Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The first item on our agenda is engagement with witnesses. We are happy to welcome representatives from Dóchas, Concern and CONCORD Europe to continue our work in respect of the UN sustainable development goals, with a focus on overseas development, EU funding and the multi-annual financial framework. We are joined by Mr. Dominic Crowley, emergency director of Concern Worldwide, Ms Jane Ann McKenna, CEO of Dóchas, and Ms Celia Cranfield, head of advocacy at CONCORD Europe. They are all very welcome. I thank them for taking the time to join us. We look forward to our engagement with them.

Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses, or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I do not believe we have any Members joining online, so I do not feel the need to go through the protocols for that. I will give each Member five minutes for questions and answers. I will also allow an opening statement. I believe Ms McKenna is going to go first.

Ms Jane-Ann McKenna:

I will start and my colleagues might then contribute. I thank the committee for the invitation to meet with it today to brief it on the work of Dóchas and the role of the EU and EU funding in international development.

Over the past few years, humanitarian needs and extreme poverty have escalated worldwide. A convergence of multiple crises, including rising inequality, escalating conflicts and the intensifying impact of climate change, combined with the volatile international political situation, have further exacerbated dire situations, with millions at risk of starvation and of death by preventable disease. More than 300 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance and protection and a record 120 million-plus are displaced. This escalation of human suffering and need has been met with a retreat of support, with many global donors announcing cuts to their overseas development assistance, ODA. The US dealt a severe blow at the start of 2025 with the dismantling of USAID. This came on top of 14 out of the top 20 humanitarian donors cutting their aid in 2024, and resulted in the loss of $61 billion in development and humanitarian assistance. Sadly, other countries are following suit, with the OECD predicting a net reduction of up to 17% in global ODA on top of the 9% drop witnessed in 2024. The impact of these cuts is beginning to reveal itself, and a recent report by The Lancet estimates that 14 million avoidable deaths are likely as a result of US aid cuts by 2030. The figures are truly staggering.

Today, we will focus on the trends and risks that development and humanitarian organisations see in the European Union's strategy and policy development. This is particularly timely as the EU seeks to commence negotiations on the next multi-annual financial framework, MFF, with the Commission’s proposal being released as we speak. The EU, as the largest global donor, has a critical role to play in ensuring that its ODA remains a powerful tool for poverty reduction, sustainable development and addressing global inequalities. These objectives are clearly stated in the Lisbon treaty, which is legally binding and further backed up in the EU consensus on development, the EU consensus on humanitarian aid and Global Europe, or the neighbourhood, development and international co-operation instrument, NDICI. However, when it comes to external action, there has been a considerable shift in the direction of EU policies affecting development programmes, including funding cuts to existing programmes, and a move towards a more transactional approach, which we find extremely concerning. The current MFF leaves humanitarian assistance perpetually stretched thin. The looming threat that all directorate general, DG, budgets will be cut to allow a greater allocation to EU defence spending is an obvious and growing point of concern for the development and humanitarian community. Aid budgets are needed now more than ever and need to be protected.

Under the next MFF, member states must safeguard international co-operation instruments that are working well. Any refinements should ensure that the EU’s aid remains focused on addressing poverty reduction and inequality. Human development, including investment in health, education, nutrition and social protection, must stay at the heart of EU co-operation. The EU must prioritise people, ensuring that life-saving assistance, guided by the principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence, remains paramount. The next MFF must significantly increase funding for humanitarian assistance and safeguard the integrity of the EU’s humanitarian response. The new MFF and the future EU external financing instruments, EFIs, must offer the legal framework and strategic tools to advance sustainable development, human rights and climate action. These instruments should also ensure alignment with the EU’s commitments to transparency, accountability and inclusive partnerships.

In this rapidly changing environment, Ireland has remained steadfast, maintaining a principled stance underpinned by our values of peace, and a commitment to principled humanitarian aid, equality and justice. The role of development co-operation and humanitarian assistance as an expression of Ireland’s values and solidarity on the global stage has never been more important. In the context of increasing inequality and human development needs, we call on the EU institutions, and all member states - including Ireland - to work towards meeting the 0.7% GNI target for ODA. We strongly believe that our values must be matched by our commitments and by our ability to deliver them. We take this opportunity to ask that Ireland leads by example and upholds its commitment to increase our ODA in budget 2026, as outlined in the programme for Government.

I am joined here by Ms. Celia Cranfield, head of advocacy at CONCORD Europe, and Mr. Dominic Crowley, CEO of Concern Worldwide and former president of VOICE. They will illustrate why separate, external action instruments for international co-operation and humanitarian action are necessary and offer recommendations in regard to the EU’s approach to fragile and conflict-affected states.

Ms Celia Cranfield:

In an increasingly complex global landscape, a well-funded external action budget with a dedicated instrument for international co-operation is necessary.

It is important that EU ODA is directed towards least developed countries and fragile and conflict-affected states. Cutting ODA now will not strengthen Europe’s position. Retreating from commitments to multilateralism and global co-operation risks undermining trust in the EU and its credibility as a partner. At a time of increasing conflict, threatening both security and stability, the EU needs to show its reliability as a partner for sustainable development. This is the moment for the EU to step up its international development by setting ambitious, clear and sustainable targets that prioritise those who need aid most and that ensure no one is left behind.

The EU is prioritising its competitiveness and defence in the current geopolitical environment and strengthening its transactional approach with its partners. The risk of merging external action instruments now is that competition for the budget and too much flexibility will leave least developed countries, fragile and conflict-affected states and marginalised people and communities furthest behind. Less predictability risks weakening the EU’s commitment to longer term support for strengthening partner countries’ systems for human and sustainable development. As a result, safeguards will have to be put in place. We ask that there be clear targets in respect of the external action budget as a whole, including a high percentage that complies with the criteria to be ODA, that human development targets be increased, that the existing OECD target for least developed countries of 0.2% of GNI be achieved and that fragile contexts be prioritised in order to ensure that EU commitments remain focused, accountable and impactful.

The EU is putting more of its efforts into blended finance and investments in partner countries, with a promise of converting EU millions into billions to help cover the shortfall in financing for sustainable development. This alone cannot not work. It should be combined with an appropriate mix of modalities with a preference for grants. Thematic funding and targets across the external action budget in areas like civil society, inequality, disability, gender equality, climate and biodiversity, democracy and human rights are essential, including to address global cross-border challenges. The EU must commit to ensuring that human development remains at the heart of its external action in the next MFF.

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

I apologise in advance for the fact that my voice is not the best today. I thank the members of the committee for their time and for the invitation to address them.

I want to speak briefly to the humanitarian aspect of the EU budget, particularly the need for focus to be sustained on least developed countries and fragile and conflict-affected states. The EU's commitment to ensure that resources are provided to where the need is greatest, especially to least developed countries and countries in situations of fragility and conflict is included in the NDICI-Global Europe regulation and is, sadly, more relevant than ever. As has already been mentioned, climate change, conflict and political instability have been compounded by significant cuts in aid budgets across the EU and in the US. These are having the impact of intensifying humanitarian crises, exacerbating fragility and reinforcing the urgent need for stronger EU engagement. Despite the commitment in the NDICI-Global Europe regulation, the proportion of EU bilateral ODA going to fragile and conflict-affected states decreased from 32% to close to 14% between 2019 and 2023. In the same period, the proportion of bilateral ODA going to least developed countries dropped by more than half. Taken together, only one tenth of the EU budget for developing countries now goes to those that are least developed. Looking forward, the EU’s statement of estimates for 2026 proposes a humanitarian aid budget of €1.93 billion. This is insufficient to meet the EU’s expected level of funding and will result in the need for reinforcements from special financial instruments. The reality is a greater level of financing is needed at a time when the margins within heading 6 of the current MFF have already been exhausted, meaning that the potential for adding additional funding during the year no longer exists. This funding shortfall, the lack of flexibility within the margins of heading 6 and the wider pattern of aid cuts globally mean that a growing number of people will face greater levels of risk and vulnerability. Additional resources for humanitarian action must be found within the negotiations on the 2026 budget.

According to the OECD, least developed countries and countries in situations of fragility and conflict are home to 25% of the world’s population but to 72% of the world’s extremely poor people. Prioritising countries in which the world's extremely poor live in future development co-operation instruments is critical. It is in these contexts that most acute human security and development needs are concentrated. Retaining a focus on them would allow the EU to make a more significant difference in achieving sustainable development objectives.

The proposed budget represents only 1.34% of the total EU budget for 2026. Finding additional resources should not be insurmountable. It seems to be a matter of political prioritisation. To achieve the EU’s commitment to providing life-saving assistance to the most fragile and vulnerable, we have four key asks, which we encourage the committee to support. First, a budget of €2.6 billion should be allocated to DG ECHO in 2026 to match its expected level of spending. Consistent with this, the next MFF should see an allocation of a minimum of €18.2 billion for humanitarian action across the seven-year cycle. The new MFF structure must preserve the separate budget lines, responsibility and instruments for humanitarian assistance and international co-operation to protect the delivery of principled humanitarian aid. The emergency aid reserve must be maintained at a minimum amount of €600 million for external action. Member States and the European Parliament must ensure that emergency aid reserve funding is additional to the humanitarian aid budget line and can be mobilised for humanitarian crises outside of the EU throughout the whole financial year. All EU member states should increase the current level of national aid budgets. Any reduction in EU revenue will mean a reduction in funding available for humanitarian action, resilience building and disaster risk reduction, all of which are key to mitigating the impact of crises and contribute to long-term stability. We ask member states to increase their current contributions for principled humanitarian action.

Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Crowley and the other witnesses. Members will be aware they have five minutes for questions and answers. Three members, namely Deputies Deputy Lahart, Crowe and Ó Murchú, have indicated. I call Deputy Lahart.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses. They referred to the spend on security and defence. That is becoming an issue across committees. I ask that they look at this matter from the following perspective. Given a choice between spending on humanitarian inputs or local housing or on security and defence, there is not a democratically elected politician across the European Union who would not choose to the former. However, we are at a particular juncture. Our ODA has been impacted as a result of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which has eaten into it. This shows what conflict does.

My second point is that security and defence means protecting our assets. Those assets, like undersea cables and the architecture and hardware that is going to facilitate a further digital revolution in the space of artificial intelligence, are critical to the future economic development of the country. Without corporation tax receipts, there will be no increases in ODA for anybody.

It is about making the connection between economic wealth and the ability of a state to fulfil, improve and increase its commitments and I do not hear that. I do not mean to be critical, but that is just the reality. The European Union faces an existential threat. If Russia were to take another step, we would all be under threat. I would like to hear some of that represented in some of the contributions because I do not. I hear criticism of it. Other members will have different views. I do not want to spend money on increased militarisation but I recognise, as was mentioned, our values, principles and interests, which are known globally. We have values and principles, but we also have interests and unless our interests are maintained and safeguarded there will not be any funding to back up the principles and values we bring to the world. I feel strongly about that.

We had a meeting last week with the Gates Foundation. It is heartbreaking to see the progress being made until the US decided to pull the plug so significantly on funding, being interrupted, which leaves us all carrying the can. It is a challenge. We are not great at philanthropy in Ireland. We could look at tax incentives for that. Other countries are really good at it, such as the UK. We are talking about philanthropists being able to make significant deductions from tax. If the witnesses have anything to say about that, I would be interested in how we compare internationally. I think we compare badly.

On the programmes being hit most, Concern is in a number of countries. The Gates Foundation was impressive on mother and baby health and the eradication of some diseases, which we have taken for granted. When aid agencies get money they can do profoundly good work and they do so. They are just a few observations. The witnesses have my remaining time to respond.

Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who would like to take that?

Ms Jane-Ann McKenna:

I will start. On security and defence and the broader economic environment, our sector is not so naive as to assume that these things do not have an impact on our ability to be able to support ODA going forward. We recognise that and understand that our ODA contribution is based on our economic well-being. We saw that during the crash when there were significant cuts to our aid budget. I was at a talk with Filippo Grandi earlier today. He is the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. He made the point clearly and we would emphasise it. Aid equals stability. Considering the EU and the direction of travel of other donors, which are cutting their budgets, it will ultimately have a destabilising effect on the least developed countries, that is, the countries that are already bearing the brunt of conflict. Where resources are scarce, people will move. There will be more migration. There will potentially be more conflict.

We are looking at a situation now as a result of the aid cuts, for example, where in refugee camps education can no longer be provided. It is not seen as life saving so it has to be cut. Thinking that through, for the individuals who are now living in or have fled conflict and do not even have the opportunity of education, what is the long-term view? How are we ensuring we are not creating a more unstable world by retreating on our ODA commitments? At the moment we are seeing significant political momentum around military. We are not experts in that area, but we know that if you start slashing the aid piece and only increase that amount, it is a short-sighted approach. That is why we say there has to be significant funding instruments that are protected and only look at inequality and poverty reduction at their core.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms McKenna. That is a powerful argument - the stability argument. It was not made in the witnesses' contribution, but it is noted.

Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Unfortunately, I do not have time to let others in on this, but if they want to come in at a later stage on any issue that has been left unsaid, we will give them an opportunity.

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

The witnesses are all very welcome this afternoon. How we will reach the ODA target has been an issue for a number years. Do they have a view that the Government needs a plan to do it by a certain date? The problem is that when we are doing well economically, there may be a commitment to it, but if there are any outside pressures, that is when it is usually cut. What is their view on that?

Recently, some of us were at a conference where it was said that the number of states involved in conflict resolution is decreasing rather than increasing. Do the witnesses have a view on that? Recently, we had a meeting with the Cubans who said they were on the list of states that support terror on the basis that they facilitated talks in Havana. Do the organisations have a view on conflict resolution and the need for more of it.

Will they give a summary - it is still very soon after the decision - of the impact of the USAID decision? What are their organisations saying about the impact it is having on the ground at this stage?

Ms Jane-Ann McKenna:

I will ask Mr. Crowley to respond to some of those points and then we might add to it.

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

Apologies for my voice. I thank the Deputy for his very good and interesting questions. I will talk about Concern for a minute. I sent an email to all staff last night explaining that we were closing three country programmes. It is the last thing we ever want to have to do. We have already let go the best part of 400 of our staff working for us overseas. We have just gone through a process in Dublin of 17% redundancies. The ability of the organisation to continue to function at a global level is being constrained. I urge caution that we do not just talk about the USAID cuts. It is a pattern we are seeing across Europe. Ireland is one of very few exceptions, which is trying to adhere to its commitment of 0.7% of GNI. It is not there yet and it is spending a lot on in-donor costs, but it is moving in that direction and there is a strong commitment by Irish Aid and the Government towards it.

At a more granular level, we just had people come back from Bangladesh who were working in the Cox's Bazaar programme that deals with migrants from Myanmar. People are now turning up at clinics who are increasingly malnourished. They are receiving a food ration, but it is totally inadequate and it is being shared, so the level of malnutrition - of people reaching a very precarious level - is increasing. A report in The Atlantic magazine two days ago talked about €800,000 worth of food aid being destroyed at the cost of another €130,000 because it had gone out of date as it could not be distributed. That is part of a much wider volume of aid that is stored in warehouses - five warehouses across the world - that cannot be distributed at the moment. Most of the funding for UN humanitarian air service, UNHAS, flights in countries where road travel is too dangerous has been cut. We lost a staff member in Sudan two weeks ago coming back from delivering nutrition supplies and medical supplies to a clinic. The vehicle was ambushed and the driver was killed. Wherever you look and whatever you look at, the impact of cuts and increasing insecurity can be seen across the whole sector.

Ms Celia Cranfield:

On the question of conflict resolution and linking a bit to what was said earlier about stability, one of the things we have homed in on as something to pay close attention to during the next multi-annual financial framework, MFF, and in what the next global external action instruments look like is the thematic programmes. There has been a thematic programme on peace and stability and it is important that each of the thematic programmes - the human rights one is also important, as is the civil society one - gets sufficient funding and that there are not steps backwards in those either.

I will go back through the opening statements. It was said that today more than 300 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance and protections, a record number of more than 120 million people are displaced and one in every five children in the world, approximately 400 million, is living or fleeing conflict zones, with women and girls bearing the brunt of violence. It was said also that least developed countries and countries in situations of fragility and conflict are home to 25% of the world’s population, but account for 72% of the world’s extremely poor people. On some level, this is all stuff we know but it is useful to have that sort of information here. I refer to that vital piece of USAID and the cut, and I get that is not just USAID. We are talking about 83% of the total ODA budget.

Mr. Crowley said 400 staff are gone and three country programmes are gone and there have been 17% redundancies. This is happening on a wide scale across the board. I would have said before in regard to aid that, to a degree, there is an insufficient amount to deal with the need already out there. On some level, this is plugging the hole but at this stage, we are getting into circumstances of not being able to plug the hole at all and it is laid out brutally.

What are we facing into at this point? The big worry we have is around the multi-annual financial framework. We can see even farmers are worried about where the money will go in the future. Obviously, for the people we are talking about here, they will not have a great level of lobbying power within the European Council, European Commission or anywhere else. I cannot see anything other than a maintained disaster becoming a disaster that will not be maintained in any way. How bad will this be?

Ms Jane-Ann McKenna:

What we have tried to articulate in different statements - and numbers often do not tell the full story or realise the full impact - and what we will see play out in the next few months is some of those predictions coming through from UN aid and The Lancet in respect of the level of death and devastation as well as the impact Mr. Crowley spoke about regarding malnutrition on a scale we have not seen before.

When we look at the next MFF, and Ms Cranfield will be able to speak a little bit more to this more, this is why we talk about the vital importance of having separate instruments that can follow the money and that we can ensure the funding is allocated to where we want and need it to go. What we are seeing is a growing trend at an EU level towards a more transactional approach and investment which is global gateway programme.

Yes, we need to invest and we can look at investing in countries and in their infrastructure but you cannot do this in isolation. You also need to ensure there is a parallel approach which very much targets the most vulnerable, those who are the furthest behind and in the least developed countries. This is not being prioritised at EU level. We are not seeing that coming through in any of the documents which have been developed with regard to where the least developed countries are sitting and where we are going to see that focus not only in terms of the humanitarian response but in terms of long-term poverty alleviation to avoid future humanitarian crises. Ms Cranfield might be able to speak to that in more detail.

Ms Celia Cranfield:

It is right that ODA will always be a limited source of funding and one of a number that partner countries look at when looking at how to make progress for themselves and their people. That is why we are concerned about the direction the EU's external action instruments might take. As Ms McKenna said, there is this global gateway which will be scaled up. That is what we expect and what von der Leyen has said and asked for. It is very much an investment-driven approach, which looks at the mutual benefits of aid, especially for the European economies. With this limited resource, we should not be looking at the kinds of instruments which potentially drive-up debt for highly indebted countries that do not have the fiscal space to invest in their own systems for people. Rather, we should be looking at grants, where they are needed most and will have most impact for those furthest behind, be that a country or a community within a country.

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their contributions. I have a couple of questions. First, I echo Deputy Lahart's point that from the European Union member states' perspective. If they face existential crisis on the eastern side, and a reduction in NATO and US support, they are going to make that changeover. It should not necessarily have anything to do with overseas development aid as part of the overall budget. Historically, Ireland has tried to reach the 0.7% target, except in recessionary periods.

I have specific questions on targeting what may be more limited in the future. Up to 2034, I would argue, although the witnesses may not say this publicly, the sector is trying to make sure we do not reduce it any more rather than anything else. It is diminished since 2024, for example.

Is there a way of being more specifically targeted? For example, the proportion varies - and the witnesses may educate me on this - but between 12% and 15% of overall development aid is humanitarian assistance. Is it the case when dealing with crises such as what is happening with the genocide in Gaza, for example, that a higher proportion of aid is put into countries like Jordan, for example, to assist with the humanitarian crisis? If that were to settle down - for want of a better term - would the organisations be able to focus more on the strategic stuff? Do the witnesses have examples of where the long-term strategic stuff has worked in any country deemed stable?

I take the witnesses' point entirely with regard to the climate crisis and migration but also instability in war-torn countries and economic migrants or general instability. If the witnesses were given a very limited amount of money, where do they think it should be targeted and in what types of countries?

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

I thank the Deputy for his questions. It is probably the most important question we struggle with every single year. There is never enough money and you end up having to make strategic decisions. Broadly speaking, if you have this principled humanitarian aid and you start with the principle of impartiality, which means your aid goes where it is needed most, you end up delivering aid to the contexts that are most impacted. Approximately 80% of humanitarian aid goes to conflict contexts. The intersection between conflict and climate change is becoming narrower or greater and greater. We are seeing more and more overlap between contexts that are affected by both climate change and conflict.

Going back to Deputy Lahart's question, if we are seeing further cuts in aid, instability, insecurity and further migration because most countries are cutting their aid budget, we are just storing up a greater security problem. The Deputy's question on whether we are really trying to protect what we have got without expecting it to be more is true but it comes in a context where we hear all DG budgets will be cut by 10% to go to the defence budget. Somebody somewhere has to hold the line and say the needs of acutely vulnerable and at-risk people need to be given primacy somewhere and I believe the EU should be that place.

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would Mr. Crowley say, in essence, this aid is part of a defence budget in more ways than one?

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

I would rather not. If we follow humanitarian principles, no, but you can look at the consequences of that. If you go back to Jesse Helms in the United States, he always talked about enlightened self-interest, to spend a budget to protect the US from terrorism and migration. That argument is frequently made-----

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is in self-interest.

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

-----but it will not be made by NGOs.

Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I might ask the witnesses a few questions.

The budget is obviously a very pertinent issue and Mr. Crowley mentioned a figure of €18.2 billion in respect of the MFF. I am conscious he has said there is never enough money and there will never be enough money. The figure of €18.2 billion is the bare minimum. What would he be asking for as something that might meet what is needed in real terms? Would it be that figure or would it be higher?

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

Looking at the humanitarian aid budgets for the last number of years, the US has been responsible for providing between 43% and 47% of all humanitarian funding going to the UN system. The European Commission and Germany have been sort of neck and neck as the next most generous donors. They are each giving 9%. There is nothing that will replace the 83% cut that we have seen from the US Government this year. The concern is, and I go back slightly to Deputy Ó Murchú's phrasing, which I thought was very good, it is a maintained disaster. We are facing a situation where this year is catastrophic for very many people but next year may be worse. I am reminded of the discussions in the UK where they put a commitment of 0.7% of GNI into law and then they cut it to 0.5% The Labour Party stood on an electoral platform that included a commitment to get back to 0.7% and now it had cut it to 0.3%. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is saying it was possible to cut from 0.7% to 0.5% and still maintain the structure and the framework. Going from 0.5% to 0.3%, that can no longer be done. The UK is going to have to cut. As in Ms McKenna's reference from this afternoon's discussions with Filippo Grandi, the UNHCR is cutting education from all camps because it cannot sustain it. Therefore, nothing is going to fill the gap. The question is how we can mitigate against the extremes of the cuts we are seeing. I am sorry that I am not giving the Chairman a figure, which he wanted.

Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate what Mr. Crowley is saying. It is kind of a balloon question in the first instance. He also mentioned the €800,000 worth of food that had been destroyed. I read that article in The Atlantic. How much of that was connected to Gaza? How do we avoid that happening again? Is it a question of money or is it logistics?

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

My understanding is that most of that food was bought towards the end of the Biden regime, has been sitting in storage since then and has been prevented from being distributed as a result of the chaos in the system at the moment.

Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The general chaos?

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

The general chaos.

Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it all different types of food aid?

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

Yes, it is.

Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So, it is not just-----

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

It is biscuits, oil, pulses and wheat; a range. When we are talking about food distribution, if you are doing it properly, you are delivering a basket of foods, not just a single item. The thing that is worrying about the food that is being destroyed at the moment is the high-energy biscuits, which are essential foods that are given when everything else collapses or when people are being immediately displaced. They are given the biscuits, which can be eaten as food or can be made up as porridge. They are highly nutritious. Many of those stocks are being held in Dubai, but the UAE has a law that prevents them from being ground down to be used for animal feed once they reach the sell-by date. Therefore, we do not even get that redeeming potential from them. They just have to be destroyed at huge additional cost.

Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Crowley see that situation being repeated next year?

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

In terms of the volume of food that is currently in storage, something like €60,000 tonnes of food, much of it grown in America and already purchased by the US Government, was sitting in storage in the USAID warehouses in January. From what we understand, very little of that has been moved, so there is a huge-----

Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it due to expire?

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

It is starting to expire now. There will be a different shelf-life on different products but the high-energy biscuits are starting to reach their shelf-life now and we understand an instruction has been given for their destruction.

Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

May I ask about aid conditions? Mr. Crowley mentioned the general pattern in cuts to aid. I am pleased to hear he excludes Ireland from that. That is obviously good to hear. One of the things I am always very proud of regarding Irish aid is that it comes without conditions, contrary, perhaps, to a lot of the USAID supports, which would have to bought from US companies or agencies and things like that. To what extent can it be said that the principles that are applied to Irish aid apply to all European Union aid, or do they?

Ms Jane-Ann McKenna:

Ms Cranfield may come in on this as well. As the Cathaoirleach mentioned, we can be very proud of our ODA. We obviously work very closely with the Department of foreign affairs. I was in Seville for the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development only a couple of weeks ago. It was remarkable to see the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, stand up and state what Ireland believed in respect of ODA. He referred to a non-transactional and non-self-interested approach, one that was based on the principles of targeting those who were furthest behind and looking at poverty alleviation at its core. That is something. Ireland has come through with a few other like-minded states. They have created a non-paper in recent weeks that was circulated among the Council with a number of other member states that were proponing the reasons ODA was so important, why it should be preserved and why the principles of that needed to be upheld in the next MFF. However, Ms Cranfield may be able to speak to that. There are other like-minded states within the EU but it does not seem to be the broader direction of travel.

Ms Celia Cranfield:

I agree. There are like-minded states and they all differ depending on whether they have the budget and the fiscal space at the moment. Regarding the principal objectives of the EU's aid, there is quite a group that agrees it should be quite faithful to what is written in the Lisbon treaty, which concerns poverty reduction. There is some disquiet that the proportion of the external action budget that will come under an objective that is much more about mutual benefits would increase. There are some good member states that Ireland can work with, and should work with, over the next two and a half years to make sure that the poverty eradication or reduction goal that looks at sustainable development in partner countries remains really high on the agenda. There are other conditionalities in EU aid. The current Global Europe instrument unfortunately has a positive incentive around co-operation with the EU on EU migration policy. Therefore, if countries co-operate, they can get a little more ODA. My concern would be that, in the current climate, the next proposal, which will be out today, will expand that conditionality and make it much more severe.

Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it possible to name the countries that are in the same vein as Ireland?

Ms Celia Cranfield:

We have seen, for instance, during the Belgian Presidency that Belgium is cutting its ODA overall but is very interested in what happens in targeting fragile contexts. That is one I like to work with. Spain has a new law that enshrines the 0.7% and would be very much in line. Denmark has its own particular priorities but it is also very committed to the 0.7% and brings a particular interest to making sure that the climate aspects are dealt with properly. Then there a number of others behind the scenes. Portugal is one as well. There are a few. I am sure the Department can tell the committee more.

Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sure. I thank the witnesses. I now call Deputy Scanlon.

Eamon Scanlon (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. It is certainly a bleak picture they show. It is unbelievable to think that hundreds of thousands of euros worth of food is going bad and thousands of people are starving in the world. I just cannot get my head around that. Mr. Crowley stated that Concern was losing a lot of staff, which I am sure will affect its programmes in many different countries. I see that EU global assistance last year was €92.8 billion. That was approximately 40% of total global assistance. Where did the other 57% come from? Was that coming from the United States? This is just to get some idea of how Concern will make up the difference because it is a fierce gap to try to fill.

Ms Jane-Ann McKenna:

Given the impact of the aid cuts, we are seeing that there is no one country that will be able to fill the gap. We believe that the EU might now be the largest donor of ODA globally when one combines national contributions and the EU institutional contribution. Even at EU level, we do not anticipate that the gap can be filled. The retreat of EU member states is significant. There is a pattern where even those that have reached 0.7% are scaling back. We are saying that it is more important than ever that, at EU level and not just Ireland, we retain and hold that line because we cannot afford to fall further back.

Sometimes, the narrative is about the impact and effectiveness of aid, but the significant progress made in reducing poverty since 2000 is effectively being reversed. We are seeing backwards sliding, whereby some of the indicators that had been going down over the past 20 years following investment, significant amounts of ODA and countries reducing their poverty levels are going up again. While we may not be able to fill the gap created by the US, Ireland can influence at EU level, ensure that the EU does not go in the same direction and, through the various instruments, ensure we are very much targeting and keeping poverty alleviation, inequality and human development at the centre because some of those words are being lost in a number of the proposals on the table at the EU.

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

I may not be 100% right on these figures but I would be very close. For the past three years, the US has given between 43% and 47% of humanitarian aid. If we look at total ODA, though, I think the US comes in at about 32%. We always talk about 0.7% of GNI, but that amount is just 0.23% of the United States's GNI. The scale of its national budgets means it has a disproportionate level of input into global ODA and the 83% cut we keep hearing about is devastating and cannot be filled.

Eoin Hayes (Dublin Bay South, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach for organising this session. It has been stunning. I thank the witnesses for their advocacy and for appearing before us. I am shocked by some of the figures they have put before us and some of the things they have said. I extend my sincere condolences on the staff member in Sudan who was killed and the people in the organisations who have been let go because of these cuts.

One of the stunning figures is that there are 400 million children in conflict zones and that 14 million lives will be lost by 2030, according to The Lancet medical journal. In that context, it is really important to say that the title of this meeting is "Sustainable Development Goals". Defence is not a sustainable development goal. We need to think about how we support the sustainable development goals, notwithstanding the security pressures some member states believe they are under.

An important point is that aid is not necessarily about survival. If it were, then survival alone would not be sufficient. This is not something we often talk about even in social protection domestically. We talk about making sure people do not fall into poverty, but how do we get them out of poverty? This requires not necessarily just minimal funding, but consideration of how we go further, notwithstanding the major challenges we have.

I have two gripes about ODA more generally, at least in the Irish context, that I would like to get the witnesses' feedback on. I will then put two questions to the witnesses. One gripe has to do with grants versus loans. The contributions were more in favour of the grants approach. I think one can give some preferential loans in supporting business communities in certain developing countries. I would like to get the witnesses' perspective on the progress made in transferring more ODA towards grants rather than loans.

Refugee costs in Ireland are often lumped in with how we think about ODA. When one strips that out, I think our budget is about 0.38% of GNI, and that is not even taking into account the different ratio if we apply GNI*. Sometimes, a bit of accounting magic goes into this stuff. That is reprehensible, so I would like to hear the witnesses' views.

There is an issue when the aid budgets are cut by the developed world, such as the US or the EU. Other actors then fill a political gap. One can see this with the rise of BRICS conversations and the use of different monetary instruments and different currencies in development aid. What do the witnesses think about reform of international institutions that may be involved in ODA, such as the World Bank, the IMF and EU institutions like the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development? How do we strengthen them in line with humanitarian goals?

I would love to hear the witnesses' thoughts on the humanitarian consensus internationally seeming to fall away. It is very difficult to see the hard-won lessons of the past being disregarded but the humanitarian organisations were set up for a reason, that being, what we witnessed in the 20th century. I would love to hear comments from the witnesses as regards what more we could do to talk to the public about not having to relearn those hard-won lessons.

Ms Jane-Ann McKenna:

I will address the questions on percentages and refugee costs. If we look at the OECD development assistance committee, DAC, preliminary figures for Ireland and exclude refugee costs, we can see that we were at 0.34% for 2024. Including refugee costs, the figure is 0.57%. We really use the 0.34% figure. We see the contribution for Ukrainian refugees in Ireland as necessary, but it effectively inflates our ODA figure, so we are really looking at what it is in terms of ODA that is spent overseas and ensuring that this amount continuously goes up year on year and we see a pathway to seeing it reach the 0.7% target.

In terms of grants versus loans, we can probably provide more information on this but with the OECD DAC rules, the challenge is trying to fit more into what we consider classic ODA. There is a place for different instruments, engaging with different instruments with different countries, particularly in the global south, and seeing how we can support the economy and other investments. We are concerned with protecting what we intend ODA to be used for, that is, reducing poverty and looking at those we are trying to target with that piece where grants are the most suitable. Does Mr. Crowley wish to come in on the humanitarian point?

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

The single biggest challenge we are seeing is the routine violation of international humanitarian law - the deliberate targeting of health facilities; the destruction of standing crops and water sources; what is at least the failure to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants but, in many cases, is the active targeting of non-combatant populations; and the lack of available sanction to address the greatest violaters. International humanitarian law, IHL, reinforced after the Second World War the consolidation of the Geneva Conventions. There is hardly a convention that is not being violated in certain conflicts. That is the context in which we are substantially trying to work, which is why one sees that the level of fatalities for aid workers is at a greater level now than it has ever been.

Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a really shocking statement that there is hardly a convention that is not being violated at the moment. It is extraordinary.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to make four specific points. We are all influencers, so it is good to be provocative. We would not have got the answer about the price to be paid in terms of stability. I link that to my final point. There is something serious about that. Just to say, for people who are watching, I worked in overseas development as an adviser to a Minister way back when we careered towards up to 0.5% or something at one stage. There was no Ukrainian peace; it was genuine.

I understand the non-tied aid and that we are good at that. In terms of aid and development, the European Union remains the only show in town in terms of those values as a bloc. Could someone say a little bit more about the transactional approach and mutual benefits? I would like to hear both sides of that, namely, what is wrong with the transactional approach and what is right with it. What are the mutual benefits of peace? Perhaps our witnesses could say something about what tied aid is.

We have the EU Presidency coming up and we are all on different committees here. It is a really well-made point that when we cut back on this, there are consequences. That is a very powerful argument that should be front and centre because at the end of the day, the threats faced are real. People are going to come to our doorstep regarding having to make big decisions. Being armed with the information that if we cut this, there is actually a possibility we will end up with a greater problem in terms of migration and instability in different parts of the world, and that instability coming to our doorstep.

Ms Celia Cranfield:

When we talk about the transactional approach, what I am talking about, at least in the EU context, is the approach to Global Gateway. This was launched in 2021-2022 as a strategy for supporting partner countries in developing infrastructure for digital transport and energy, with the idea that this would also be supporting the EU's digital and green transitions, particularly in terms of acquisition of critical raw materials. As far as we know, that was never meant to be the development policy. Where we are now is that the request to scale up Global Gateway is putting the entire consensus on development at European level at risk. What is not front and centre in the Global Gateway strategy as a strategy - and it is a potentially viable strategy in certain contexts - is sustainable development in line with partner countries' interests.

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is very high level talk. By transactional, I hear “there has to be something in it for me to give you this." What are the practical realities of that?

Ms Celia Cranfield:

We do not know entirely yet, because Global Gateway is being built as much as it is being sold and talked about. Those things are happening in parallel. What we see, for instance, in the governance is that there is a business advisory group, which is great, because what it wants is more private sector investment and it needs to figure out, from businesses, how that can happen. According to what we hear so far, it is not happening and has not been proven to work yet. However, the only businesses represented there are European businesses. What we see in the few flagship projects that have taken off is that it is primarily European businesses involved in these infrastructure projects, which again-----

John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We provide money for building bridges and roads but European companies must be the ones that build them. That is essentially what Ms Cranfield is saying. What is wrong with that? Would Ms Cranfield prefer indigenous capacity to be built up?

Ms Celia Cranfield:

When we look at ODA as a finite resource and what it can go into, if we are not sure the private sector money is going to flow and European businesses are in, and it is for getting critical raw materials for Europe, where is the sustainable development impact for the partner country? Yes, there are a few jobs in a few key niche sectors but how is the partner country’s health and education systems being supported in this way?

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

There is a more fundamental question, one I tried to address in my comments. The Global Gateway has seen the substantial flight of EU development funding from the least developed countries to ones where there is more of an economic return on the investment. The countries that have by far the greatest number of acutely poor people are substantially no longer receiving any material aid or support from the EU. For me, it is not so much about how the funding is used but where it is used, and the basis for that decision-making. If Global Gateway is a reaction to the Chinese belt and road process, it is all about trade and not about targeting poverty. That is why we have 10% of the EU global development budget now being spent in the least developed countries. That is the consequence of it.

Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We had the whole thing with regard to Europe and strategic autonomy and whatever else. In respect of aid, some of that is happening. We all believed we lived in a certain world, and with all that was wrong with it, there was a certain set of rules. There was at least some sort of adherence to international law. That meant one believed that conflicts could happen in certain parts of the world but not in other parts to the degree we are seeing. One believed that even mutually assured destruction ensured a certain type of world. That has all been thrown out the window and whether that is because of Vladimir Putin, Trump’s America or whatever else, we are where we are. It is more akin to the 1700s and a balance of power. It is literally like an old colonial play in which the European Union is a player, although maybe not as nefarious as some of the others. Within this, where do we see hope? All I can take from what our witnesses said is there is a greater level of chaos, conflict and migration. We must ensure we address this properly. That is also accepting that the European Union for all its failures, even this week in relation to Palestine, is still one of the few hopes and that it can and absolutely must do better.

Unfortunately, I do not think I am wrong in how I see the world, and I am going to ask our witnesses' view on that. What can we do first and foremost to try to ensure that some of the asks made are delivered upon? Unfortunately, this is the game we are now involved in and an awful lot of people are pointing and looking in the wrong direction.

Ms Jane-Ann McKenna:

I will come in on Ireland’s role. The start of the budgetary processes is today, more or less. This is happening in real time. We are looking to the next two and a half years. During Ireland's Presidency of the EU, we will have limited ability to influence, but what we are looking for is for Ireland to really try to influence the MFF at this stage and to look at that external action budget and see what is being prioritised, where we can influence and where we see human development.

It is not only about our relationship with the Department, but Barry Andrews MEP is the chair of the development committee which has done a report in the European Parliament, supportive of the ideas of Global Gateway but very clearly saying that the traditional modalities of ODA need to be retained and expanded to address the human development targets, including poverty reduction. These are some of the areas where Ireland does have a significant reputation.

That gives us standing on a global stage. We are very principled and very values driven in terms of where we want our money to be spent, what we want it to be spent on and ensuring that we are looking at some of those pieces around the furthest behind. That is where our focus needs to be in the next year in these negotiations, not in two years' time when they are coming to the end but now saying, while the discussions are happening, that we need to ensure that human development is very much front and centre in our external action budget, and ask where it is, where the least developed countries are represented and where we are seeing the investment in poverty reduction, not just the investment in infrastructure. We need to look at our voice at a number of different levels and, particularly in the lead-up to Ireland holding the EU Presidency, seeing how we can create more and influence that to a greater degree.

We work with CONCORD, which is the network for all European international NGOs. We have seen that some countries within Europe and some areas are aligned with Ireland's way. We need to ensure that we bring them and bring together a coalition of the willing who are really interested in seeing this through so that we do not realise in a couple of years' time that this issue has slipped off the agenda and become something that Ireland is not proud to represent because we do not see at its centre poverty reduction, human development or these values that we very clearly want to represent on the global stage. Those are areas where we can exert influence now and why it is so important that our voice is there amid the current discussions.

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

I very much like the point about spheres of influence, which date back to the 1700s. It is the kind of logic that Putin used in that Ukraine was getting too close to Europe and that, therefore, Russia needed to attack it because naturally it falls within its "sphere of influence". We have seen that argument come back again.

Our biggest concern, and between the three of us we have talked about this a lot, is that the aid budget in the MFF discussions and the annual budget discussions tends to be seen as too small to merit much discussion. Therefore, the aid budget never really gets talked about until the tail end of the negotiations, when the need is to make cuts. What we have seen time and again in the MFF discussions is that promises towards increasing the aid budget end up being reversed and there are more cuts than ever expected.

Deputy Ó Murchú asked what can be done. We must keep aid on the agenda. We must keep it discussed in the Oireachtas, the European Parliament and the MFF negotiations. Please do not let aid be neglected once again.

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have made a note about keeping aid on the agenda. Obviously, we all can make a personal input, but the clear message is that the Irish Government must use its EU Presidency, have as one of its key themes maintaining overseas development aid and aim to increase it as part of the MFF process.

Mr. Crowley mentioned food and biscuits. It is worth putting on the record that is a reference to the proposed destruction of 500 metric tonnes of emergency food, which is enough food to feed 1.5 million children for a week, as a result of a decision taken by the Trump Presidency and the action taken by the Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE, in terms of USAID. Mr. Crowley obviously has colleagues in the US. Given that the whole MAGA movement professed to be followers of Jesus and supporters of the poor, is there any leverage that can be exerted on them to highlight this atrocity and show that what has been done in the US is an abomination? That is a separate question from what is being discussed by this committee today.

I have specific questions on the EU's position on Afghanistan, which relate to my last point because a lot of the food and biscuits were going to be given to Afghan children. At present, Afghan women are not even allowed to speak. Afghanistan is the most repressive country in the world in terms of the treatment of women. Do any of CONCORD Europe's constituent organisations have to make compromises to get into Afghanistan and provide some form of emergency aid? What would CONCORD Europe call on the European Union to do to put pressure on the Taliban? I know that is a big ask because there is not much leverage but we are never going to get past subsistence unless women get a voice in Afghanistan.

Ms Jane-Ann McKenna:

In response to the first question, and I can share further details with the committee, Dóchas has worldview research projects and monitors Irish attitudes towards ODA. There is strong support and three in every four people believe an important and vital part of Ireland's foreign policy is our contribution to ODA and its budget. Similar research is done in the US and results from a study completed in the last couple of months show that people within the US are getting more concerned about global poverty. I can share some of that research with the committee. It will be interesting to see what happens in the US because I think that there will be a shift in mindset and opinions may vary.

On Afghanistan, I might hand over to Mr. Crowley.

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

Again, these are very good and important questions. We have worked in Afghanistan for about 20 years and primarily in the north east. We have gone through challenging times such as the Taliban coming to power, going out of power and coming back into power. The restrictions on women talking in public were a surprise. The prohibition of women being in the workplace was a more worrying issue for us. Over a period of several months, we negotiated at a local level and got agreement that we could establish offices that only women were allowed to work in. Previously men and women worked in the same buildings and that is no longer possible, but at least we have women-only offices. Women are allowed to come to work and engage with women in communities. The context is very difficult but there is some light.

What is worrying is that during the pattern of cuts that were made, Afghanistan was one of the countries the US completely cut funding from. In the last week or so, Sweden has now done the same. They said they do not see any opportunities for making progress in relation to Afghanistan. My concern would be that more European member states would follow that approach and cut aid completely. We must find ways to continue to programme in the most difficult contexts with the most vulnerable people.

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

There is a danger of bringing ourselves into depression, particularly following what we have heard about the scandalous proposal to destroy food. Irish Aid does so much positive work but we do not talk it up enough. The first positive I want to mention is that there is cross-party and non-party support right across the Oireachtas in relation to this. The Irish people are very giving. We have our own history of hunger and oppression, etc. We are not unique but we have a voice that needs to be heard.

I have seen some of the programmes in which CONCORD Europe has been involved. I recall a "train the trainer" programme was rolled out so that people could combat climate change in the context of food. People were taught to grow rice using less water and this increased the amount of food grown by between 10% and 15%, which had a great impact on farmers. The programmes had positive effects, whereby farmers wanted to learn more about it, having seen the increase in the rate of food production.

In the last Dáil, I was the convenor of the Ireland-Nepal Friendship Group. Last weekend, it was Nepal Day. Some of the organisations that were involved in the Nepal-Ireland alliance include Trócaire, Irish Aid, Irish Red Cross, the Social and Health Education Project, Concern Worldwide Ireland, Umbrella Foundation Ireland, Nagarhope Ireland, Engineers Without Borders Ireland, Habitat for Humanity Ireland, Plan International Ireland and Leprosy Mission Ireland. People may ask what positive influence can be exerted by one small country.

That is having a positive impact on Nepal. It is having a positive impact on the people living in that country and on their view of Ireland. There are positives for Ireland in trade but also in relation to goodwill and we need to talk it up rather than talk it down. As bad as the world is, without our input it would be a lot worse. That is the message this committee should be sending out today. The Cathaoirleach spoke about untied aid, which is also really positive. We are not unique but we are a leader in this area. If there is a message here for the witnesses' organisations, it is to keep it up. We need to give them as much support as we can. We have to devise a plan to achieve the 0.7% GNI target.

Ms Jane-Ann McKenna:

One of the real strengths of Irish Aid and the development programme is the engagement and partnerships with civil society organisations. As Mr. Crowley detailed earlier, whether in Afghanistan or in other contexts, civil society organisations, just like many of our members, are working directly with communities. They are the ones that are able to have direct interaction with people on the ground to enable the impact we want to see, not only in saving lives but in transforming lives. They work in and through communities for that level of sustainability. That is something that Ireland is also very strong on and we want to see more of it in the context of EU funding as well. We want to see more of a focus on working with and partnering through civil society for delivery, implementation and engagement with communities. If we do not have engagement at ground level with communities, we can only go so far, but through civil society and local organisations that are entrusted to support the overseas development aid programme, we can see real delivery and impact on the ground and on people's lives. Such engagement enables us to navigate extremely difficult circumstances to work in. I worked in Afghanistan for a year and there are parts that UN bodies just could not touch. It was only civil society organisations on the ground that were able to deliver the assistance where it needed to be. We cannot overstate the importance and value of civil society organisations. The Irish Government does support them but we would encourage it to do so even more.

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

It is really important we remind ourselves of the extraordinary generosity of the Irish people. What we have seen in the first half of this year is a significant increase in funding from the public and the Irish corporate sector. They are seeing what is happening globally and are responding incredibly once again. The debt that we owe to the Irish public cannot be overstated. It is amazing what they do. I will give just one example of a project we are working on. It is a three-year project looking at a triangle of acute food insecurity between Kenya, Ethiopia and Somalia. We have been given €15 million to work to address acute malnutrition and make a sustainable change to the lives of people living in the area. It is a very specifically targeted programme and is something that we are starting, at less than the halfway point, to see genuine impact from. The work we are doing on the ground makes a difference. If it did not, I would not be here. I thank Deputy Crowe for that reminder to accentuate the positive because there are lots of positives.

Barry Ward (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That feels like a nice place to stop in the discussion. I thank the witnesses and reiterate what Deputy Crowe said. The value of the work they and their organisations do, and that other organisations in the same sphere do, cannot be overstated. I thank them for all of that work, for their time today and for their valuable insights. We will go into private session now and then we will adjourn until 3.30 p.m. on Wednesday 17 September, 2025.