because we would not be paying premium private sector rates to commercial actors.

Deputy Byrne asked why 90% of the people in the camps in Gambella are women and children. That is a very good point because we know that the number of those under 18 in the camps is extremely high. I think there are 196,000 refugees now in Gambella of whom approximately 90% are women and children, and a very high proportion of those are children under 18. Some of them are caught up in the conflict, but many men stayed behind to try to secure their field and harvest and to protect their family's agricultural land. Many people stay behind and try to look after the family holdings and so on in South Sudan. That tends to be a big issue where many of the male population remain and the women and children cross over into Ethiopia.

Mr. Andrews will respond on the oil question.

I want to come back to the hopelessness issue because it ties into the question about what this committee, and the international community, can do, even what we in GOAL can do. It is about the small areas we can influence that will bring about significant change. Ultimately, this is about politics; it is a political issue. That is the big picture. The most important thing all of us need to do is stay the course. What do we want? We want peace. How do we get that? It is a long, difficult journey. A great deal of coercion and influence is required. Ultimately, we have to influence this from the outside without stepping in and directly doing it. This needs to be a South Sudan solution to a South Sudan problem.

How do we do that internationally as a community? The members are much better versed in that than I am, but we have to stay the course. We have to continue to fund operations like those of GOAL. We must continue to keep people alive while at the same time, through the European Union, at the UN and everywhere we can, using Ireland's foreign policy platform, the reputation Ireland has to persuade and cajole. We need to continue having these types of forum. The committee must continue to invite us back to talk about this issue and, bit by bit, we will try to influence from the outside.

Ultimately, the peace talks with IGAD are where we will see the most likelihood of progress down the road, but there is a huge amount of work to be done. There needs to be an understanding that a South Sudan solution is required. There needs to be a real connection between the grassroots and the political elite. There needs to be truth and reconciliation, a political will and a connection with the people of South Sudan in that solution. All of that is missing currently in the processes that are under way. I hope that answers most of the questions.

Mr. Barry Andrews:

I will not be very long. Mr. Elliott has answered all the questions but I want to add some comments.

On the hopelessness question asked by many members, there is a type of desensitisation after so many conflicts and crises and the question of how we keep ourselves motivated arises. In GOAL we do not have any sense of hopelessness. We live by the maxim that it is not an excuse to do nothing because we cannot do everything. We will do everything that is in our power to try to relieve the distress for as many people as possible.

We should remember that when we became Independent, a civil war occurred straight away. Thankfully, it was a short war, but South Sudan is experiencing something similar. It is not a time for hopelessness. It is a time for us to apply our knowledge and experience, and not to pull the ladder up behind us.

Many countries in western Europe experienced convulsions of violence after independence as power struggles went on, and Mr. Elliott has described the political situation in the region. It is complex. It is about political power struggles and taking advantage of ethnic divisions rather than their being the cause. For long periods such divisions were not a source of conflict while at other times they were, and they were sometimes influenced by battles over resources and political power. There is no sense of hopelessness.

If we look at the role Ethiopia is playing in terms of providing support to refugees, 30 years ago Ethiopia was the recipient of dramatic international aid. It is now a provider of refuge to hundreds of thousands of people. That is why we should not be hopeless. The aid community is not taking the credit for that. Far from it. We have played our role but this is where South Sudan will go, so there is no excuse for hopelessness.

Having said that, we live in a much murkier world. Someone said that during the Cold War, if one understood one thing one understood everything. It is much more complex now. All the conflicts around the world are wars by proxy. We have non-state actors. There is very difficult humanitarian access in Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and Syria. In past conflicts we would have been welcomed anywhere as an agency, but now it is much more difficult to gain access.

There are these complexities and it is much more difficult to unpick, unravel and understand these things. Deputy Crowe touched on the question as to whether people are less interested in man-made conflict than in natural disasters and they definitely are. They perceive these things as political and therefore not deserving of our sympathy and compassion but yet, Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan and the Chairman saw the victims of man-made conflict in Turkey last week. We have talked a little bit about them in respect of South Sudan. Very often, the distinctions between natural disasters and man-made conflicts are false. Arguably, Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines was a man-made disaster because of climate change; not a natural disaster as some would classify it. In my view, that question is getting a little less clear.

In a couple of quick points, Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked about the costs involved and the Association of European Parliamentarians with Africa, AWEPA, which is the parliamentary group here in the Oireachtas, has produced a very good report on the cost of war in South Sudan. The information we have is that for the most part, armaments for the Government of South Sudan are being provided by the Government of China. In addition, for the most part, the oil revenues of the Government of South Sudan also are being provided by China. Clearly, it is having an influence and is providing the support for the Government to maintain the conflict. Valerie Amos has called for an arms embargo on the Government of South Sudan, therefore identifying the supply of arms as one key driver of conflict. Clearly, this is an outstanding issue and the report that has been produced is incredibly insightful in that regard.

The question everyone is asking is what can the joint committee do. GOAL is a humanitarian organisation and as Mr. Conor Elliott noted, we would be slow to drift into ordaining political solutions. However, it must be indigenous. There must be a local solution and it must not merely involve the elites but must be broadly based. We have seen this on the island of Ireland and as Mr. Conor Elliott indicated, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, IGAD, is the most likely forum in which a peace can be arrived at. However, it must be deeper than a simple agreement. It has been said that peace is not the mere absence of war and it will require reconciliation, which in turn requires the collection of evidence to achieve justice. Consequently, while the report into human rights abuses by the African Union is not produced, we have turned our face against justice, evidence and reconciliation and those elements of peace which make it sustainable. The joint committee and the Oireachtas in general can use their roles, as Mr. Elliott has stated, within the United Nations and the European Union. They also can use Ireland's membership of the Human Rights Council, which it holds for the rest of this calendar year. In addition, I mentioned the World Humanitarian Summit, which will be held in Istanbul in 2016. In two months' time, Ireland will conduct its own investigation into how it can put its stamp on that summit and I encourage the joint committee to call in those people who are putting together that report and are developing the Irish voice in respect of the aforementioned summit because we must address these issues. These are huge issues that will dominate the news for the next 20 or 30 years, be they man-made disasters, natural disasters or a relationship between the two. Consequently, I encourage members to engage in that process. As the meeting in Ireland will be held in Dublin on 28 May, there is plenty of opportunity for us to put our stamp on it.

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

I thank the representatives from GOAL for their attendance. I also thank the witnesses for facilitating the visit last week of Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan and myself to the Turkish-Syrian border. While we will compile a report on the visit, it provided us with a greater understanding of how GOAL operates in this fragile region. I refer to seeing the operations ourselves at first hand, visiting the border and talking to those families that have been affected by the atrocities in Syria, as well as the entire fragile situation in Syria, the movement of different areas and the question of who takes control of an area in a particular week. When we have compiled the report, members of the joint committee should read it because it will give them a greater understanding of the complexities and challenges that exist within Syria and on the borders of Syria for the non-governmental organisations, NGOs, working there. I again thank GOAL for facilitating the visit last week.

I also thank GOAL for providing the joint committee with an update on South Sudan, as members do not wish to see that country go off the radar. The witnesses mentioned all the other current areas of conflict throughout the world and it is very easy for places such as South Sudan to go off the radar as the media move around to the different areas of conflict. As Mr. Andrews rightly stated, that country is going through a civil war with various ceasefires and so on. Obviously, the terrain there makes it difficult for the Government there to defeat the opposition or those involved in the civil war. Hopefully, there will be a peaceful solution and the European Union, the United Nations, the various neighbouring countries and the African Union will be able to contribute to that in some way. I again thank the witnesses for updating the joint committee on GOAL activities there. Members really appreciate GOAL's involvement in South Sudan and in such delicate and fragile regions. We are very proud of our NGOs that are working there amid the challenges they face in respect of the difficult terrain. I thank Mr. Elliott and Mr. Andrews for dealing so comprehensively with all the members' questions. As they can see, members have a great interest in this area and obviously it is a subject to which the joint committee will return and on which it will keep in touch with GOAL.

Is it agreed to go into private session for the remainder of the meeting? Agreed.

The joint committee went into private session at 4.25 p.m. and adjourned at 5.10 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 25 February 2015.