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

I advise members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where he or she is not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, a member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask any members participating via Microsoft Teams that, prior to making their contributions to the meeting, they confirm that they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make her, him 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 that they comply with any such direction.

As the witnesses will be aware, the committee will publish the opening statements on its website following the meeting. They 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 - I do not see that happening today, given the topic we are dealing with - and it is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Apologies have been received from Senator O'Reilly.

For the benefit of the witnesses, the committee operates along four pillars, effectively shadowing the Department of foreign affairs. The pillars of work that the Department is engaged in are Anglo-Irish and North American relations, international affairs, overseas development and diaspora, and trade. We have navigated those four pillars reasonably successfully. We try to pivot between them all. We have been looking forward to meeting this group of witnesses because of the work the committee is doing and the forthcoming travel episode for members of the committee as they take a trip to see the work of Irish NGOs and the overseas development section of the Department of foreign affairs in Sierra Leone and Liberia.

I welcome our witnesses from GOAL, Concern, Trócaire and Sightsavers Ireland. We welcome Ms Dee da Silva, programme advocacy manager with GOAL; Mr. John Rynne, regional director for Africa with GOAL; Mr. Dominic Crowley, CEO of Concern; Ms Reka Sztopa, regional director of Concern; Mr. Conor Molloy, head of portfolio for climate and gender with Trócaire, who is with us online; Ms Emma Murphy, head of advocacy for Sightsavers Ireland; and Ms Ciara Smullen, chief executive officer of Sightsavers Ireland.

The format of the meeting is that we will hear the witnesses' opening statements followed by questions and answers with the members of the committee in seven-minute slots. The time will be visible on the screen at which I am pointing. The seven minutes will include the time for the question and the answer. I will try to keep a little order on the members to ensure they do not eat up too much time with questions, but we will have a second round. We generally get to a second round. I ask colleagues to be concise.

I will now pass the floor to our witnesses to make their opening statements. We will start with GOAL, followed by Concern, Trócaire and Sightsavers Ireland. We can make no assumptions about what our listening and watching audience know about the witnesses' organisations so perhaps a little introductory remark would be in order about what they do, why and where.

Mr. John Rynne:

GOAL is an Irish-based humanitarian development organisation. We work extensively throughout Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. We have been operational for approximately 50 years. We have consistent long-term funding from the Irish Government through Irish Aid.

I thank the Cathaoirleach, Teachtaí Dála and Seanadóirí for the invitation to appear before them. I am regional director for Africa with GOAL. I am joined by my colleague, Ms Dee da Silva, programme advocacy manager. We welcome the opportunity to speak with the committee ahead of its visit to Sierra Leone. Our remarks will focus specifically on GOAL's work in Sierra Leone. We do not currently work in Liberia.

Sierra Leone is home to approximately 8.8 million people, making it slightly larger by population than the island of Ireland. Its capital, Freetown, is home to approximately 1.35 million people. GOAL has been working in Sierra Leone since the late 1980s, initially in emergency response and with a permanent presence since 1999. This history matters. We have seen Sierra Leone through conflict recovery, Ebola, Covid-19, economic pressure, climate shocks and repeated public health threats. We have also seen the country's resilience and leadership, and the determination of communities to build something stronger from each crisis.

The central point we want to make today is simple. Sierra Leone is facing three linked pressures, which are, a health crisis, a food and nutrition security crisis and an urban crisis. GOAL's work is focused on these three pressures but also, more importantly, on the systems underneath them. The real question is not only whether people can be reached during the next emergency, but also whether the country has stronger health, food and sanitation systems, and stronger local institutions, before the next emergency arrives. This is where Ireland's support is making a practical difference.

Today, GOAL's Sierra Leone programme is valued at just over €5 million per annum. It is delivered by our staff across all five regions, with targeted programmes in seven districts delivering measurable results. Our work spans health, water, sanitation and hygiene, the blue economy, social and behaviour change, disaster preparedness and response, and urban regeneration. I will focus on what that means in human and practical terms.

I will first consider health. Sierra Leone's experience of Ebola showed that public health resilience depends on far more than clinical services alone. It depends on trust, community leadership, early information, trained health workers and systems that people will use when levels of fear and uncertainty are high. GOAL's health work builds on these lessons. Through Irish Aid's Ireland's Civil Society Partnership for A Better World, antenatal care attendance reached 85% in targeted areas, up from a 26% baseline. Modern contraceptive prevalence increased to 52% and adolescent-friendly sexual and reproductive health services expanded through the young care model, peer mentors and school-based outreach.

This community-led capacity matters when new threats emerge. In 2025, GOAL's Mpox response reached more than 200,000 people with prevention messages and engaged over 46,000 people through community-led action structures across 1,300-odd communities. Transmission was interrupted with two full incubation cycles for Mpox completed without new confirmed cases. The significance is clear. Irish support is helping Sierra Leone to respond earlier, faster and more effectively so that the health threats do not become wider emergencies.

GOAL's work with women and girls sits within a wider national reform agenda. Sierra Leone's Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2024 was a major step forward for girls' protection. GOAL's adolescent sexual and reproductive health, social behaviour change, youth advocacy and accountability work helps to turn that kind of national commitment into practical change for girls, families and communities.

I will move to food and nutrition security. For Sierra Leone's coastal communities, fish is not just a livelihood. It is income, nutrition, trade, women's economic activity and community resilience, yet the small-scale fisheries sector is under severe pressure from overfishing, weak cold chains, unsafe processing, mangrove loss, marine pollution and poor infrastructure. GOAL's own resilience analysis found the artisanal fishery system to be fragile when faced with infectious disease and economic shocks, with a resilience score of two out five under combined crisis scenarios. GOAL's blue economy work responds to that fragility by strengthening the whole system, including sustainable harvesting, storage, market access, food safety, mangrove protection, traceability, women's participation and coastal governance. This approach was developed from GOAL's experience in Latin America and the Caribbean and then adapted to the Sierra Leone context. Through GOAL's support in sustainable harvesting, storage and market links, 67% of participants reported higher incomes, while 15% of communities saw measurable gains in food security.

The point for Ireland is that the blue economy programme is a highly practical route into climate action, food security and women's economic participation. It protects marine ecosystems while helping families to earn more, eat better and withstand future shocks.

I will move to the urban crisis. Freetown, the capital, is growing rapidly and in many informal settlements, sanitation systems have not kept pace. Unsafe waste management is a public health risk, an environmental risk and a governmental challenge. Through a pioneering partnership with Freetown City Council, GOAL co-manages the city's first liquid waste treatment plant, now safely treating over 20% of Freetown's liquid waste. In 2025, the Kingtom faecal sludge treatment plant treated more than 18 million litres of human waste, reducing public health and environmental risks in highly dense urban areas. A new memorandum of understanding with Freetown City Council sets out a pathway towards full municipal ownership of this facility by 2028. This is one of GOAL's strongest examples of practical innovation. It brings together Irish technical expertise, local government leadership, public health, environmental protection and city-level governance. It also directly links to the blue economy because reducing untreated waste entering coastal waters protects fisheries, marine ecosystems and the communities that depend on them.

Across all of this work, GOAL's approach is a systems-focused one. We work with communities, government institutions, local authorities, private sector actors, technical partners and service providers. Our aim is to strengthen the systems people rely on so they can function better before, during and after shocks. That is also how we understand localisation. We regard it not only as delivery through local partners but as support to the wider ecosystems of actors that shape people's lives.

This aligns closely with Ireland's policy for international development, A Better World. In this regard, I refer to health preparedness, reducing humanitarian need, blue economy programming supports, climate action, livelihoods and food security. Urban sanitation strengthens public health, environmental management and local government. Our work on adolescent sexual and reproductive health, social norms and women's decision-making contributes directly to gender equality. The evidence is clear: sustained Irish support through GOAL and the other peer agencies here today is helping Sierra Leone to protect hard-won gains, scale up proven solutions and strengthen resilience before the next crisis hits.

When the committee travels to Sierra Leone, we hope members will see that Ireland's partnership is visible, practical and deeply valued. Through GOAL, Ireland is reaching communities today while helping to build the systems Sierra Leone will need tomorrow: stronger health preparedness, safer sanitation, more resilient coastal livelihoods and greater capacity to withstand future shocks.

I thank the Chair. We would be very happy to answer the members' questions.

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

I am the CEO of Concern. Concern was established in 1968, so it is getting perilously close to being 60 years old, like me. We are in 27 countries, mostly in Africa. Our focus is primarily on poverty, but over the last 15 years particularly, it has been on the intersection between poverty, conflict and food insecurity.

Concern has been working in Sierra Leone and Liberia. Concern is the only body represented on this panel that has been working in Liberia since 1996. Initially it was working in Liberia and Sierra Leone in response to acute humanitarian needs arising from the civil wars in each country. These wars ended just over 20 years ago, but both countries have since endured the world's worst Ebola outbreak, low levels of human development and high levels of gender inequality, national debt and economic volatility. Both face high levels of rural poverty, with more than half of the population in each living below the national poverty line.

Hunger is a major challenge. In Liberia in 2024, 27% of children under five were estimated to be stunted. That shocking figure is a marked improvement on the 45% recorded in 2000. Sierra Leone's data are little better.

Agriculture accounts for about 30% of Liberia's GDP and up to 60% of Sierra Leone's, but it is increasingly vulnerable to climate change. Changing rainfall patterns, rising temperatures and the increased incidence of pests and diseases are impacting harvests. Coastal erosion threatens more than 2 million people in Sierra Leone and 3 million people in Liberia, with shoreline retreat rates of 4 m to 6 m per year in each country. Despite all of this, these countries are powerful examples of post-conflict recovery and resilience. In 2025, Concern assisted more than 200,000 people in Sierra Leone and more than 150,000 in Liberia.

The programmes were delivered with local NGOs and other local partners, and in close co-ordination with local government, reflecting our focus on strengthening sustainable health, nutrition and agriculture systems. Support from Irish Aid, the Ireland Civil Society Partnership, ICSP, and the embassies in Monrovia and Freetown has been central to our work. I will highlight four interventions.

In Sierra Leone, in the first two years of our ICSP-funded Yoti Yoti programme, which supports food security, nutrition and income in 108 remote rural communities, the diversity of agricultural products has almost doubled, significantly improving nutrition outcomes for women and children. Households have also increased their share of income from selling produce from zero at baseline to over one third in 2024. Our LANN programme links agriculture, natural resource management and nutrition. It was supported by the Irish Embassy in Freetown for just over a decade and provided a blueprint for our current programming. Participants in village savings and loan associations have been helped to meet needs, reduce reliance on debt and build financial resilience, enabling families to cope with shocks while improving dignity, trust and community cohesion.

I will move on to Liberia. In the first year of the Irish Embassy-funded addressing social protection in isolated and rural areas, ASPIRE, programme, village savings and loan associations mobilised €163,000 in savings, loans and social funds, helping thousands of people access credit for farming, education and small business. Our ICSP-funded LIFE programme addresses livelihoods, innovation, food and entrepreneurship. Last year, hundreds of farmers adopted technologies to improve rice cultivation and grow vegetables. The results are exceptional. Rice yields have increased tenfold and cassava yields threefold. These improvements have boosted income, food availability and women's agency in farming households.

However, our work is increasingly vulnerable to the impact of shrinking aid budgets. Over the last decade, ODA has provided roughly 10% of each country's GDP and aid cuts are having major impacts. Liberia's health system is visibly deteriorating. Our teams see hospitals without medicines, short of gloves and sanitiser, with unpaid community health workers and ambulances without fuel. Staff in the ministry of health have to make impossible choices between supporting HIV patients, maternal health needs and community health assistants. They cannot provide for all of them.

The national co-ordination of food security, nutrition and health work has been hugely impactful, but aid cuts have led to avoidable life-threatening situations. Severe acute malnutrition has doubled since 2022. There are no ready-to-use therapeutic or supplementary foods in stock. In agreement with the ministry of health, we are using locally made pastes to try to treat malnourished children. Following a recent nutrition survey in Liberia, three acutely malnourished children died before a follow-up team could return. This is the appalling reality of budget cuts.

Sierra Leone and Liberia are powerful examples of Ireland's values-based approach to ODA. The support Concern has received from Irish Aid and the in-country embassies shows what sustained, principled investment can achieve. With so many donors scaling back, Ireland's consistent engagement is critical, both as a donor and as a trusted partner supporting national priorities. I thank the committee.

Mr. Conor Molloy:

I am joining the members today from Nairobi, Kenya.

Trócaire is the overseas humanitarian and development agency of the Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference. We are part of the Caritas Internationalis network globally and we work in about 20 countries. We work around four key goal areas: democracy and human rights; climate and environmental justice; women and girls' protection, voice and leadership; and humanitarian preparedness and response.

I thank the committee for inviting us to discuss Sierra Leone. I also thank it, on behalf of Trócaire, our staff in Sierra Leone and the communities and partners we work with, for the continued support of the Irish Government. We have never taken that support for granted, but over the last 15 to 18 months its true value has been placed in stark juxtaposition to the actions of other agencies.

The support provided through the ICSP programme, bilateral Irish Aid support through the embassy in Freetown and generous public giving are critical to a country urgently in need of investment, innovation and action.

Sierra Leone ranks 185th out of 193 countries on the human development index and 180th out of 187 on the ND-GAIN climate index. It is the 15th-lowest ranked country on the global hunger index and experiences hunger levels on a par with parts of the Horn of Africa. While one third of households now have access to electricity, in rural areas that figure falls to just 5%. Nationwide, women continue to experience extraordinarily high levels of gender-based violence, alongside limited opportunities for political participation, economic agency and having their voices heard.

I want to speak briefly to four aspects of our work to address these challenges, each made possible by Irish public funding. The first is our approach to partnership. Trócaire works with and through local partners. Our partners lead the work in their communities. We provide funding, technical accompaniment and core organisational support. Crucially, we fund the strengthening of partner organisations themselves and not just the activities they deliver. We currently work with 18 local partners across six districts, and every one of them is meeting or exceeding their own capacity-strengthening targets. Our partnership approach aims to advance organisational capacity support to help build a more robust civil society.

Second is our gender and women's empowerment work. Sierra Leone has long been the incubator country for Trócaire’s gender programming. We have developed bespoke methodologies that we now use across multiple countries. Working with women and men, we help them to question the social norms that hold women back, and have seen tangible results. Women now hold over 43% of leadership positions in the formal community decision-making structures where we support this work. Additionally, our partner Rainbo runs one-stop centres for survivors of gender-based violence, providing medical, psychosocial and legal support under one roof.

Third is our work on climate. With Ireland’s Civil Society Partnership for A Better World, ICSP, funding, we have helped establish the Climate Change Advocacy Network, a locally led network of agencies working together for joint advocacy on climate change issues. The network has been invited by the Government of Sierra Leone to help monitor the country's nationally determined contribution. Through it, our partners successfully campaigned for agroecological approaches to be formally recognised in Sierra Leone’s NDC 3.0, meaning the sustainable farming methods we support at the community level through ICSP funding are now embedded in the country's national climate plan.

I also want to touch on the Lite Salone project, which is funded in part by Irish Aid via the embassy in Freetown. It is an innovative energy-as-a-service initiative that brings together communities, local partners, donors and the private sector. Purchasing solar kits is unaffordable for most households and rent-to-own models are also out of reach or do not include long-term maintenance or support. Donor-funded giveaway models can reach people quickly and at scale, but the long-term sustainability and durability of the kits remain key challenges. What we are piloting is different. We run it more like a utility, or energy as a service. Households pay the equivalent of approximately €2.50 a month. In return, they receive a solar home system, guaranteed maintenance, battery replacement when needed and responsible decommissioning at the end of the kit's life. We are testing the sustainability of this model to operate for several years. We are also trying to figure out how much of the operating cost a modest monthly fee can cover. The gap then becomes the subsidy requirement that donors can plan around. We have now installed over 8,000 kits in Kambia District in northern Sierra Leone, with another 2,100 awaiting installation. We have an additional 5,800 on order. We have seen a crowding-in effect. The Government of Iceland is directly co-funding the project, and we have in-kind support from GIZ and the European Union, with ongoing discussions with them and others for potential scale-up. What is unusual about this project is that Irish Aid was willing to fund the learning, not just the kits.

Every example I have shared exists because of Irish public funding. Our partners, our staff in Sierra Leone and the communities they serve are deeply grateful. We look forward to welcoming the committee in June and showing them this work in person.

Ms Ciara Smullen:

I am the CEO of Sightsavers Ireland. I am joined today by my colleague Ms Emma Murphy, the head of communications and public affairs. I thank the committee for the opportunity to participate this afternoon, and for its continued leadership in supporting Ireland's international development commitments.

Sightsavers Ireland is an international development organisation focused on eliminating avoidable blindness and promoting equal rights for people with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries. Over the past two decades, Sightsavers Ireland has worked with Irish Aid to strengthen systems, empower communities and improve people's lives in west and central Africa through a sustainable and locally led approach. Specifically, through the ICSP grant, we implement programmes in eye health, inclusive education, inclusive citizenship, climate action and global citizenship education. For the purposes of today's meeting, I am pleased to brief the committee on Sightsavers Ireland's work in Sierra Leone and Liberia specifically.

As the committee will have heard from my esteemed colleagues, Sierra Leone is one of the poorest countries in the world, with very limited eye care infrastructure and human resources, particularly ophthalmologists, which has led to a significant burden of blindness across the population. Sightsavers has worked in Sierra Leone for over 60 years, and today we support inclusive eye health services across all five regions in the country, alongside programmes that promote inclusive citizenship for people with disabilities, particularly the youth. Our current programme works to reach over 329,000 people across the country with eye health services by 2027, more than half of them women.

In the past decade, key outcomes in the area of eye health are clearly evident and have been captured in a recently published report, the Sierra Leone Eye Health System Assessment. This assessment reflects on how far Sierra Leone has come since 2013 in strengthening its eye health systems. Some of these achievements include a national eye health policy and a strategic plan that aims to integrate eye health into the broader health system; expanded service delivery, with eye health units now present in most district hospitals; and a growth in the eye health workforce, where the number of trained eye health personnel has increased significantly, further boosted by growing in country training opportunities. Perhaps one of the most important markers of progress is that there are stronger partnerships and co-ordination, where there has been a transmission from fragmented, partner-led interventions to a more co-ordinated national system, with improved collaboration between Government and civil society partners.

Our work in Sierra Leone also supports disability inclusion through our civic participation programme. Through the programme, young women and men with disabilities are engaging in decision-making, influencing policy and taking on leadership roles. We have made remarkable progress in advancing the empowerment of women and girls with disabilities in civic and political life. Working in close collaboration with organisations of persons with disabilities, OPDs, Government ministries, local authorities, civil society organisations and grassroots networks in Sierra Leone, we have ensured that women with disabilities are not only included but are actively shaping decision-making and expanding their leadership roles.

In Liberia, our primary focus is on building a sustainable national eye health system. As in Sierra Leone, we are working with the Ministry of Health and local partners to strengthen services across all levels, from community outreach to hospitals. In the past year alone, national and county eye health steering committees have been established and community engagement has deepened, with women's groups and OPDs shaping service delivery. Eye screenings have more than doubled, with women and girls making up more than half of those reached.

Liberia and Sierra Leone are also leading our work in climate-resilient healthcare, with renewable energy ensuring continuity of services during climate shocks and national power outages. Across both countries with our ICSP climate funding allocation, climate adaptation has been integrated into health, education and governance systems. Renewable energy installations have been introduced. In Sierra Leone, participatory workshops with youth with disabilities on climate impact led to a memorandum of understanding, MOU, between disability organisations, youth climate actors, Freetown City Council and Sightsavers to collaborate on climate adaptation.

Across both countries, there are clear and tangible results showing impact. In 2025 alone, over 4,000 cataract surgeries were delivered, restoring sight, more than half of them for women. Some 980 teachers and assistants were trained on short health courses to support them in identifying eye health conditions at an early stage. Perhaps more important is the systems change we see. Inclusive eye health is embedded in national plans, inclusion is integrated into governance and communities are taking leadership. However, this progress is under real pressure. Recent cuts from major donors, including FCDO and USAID, are already impacting delivery. For example, in both Sierra Leone and Liberia we are seeing many international organisations withdrawing from both countries due to a lack of funding, which is putting serious pressures on the services of the organisations that remain. There are significant pressures on health budgets, particularly in Liberia, which relied quite heavily on US funding. At a time when public health risks are on the increase, with conditions such as mpox prevalent, the system is increasingly exacerbated. Government-funded programmes supporting education are stalling due to reduced funding and other activities are being reduced to a limited number of districts across the countries. More recently, we are once again seeing the impact of economic pressures, currency fluctuations and the significant rise in fuel costs. All of these pressures combined are slowing progress and putting hard-fought gains at risk.

Despite these challenges, the story from Sierra Leone and Liberia, for a Sightsavers perspective, is one of real progress, recognised nationally, grounded in partnership and aligned with Ireland's values.

Crucially though, it is also at a precarious moment of risk. The critical support from the Government of Ireland has enabled us to restore sight, strengthen systems and expand opportunities for people with disabilities. With continued commitment we can ensure these gains are not only protected but built upon.

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

I thank Ms Smullen.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all the witnesses for coming in and for all the work they do in Sierra Leone and Liberia. It is very important work and I am delighted to get an introduction to it all.

On the funding from Ireland, how much has that been cut from each grouping? How much are they down? Are they down a lot of money from what they used to get? Maybe I will start with Mr. Crowley.

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

Ireland is one of the very few countries that has not cut its aid budget.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It has not cut it.

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

In 2024 only Ireland and Spain increased their budgets and there were three or four others that did not cut. For 2025, I am trying to remember the OECD DAC report. I think there were five countries that increased very slightly. Ireland is very much an outlier. The main cuts have come from the main donors. The US provided a third of global ODA, GB is cutting 40% of its overall budget, Germany is cutting half of its humanitarian budget and making significant cuts to its development budget and there is France as well. Ireland is an outlier. We recognise that and it is something we all think is very important and needs to be sustained.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. Mr. Rynne may go ahead.

Mr. John Rynne:

I concur with what Mr. Crowley said. To give a very specific example, we recently had a live grant awarded by the British Government cancelled because of its own funding cuts. That was providing clean water to rural populations. That was completely cancelled last month because of that government's internal cuts. I echo what Mr. Crowley said. Irish Aid and the Government have stood fast with consistent support, which has really helped us.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to see that. That is very good because Ireland always goes the most humane route as far as I can see. On Ireland's position with the EU, are there no guidelines that the EU would give the same amount of money as Ireland is?

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

No. The aid budget for the EU is folded within the MFF discussions. As members know probably better than I do, the seven-year period will finish at the end of 2027 and 2028 will begin the next seven-year period. We imagine a key part of the Irish Presidency of the Council will be taken up with MFF negotiations but really the nuts and bolts will not be finalised by the end of next year. The EU budget is supposed to be complementary but it is independent of member states' budgets.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

All right. When some of the witnesses were talking I noticed there were similarities in some of the work they do. Is that good value for money or would one organisation be safer concentrating on individual aspects? Or is there collaboration between the organisations?

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

Nobody else is jumping forward. We are not all in the same countries, we are not all doing the same programmes and we are not all in the same geographic areas. In every single country programme there will be co-operation between the NGOs - there is nearly always an NGO forum - and with the United Nations as well. Especially with humanitarian crises there will be a humanitarian country team which will have the heads of UN agencies and representative groups of NGO country directors. They will make sure there is no duplication and no gaps, to the extent possible. The problem with the aid cuts is the gaps are going to get wider and deeper.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Crowley. Turning to Mr. Molloy from Trócaire, I was very interested in the Lite Salone project he discussed. How far into the ten-year test on that is his organisation?

Mr. Conor Molloy:

I thank the Deputy. Let me clarify that the ambition and the goal from the Irish embassy and Irish Aid is that we would create a model that could run for ten years supporting people who do not have a realistic opportunity to be connected to the grid within that time. We are not going to run this project for ten years. It is a pilot project trying to test the business model to see what that model could look like for that amount of time. We are at this point about 15 months into that project. We have about another year or so to gather that information and data.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is shocking in this day and age that we still have not got electricity to everywhere in the world. It shows how privileged we are. I thank Mr. Molloy again for all his work on that.

I was also interested in the prohibition of child marriage. Mr. Rynne discussed that. I am wondering how that is developed or how it is progressing. Have there been good results from it? Has it stopped?

Mr. John Rynne:

Realistically speaking, no. The law as enacted is a formal recognition of the problems associated with child marriage. To be frank and clear it is a long work in progress to trickle that down to active 100% compliance. The backbone of having legislation on the cards in a country where, until very recently, child marriage was normalised and now it has essentially been made illegal is a major victory. The committee will see when it travels to Sierra Leone that like Ireland it is a very small country. The NGOs, like Concern, Trócaire, us and so on are very connected to all levels of the government. From GOAL's perspective, we have been involved in lobbying and advocating for the legislation to come through. The access to senior politicians and the people who run Freetown and so on is good and allows us to have a voice that we do not have to the same level in other countries that are much larger and more complicated. The short answer is that it is a starting point and it will be a long time until we get to the end.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is very welcome, so well done on the continued work on that.

My last question is on Ebola. How is that in Sierra Leone and Liberia at the moment?

Mr. John Rynne:

Sierra Leone is fine on it. We are monitoring the situation in Uganda and are about to deploy an emergency team there. We are taking a very significant amount of the learning we accrued working on the Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone and also at the time in Liberia and translating that into effective action in Uganda. Uganda is the epicentre as the Deputy is probably well aware. It seems to be a particularly virulent strain. The comparison would be with the previous strain that was present in Sierra Leone for which there were vaccines and clear treatment protocols, but there are not for this strain, so it is even more important-----

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a different strain.

Mr. John Rynne:

Yes, so avoidance, early detection and community mobilisation are really important with this. That was a feature of how Sierra Leone overcame the Ebola outbreak.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How many people were affected in Sierra Leone?

Mr. John Rynne:

I cannot remember but the numbers were vast and a very large number of people died. There were a lot of behavioural issues to do with burial practices and care of bodies that led to the spread of it, so there was a lot of behaviour change. It is not just the care of it but the wider context of limiting as well.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all the witnesses for answering my questions.

Ms Ciara Smullen:

I might come in on the statistics on people who lost their lives to Ebola. If memory serves, it was 4,000 in Sierra Leone and 2,000 in Liberia, so 6,000 in total over the two- to three-year period it was epidemic in those countries.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How many people have been affected in Uganda?

Mr. John Rynne:

I think the latest was over 200 to date. The issue with Uganda is it is coming in from the DRC, which it is really hard to gain information on. It is clear even now the number declared is much less than what the reality is on the ground. That is the worry.

Cathy Bennett (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was said earlier there are health risks because there are not the hospitals and healthcare systems in place. Are they in place in Uganda?

Mr. John Rynne:

Uganda is very experienced in dealing with Ebola outbreaks. It is probably next after Sierra Leone and Liberia. It has dealt, I think, with 16 or 17 outbreaks even as recently as 2025.

The problem we have, as already discussed, is that this particular strain has its unique challenges because it is highly contagious and because there are no vaccines. Uganda, however, would have very robust systems in place. For example, it has already cancelled really significant festivals that were planned for this week. I think one was Martyrs' Day. Uganda has therefore taken proactive action, but it is a matter of stemming the virus coming in from DRC. Where it is in DRC is a particularly lawless area that has local issues about conflict, informal gold mining and so on as well, so it is difficult to manage.

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

We will let that go because Ebola came up and I think it is something the committee will look at further down the road. We might do a special session on Ebola. We will be in touch with you by then.

I am next. I will not use up all my time but I do want to range across a few issues. I will start with Ms Smullen and Ms Murphy just because their organisation is quite specific and focused. What brings Sightsavers specifically to Sierra Leone and Liberia as opposed to other countries?

Ms Ciara Smullen:

Sightsavers is a very evidence- and research-based organisation. We actually have an accredited independent research organisation in the UK with our sister global organisation. Research and evidence underpin everything we do. Quite often, before we work in a country, we undertake what is called a rapid assessment of avoidable blindness, RAAB. This has been undertaken both in Sierra Leone and in Liberia. What is found from both RAABs is the fact that the prevalence of avoidable blindness is very high. The main cause of avoidable blindness is the likes of cataracts, which, as we all know, is an avoidable condition that if not treated leads to blindness. The evidence we undertake through those RAABs informs our decision in terms of a targeted approach in the countries in which we work. The fact that the health systems are quite weak was mentioned earlier. We operate on a system-strengthening approach to ensure that eye health is embedded into those systems and that access to eye healthcare is available for women, men and children across both countries.

Ms Emma Murphy:

Ms Smullen has outlined the general approach we take. We are also a pan-disability organisation. That probably is not given in the name, but we work in inclusive citizenship and with a pan-disability approach. In Sierra Leone we have a really strong inclusive citizenship programme under the ICSP grant, which is bringing particularly youth with disabilities to the fore and getting them actively engaged in day-to-day political life and non-political life, as the case may be. Ms Smullen has spoken heavily about Liberia. In Liberia we work in just eye health as a thematic. It is very much a system-strengthening approach from local to national government and all the way through, embedding the eye health programme right across all facets of government.

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

Just by coincidence, I met with Richard Bennett, who is UN rapporteur for issues in Afghanistan, but he started his career as UN rep in Sierra Leone. He talked to us about the child soldiers and the awful disabilities left after that. Who could speak to that briefly?

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

I worked in Liberia in the late eighties and then in 1992 and 1993, and you would come across child soldiers for whom the rifles they were carrying were longer than they were. For all the negotiations you could do with older men, as for kids who had come up knowing only war, there were no normal frames of reference to engage them with, so you would much rather be stopped by teenagers and men at a checkpoint than by child soldiers. Charles Taylor was particularly fond of using child soldiers in a couple of the counties as front-line troops. He would dose them up with drugs and send them out and tell them they were invincible. I was quite friendly with some of the Christian Brothers who were working in the centre of the country. They were trying to do rehabilitation work and they got targeted by the NPFL, Charles Taylor's forces, as a result of the work they were doing with child soldiers.

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

Some of them were left with terrible disabilities.

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

Particularly in Sierra Leone, the way in which limbs, whether arms or legs, were just chopped off with machetes was a very deliberate and consistent facet of the way the RUF conducted the war. It was a weapon of terror. You could not go into a village that had fallen to the RUF and not see mass amputations. It was absolutely horrific. It is one of the things I find most difficult to see, to be honest.

Sorry, Ms Smullen. I do not want to take up all the time.

Ms Ciara Smullen:

I do not have a huge amount to add, only the fact that we work across organisations of persons with disabilities, and people who have been left with disabilities from these atrocities would come into that category and would be a part of these groups. We work alongside these organisations to ensure that people are aware of their rights and that they have access to healthcare and to government systems. It is very much, as Ms Murphy mentioned, a pan-disability approach. We do not look into how they came to have their disabilities; it is more about addressing the challenges and supporting the challenges they face.

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

Anyone may take this question. These are countries, in terms of food resources, that are, I will not say "food rich" but relatively fertile - lush to some degree. What challenges do they face in terms of being able to capitalise on those resources?

Ms Dee da Silva:

Looking at GOAL's work in Sierra Leone, we work around the area of the blue economy, reaching out to over 150,000 people. When we were looking at the system, we had to look at the whole fishing system, from the catch to whether it is a legal catch, whether the people can actually ensure that it is safely maintained and brought to market and they have access to market. What we found was that they struggled with cold food storage and being able to access finance. We worked with the communities and the ministry for fisheries around this area. As regards one of the things we did, with the savings-to-loan scheme, individuals and particularly women, who are a valuable part of the fish value chain, are able to secure their own cash through the savings they would have made throughout the assistance programme and to ensure they had the income to be able to purchase motors or boats or repair equipment in order to secure food and nutrition in the form of fish, which 53% of the population in Sierra Leone depend on. We found that identifying local partners that were able to help, including the Energy Nexus Network, which provides the solar cold management facilities in Sierra Leone, really added value in order to secure nutritious food for the people in Sierra Leone.

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

Thank you for that.

Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming in and for their very detailed opening statements. I have huge admiration for the work they do. I was involved in orphanages in Sri Lanka on a far smaller scale. I have huge admiration for the people who work for the organisations represented by the witnesses and who are on the ground. People do not realise that a lot of these people are out there away from their families. It is almost a vocation. I know the reward they get out of seeing some positives as well. Reading the opening statements, I had so much déjà vu with what I have seen in Sri Lanka over the past few years. Still, I see some green shoots as well. However, we read figures like an average daily spend of €1.25 per person, and Mr. Molloy said that only 5% of people in rural areas have access to electricity.

As Deputy Bennett said, that should not be happening. I will throw three or four questions at the witnesses and they can share answering. I am also keen to bring in Mr. Molloy who is online too.

First, I do not understand how rich Sierra Leone could be when you look at its gold, diamonds, iron ore and titanium, when we are all quoting that it is the poorest country in Africa. Second, are the governments in both countries capable of making a long-term plan? The work the groups here are doing is fantastic but I am wondering about the long term in relation to sight, poverty and every area. What do we need, keeping in mind we are all frightened of the complete budget cuts? Fair play to Ireland for standing up but I am thinking of the major countries which are providing multiples of what Ireland is providing.

With my tourism hat on, I have read about the country. I want to go there and would love to see it. I keep going back to Sri Lanka. Tourism is pulling it through now. The word being used in a lot of the reports I have read about Sierra Leone especially is that it is actually safe now. “Now” is the key word.

I touched on the government earlier. Is there endemic corruption there in the government? I am worried about whether the governments are capable of bringing these countries out of the horrific mess there at the moment. Ms Smullen can start if she wants.

Ms Ciara Smullen:

I thank Deputy Brennan for his comments. I will speak specifically on Sightsavers and its work around eye health services. Through our ICSP grant with Irish Aid, as part of our memorandum of understanding, we have a benchmark that is very committed to seeing the progress of governments taking further our increased level of ownership of their eye health services in-country. We can see progress in our annual report for last year that outlines the 2025 achievements. We can see the Ministry of Health within Sierra Leone taking further ownership of its eye health systems. It has created a national eye health plan. It has integrated its eye health services down to both a regional and a district level. We are seeing progress within the Ministry of Health, certainly, and the government in taking ownership of that particular area of the health system.

Increasingly, they are also looking at human resource development and bringing training opportunities for ophthalmologists within country whereas five years ago, if you wanted to be an ophthalmologist in Sierra Leone you had to leave the country and get trained elsewhere. The government is taking ownership of that piece. We also see equal signs of that in Liberia. However, the health system in Liberia is a little bit more strained. In terms of those particular ministries, we are seeing a huge commitment to development. We work very closely alongside the various ministries, both in Sierra Leone and in Liberia. I wanted to address that question specifically around eye health.

Mr. Conor Molloy:

On the question of whether the government is capable of this, I will link it in with some of the energy poverty and energy deficit in Sierra Leone. Since the government came in and was re-elected, there has been a focus on energy and particularly renewable energy. They are very much capable of this. This initiative was led by Dr. Kandeh Yumkella, the former United Nations under-secretary-general and the special representative for the Secretary-General on sustainable energy for all. He was also previously the chairman of UN-Energy and a two-term director general for the United Nations Industrial Development Organization. They had very capable people running these initiatives who know how to operate at international level at an extremely high level. It is a long-term initiative with a lot of foresight to try to electrify a country that is one of the least electrified countries in the world. As the Deputy said, money has left the system over the past year and a half or so and those challenges will become even more difficult. However, I do think there is a vision there and given the right enabling environment and support they are able to address some of those issues.

On tourism, infrastructure is a huge challenge in Sierra Leone. Dr. Paul Collier, the former chief economist in the World Bank, in his book Left Behind, which was published about a year and a half ago, categorically states that Freetown is the capital city in the world with the worst infrastructure of any capital city, and it only gets worse when you leave Freetown. It is a remarkable country - it is gorgeous, it is beautiful and has so much to offer – but the lack of infrastructure is a major impediment to that tourism sector growing.

Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am conscious of time. Can I get a comment on my first point of how there is so much wealth out there and yet so much poverty? Will Mr. Rynne come in on that?

Mr. John Rynne:

Frankly speaking, the system is not in place, as it is not in a lot of our countries, where the wealth is trickled down. There is definitely massive potential in the country but there is not a fair and equitable distribution of the resources. To give a simple example, when you go to Freetown one thing you will see is a massive ship anchored off the coast. It is a Turkish ship full of generators that powers the city.

I would echo what Mr. Molloy is saying. There is a government in place there. It is consistent and reliable but can it do more? The answer is “Yes”. It has the potential to do a lot more. Compared with other countries we work with in Africa I have a much higher level of confidence in the Sierra Leonean Government. There is plenty of potential in the country for sure.

Brian Brennan (Wicklow-Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Apologies. I have to go to another meeting now. Thank you.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their own work on this personally and that of their organisations. It obviously has a huge impact on the quality of people’s lives.

I will pick up on Mr. Rynne’s comment on Sierra Leone which relates to one of the questions I was going to ask. We are interested in the humanitarian situation but also the political situation. He has given us a fairly concise sense of where things are at politically in relation to Sierra Leone. Is there a similar picture politically with Liberia? I understand that after the last election there was a transition of power. How fair the elections are is a question that might be contested at times and maybe the witnesses are constrained in what they can say but let me put it this way: are the organisations reliant on a relative degree of political stability? Is it the case that their outcomes have been improved because there has been a degree of political stability in both countries in recent years? I am happy for any organisation to respond.

Ms Reka Sztopa:

I will come in on Liberia. There was an election a year and a half ago and there was a peaceful transition of power. We very much rely on engaging with government both at the local and national levels, feeding into national development plans and national policies, and aligning our work with that.

Similarly, in Sierra Leone there is an election coming up in 2028. There is a lot of work behind the scenes to ensure that will be a peaceful transition. However, there are signs of tension.

It is important to highlight that Sierra Leone and Liberia are quite stable countries but that stability is fragile, and there is a lot of fragility in the countries surrounding them as well. The economic indicators and the focus on economic well-being and development is very important for that stability.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sure that at lots of forums very different African countries can sometimes be thrown in with together when we talk about some of the humanitarian situations on the continent. The political and economic situations are very diverse and varied. We had discussions here on the impact of the USAID cuts to various projects in Africa. There was a particular concern for the impact on projects supporting the treatment and prevention of AIDS. Countries in southern Africa, including South Africa itself, are very concerned about this. Are the cuts to these projects likely to have an impact on either Sierra Leone or Liberia? What is the scale of that? People are talking about potentially millions of AIDS-related deaths across the continent as a whole over the next ten or 15 years because of the cutbacks. Is this something we are, sadly, likely to see in Sierra Leone or Liberia?

Ms Reka Sztopa:

I can come in first. Liberia's annual budget is €1.2 billion. Before the cuts, USAID's bilateral contribution and to NGO ODA was €400 million last year. It is projected to be only €150 million at the most, so it is quite a significant cut. We are seeing the impacts of that on health supplies in hospitals and health centres in our ability to treat malnutrition. There are no ready-to-use therapeutic foods available anywhere in Liberia to treat severe acute malnutrition.

We are seeing very similar impacts in Sierra Leone. Traditionally, the British Government would fund Sierra Leone more heavily than Liberia, but like GOAL we have had about a £6 million cut to our flagship Saving Lives in Sierra Leone health project there. We are seeing impacts across both countries in water sanitation, health and the education sector as well.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps all the organisations might comment on this but I would like to make a brief contribution. Nobody is probably in a position to fill the huge gap left by USAID. Debt forgiveness has also come up as part of the agenda. I do not know whether any of the organisations want to touch on that. We could go from left to right. Do the witnesses from Sightsavers want to say something on the issue?

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

Anything that can be done to alleviate debt should be done. The amount governments are individually and collectively paying just on the interest that has accrued on the debt - they are not even paying off the capital – is ruinous to economies. Deputy Brennan asked a question about whether governments can plan going forward. If they are firefighting and struggling just to make ends meet, it massively reduces their ability to put significant, serious long-term planning into place. If a significant part of a country's income is being taken to pay off debts, then there is no money to be spent. If ODA was plugging some of the gap to replace the moneys that had gone on debt relief and, as Ms Sztopa said, the ODA has gone already, it is just compounding an already bad situation. Anything that can be done should be done.

Mr. John Rynne:

I might come in as well. I will combine that question with his previous question about USAID and similar cuts we are encountering. I concur fully with what Mr. Crowley says. We are faced with cuts but also with a restriction on how to spend the money that is being allocated. For example, a very strong approach of US Government funding is purely life-saving. All of us today emphasised the role the Irish Government and the Irish taxpayer has played in supporting us to work with the Sierra Leone Government on long-term solutions to problems. The fact that a lot of the current funding is life-saving only means that when the malnourished child recovers the support is withdrawn, only for the child to probably be malnourished once again in three or four months and then to receive treatment again. The previous approach was very much on preventing the child getting to that stage but also enabling the family to ensure the child would not fall down at the next hurdle. It is becoming both narrower focused and less, almost in a retrogressive step, probably aligned with how we were funded 20 or 30 years ago, whereas the Irish Government has remained steady in its overall approach to longer term solutions.

Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses very much for coming in. I might just speak a bit about the bigger picture, going back to the aid cuts but also thinking about the opportunities for Ireland as we hold the EU Presidency. I hear the message of the witnesses about Ireland being a principled partner rather than donor and the history of Irish Aid and how critical it has been in the space. We talk about USAID a lot but of course loads of EU member states have cut their aid budgets, including very credible partners such as the Scandinavians, which are very focused on human rights and women's empowerment issues. There is a massive role for the Irish to play as part of the EU Presidency in terms of that piece.

What are the feelings of the witnesses on the new multi-annual financial framework we are seeing from the EU, which has quite concerning conditionalities that are now being tied to aid? Work streams and budget lines that were previously ring-fenced for certain work in the peacebuilding and stability space are being amalgamated. There is concern about that. Mr. Crowley referred to the dividends of peace in his statement and how important that is. What are the implications of the peacebuilding work, which is linked to women's empowerment and to gender-based violence, being removed? I also refer to the move to conditional aid. What will that mean for the values and the relationship we currently have with the governments of Sierra Leone and Liberia, which is partnership based, if we then start putting conditionalities on that aid? How will it change the relationship? What impact will it have on the work of the organisations? We have done so well in the aid sector to move away from paternalism. If we move back to that, what are the long-term implications for communities in regard to capacity strengthening rather than building? Anyone can answer that. Maybe the witnesses can take turns.

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

I will start and then the others can come in. I thank the Senator. It is a horrible question. We could probably be here all week debating it. There will be a discussion in the European affairs committee next week and part of it will include the MFF and the European global facility.

To pick up on the first point about the cuts in aid, they are massive. If we look at the EU member states, central and eastern European members are substantially not even reporting on their aid budgets so we do not even know what they would have been if they existed. At least some of the EU member states with larger ODA budgets have been consistently reporting on it, albeit that they are all now going in the wrong direction.

The Senator's questions about the MFF and the amalgamation of INTPA, ECHO and maybe some other streams into the European global facility is of great concern. If ECHO's overseas budget is not protected, there is a real concern that it would follow the example of INTPA and become an instrument for the delivery of the global gateway. If we look at INTPA's budget, approximately 10% of it now goes to fragile states, which is where the entirety of ECHO's goes.

If ECHO goes into the global facility as a junior partner, then the question is whether it will be able to retain the specificity of its humanitarian identity and of its budget to allow it to focus on the most neglected crises in the world, which, substantially, brings it to fragile contexts?

Mr. John Rynne:

I thank the Senator very much for the question. This is something we have been talking about. Let me answer as best I can. As Ireland takes on the Presidency of the European Union, there will be to advocate in respect of a couple of key points. Let me try to reiterate from GOAL's perspective what we might think is important. Not alone are we seeing a cut in ODA from European countries, we are also seeing almost the same switch to defence spending, which is understandable. However, it seems a bitter pill to swallow that we have to cut ODA and then switch the money directly into defence. In that context, we would like it if Ireland could encourage a commitment to maintain ODA while recognising that the countries have other priorities, particularly in the eastern part of the European Union.

Second, the UN system is critical to our daily work. Members probably see it from the large perspective in New York and so on. For us on the ground in most of the countries we work in, it is a really important partner that helps us co-ordinate and access, funds us, advocates on our behalf and helps us in relationships with governments. It is under substantial attack at the moment, however. Ireland has a really strong voice in supporting the UN as an international body that supports us. There is also a strong focus on trade versus aid, and one or the other or both. This is something that can be both beneficial for Ireland and for the countries we work in, but it does seem to be adopting a language more of extraction that if a country wants aid, it has to open markets. It is a very forceful thing rather than looking at it in the context of a constructive relationship.

Ms Emma Murphy:

Not to duplicate anything that has been mentioned by my colleagues, but I suppose the Presidency does provide an opportunity. It does not come around very often. The Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, spoke in Brussels yesterday about having conversations around the MFF. What we do have within the organisations is a lot of collaboration here in Ireland to be able to tell stories to the Irish public, which is a really positive avenue we try to explore through our global citizenship education programmes in the context of the programmatic elements we are briefing the committee on today but also to disseminate information to the Irish public.

Senator Higgins was at the launch of Vision 2030 and spoke very passionately about the impacts of global citizenship education. Ireland is at the point where we have increased our ODA budget and are trying to hold our ODA budget and show that impact right across the board. In order to do that, however, we need the support of the Irish public and the Government. In that context, it is about telling those stories on a collaborative basis. We are all involved in the global solidarity hub, which is a unique part of the ICSP programme through global citizenship education. In terms of the development of the programmatic performance and using the EU Presidency, there will be an opportunity from July onwards. However, there is also an opportunity up to July because the Presidency has effectively started for us. The preparations for that began late last year, so there is capacity for us to continue to do that over the next six to eight months.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am glad that the issue of debt has been touched on. The 10% ODA is relied on. If I am reading the figures correctly, however, we are looking at about 50% of GDP every year going on debt, debt payment and debt financing. That is literally half the budget, which answers the question of where the money is and where it is going. It is going into not just debt but also debt refinancing at increasingly high interest rates and so forth. It is a good point in terms of what can be done in forcing the debt conversation with countries that may not be willing to allocate their annual ODA amounts that they have been doing, and for Ireland to exert moral pressure in relation to the discussion on debt forgiveness and on ending of debt and debt alleviation, but also on the question of refinancing, drawdown rights and all those things that are part of that. There are further issues about what position Ireland should be taking. I hope this is something we have discussed as a committee, and that idea of morally championing the importance of ODA and the values within it. That is one aspect.

The other is climate. I would like to hear a little more about climate. I appreciate that Trócaire discussed the nationally defined contribution and those countries it has supported. This is an area in which I have experience. I should declare that I worked with Trócaire in the past. I went to countries like Malawi and saw the efforts being made to reduce their emissions footprint. We need to be realistic, however. I was not sure, because I had seen a few figures, but I looked and discovered that certain countries have between ten and 50 times more emissions per capita than, for example, Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone has a tiny fraction per person of the emissions that Ireland and other countries are producing. During its Presidency, Ireland will be representing Europe at the climate talks. This is important in terms of advocacy and maybe facilitating a channel from the kinds of on-the-ground advocates a number of the witnesses have spoken about with whom they are working in the climate space and the work they are doing at national level around emission reductions by these countries that already have tiny emissions. It is also a case of bringing that story up to the climate discussions level and what is going to be happening in Turkey. Can Ireland look to the ground link the witnesses have and facilitate that and be part of the discussion? Alongside debt forgiveness, adaptation funding, compensatory funding and other kinds of things will be discussed.

More specifically, can the witnesses comment on the green and blue economy? We know there has been a huge amount of overfishing by unmarked vessels. It is one thing to say that we are helping an industry come from the ground, but we have seen the aggressive stealing of fisheries. I also believe, if I have my figures right, that 2 million people on the islands of Sierra Leone are potentially going to be displaced by climate change.

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

I am sorry but the Senator is going to run out of time.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry. I will leave it with those two.

Mr. Conor Molloy:

I will make a comment.

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

Did Mr. Molloy get all that?

Mr. Conor Molloy:

Most of it, I hope. I thank the Senator. She is absolutely right. Climate impact emissions per person in Sierra Leone are not a concern for us. Our focus is around helping people in communities to adapt to climate change. As I said earlier, Sierra Leone is one of the most vulnerable countries in the world to the impacts of climate change. The work with the nationally determined contributions and the engagement with the Government is because it is a fantastic entry point for local agencies to be engaging and advocating with the Government and it can then translate policies, practices and approaches that we would like to see advanced and that our local partners would like to see advanced through the institutional structures there. Can we rely on the linkage to local partners through different mechanisms, including the Conference of the Parties, COP, coming up in Turkey? Absolutely. I have seen this first hand. I have attended COP conferences and have seen how impactful that can be when we get local partners that we often support to attend these conferences together with other people, including members of the Irish delegation, and how we then work with others in Ireland to link those stories from the ground through our policy advocacy teams that are engaging in those spaces.

I agree with the Senator wholeheartedly that reducing emissions per person in Sierra Leone is not the focus of our work. Similar to how many countries in Africa kind of bypassed landline telephones and went straight to cell phones, we are seeing the same thing. A country that needs to be electrified can do so by going to renewable energies without having to rely on fossil fuel dependent technologies.

As Mr. Rynne said earlier, those who will travel will soon see the powership in the harbour of Freetown. It is an astounding sight. Helping the country make this transition is a focus we can link in with Ireland's perspective.

Ms Dee da Silva:

I will deal with the question of waste and climate. There is a perfect example we could bring of public sector partnership in action. That happened place when GOAL realised that there were a number of health hazards and waterborne diseases emanating from the faecal sludge lining the streets of Sierra Leone. In 2021, GOAL worked with Freetown City Council and Water-Share Ireland, which is a group that includes advisers, technical experts and engineers in the area of water. Together, they designed, constructed and maintained the very first waste-to-energy plant in Freetown. When it was the rainy season, the water carrying the faecal sludge was flowing down the hilly terrain and contaminating everything as it made its way through the waterways. Today, the waste-to-energy plant we have in Freetown extracts 21% of Freetown's sludge and brings it to a plant where it is then put into geobags. The water drains out of the bags, is treated and then goes back into the sea.

The dried material is turned into smokeless briquettes. That is important because the majority of people in Sierra Leone heat their homes with charcoal. With thanks to ICSP funding, we are looking at obtaining an automated machine that will be able to roll out these smokeless briquettes. This will lead to a reduction in deforestation, cleaner air and a reduction in the number of health hazards. This is one way we have seen a transition and progress through public-private partnership. Leadership was mentioned, and in Sierra Leone we have signed a memorandum of understanding with the mayor of Freetown and Freetown City Council for the transition of the plant away from us and into the hands of the people of Sierra Leone. It is a collective and collaborative approach that takes waste and turns it into renewable energy, which has massive benefits.

I will make a point on the blue economy and overfishing.

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

Quickly.

Ms Dee da Silva:

On foot of what we have learnt in Honduras, Colombia and Haiti, we look at the traceability of fish. In the context of overfishing, we work with ministries of fisheries and co-operatives to look at securing certain fishing hours for local small artisan fishers who depend on it for their livelihoods and enable them to have certain legislative protections.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This has been touched on already, but it seems that a huge amount of progress has been made through investment by the witnesses' organisations and the Irish State in areas such as education and health outcomes. In both countries, particularly Liberia but probably in both countries equally, the physical infrastructure is a huge constraint. Mr. Molloy stated that there is no capital city in the world that is so poorly developed in terms of infrastructure than Freetown. Things like this are a challenge, particularly when cities are growing rapidly at the same time as a deficit in physical infrastructure. How can countries abroad address this? Does it come down to debt forgiveness and economic justice?

To come back to geopolitics, as USAID steps back and reduces its funding, other countries see political opportunities in this regard. I am not sure about these two particular countries but in other countries the People's Republic of China has offered significant investment. In many circumstances, governments find that this is a route worth pursuing. Is that pattern being seen in these two countries? Has it affected the political dispensation in both countries? The issue of the physical infrastructure is important. I am trying to imagine a situation where only 4% of a city in Ireland was served by a sewerage system and how much road would have to be ripped up and how much would have to be changed in order to try to put in place the necessary infrastructure. It is crucial for people's quality of life with regard to disease and illness. It is a huge challenge, even in the context of relative political stability.

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

Deputy Ó Laoghaire is spot on with his question. I do not think we should underestimate the appalling devastation that has been caused in both countries through the way in which the wars were fought. If we look at the battle for Freetown or the impact of Operation Octopus on Monrovia, we can see that whole areas were completely destroyed. Throughout the period of the conflict, any significant town or city was destroyed. We can look at how long it took to rebuild the Twin Towers and imagine rolling it out at scale across an entire country in which there has been massive devastation. That is in a context where the economy to rebuild is massively constrained. It will take decades but there are not decades available because while nothing is being done due to there not being the resources for it we have this growth. Populations are growing and the concentration in urban centres is growing. The stress and pressure on populations will grow ever greater.

We should be cautious about assuming that the Chinese expansion into political and economic relations is something new. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, it was commonplace. Liberia had the Samuel Kanyon Doe football stadium, which was one of a blueprint of four it could choose from in exchange for which it got very unfavourable trade deals, whereby China exported goods from Liberia. That is consistent. We welcome donors who put human rights requirements on aid, but China offers aid and free money without any conditionality attached. Most governments will go for that rather than for conditioned aid. It is an enormously difficult challenge. Once we start looking at these things and try to unpick them, they become more and more difficult. I apologise because that is not really an answer to Deputy's question; it is more a reflection on it.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A question arises from that, because I am interested in the language used. I am thinking about leaving certificate geography when we learnt about tied aid and untied aid. The message we picked up was that untied aid is better than tied aid. At the time, what we were learning in school was about IMF conditions and privatisation. It sounds as if in the current sphere and where we are now, more often the conditional aid is conditional on human rights clauses and perhaps the debate is different now to what it was then. Is different language being used? This is just off the top of my head, prompted by the use of language.

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

Deputy Ó Laoghaire obviously went to a very smart school.

Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was the standard textbook.

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

I will pick up on what Mr. Rynne said about it moving more towards trade as opposed to aid.

President Trump has made a very big speech on that in the last couple of weeks. Increasingly what we are seeing is: "We'll give you aid in return for preferential trade agreements." It is increasingly tied.

Ms Reka Sztopa:

I will make one additional point on infrastructure. In Liberia, for example, about 40% of the population lives with poor or no access to a primary road network. Beyond the middle of the country, there are no paved roads. Going back to the Chair's question about a country that should have a lot of agriculture and food production, one of the key things is food cannot get to market. We have been working a lot in the past decade on transitioning to looking at food systems and the value chain for products getting to market and to individuals. It is a big concern for youth who do not want to go into farming and for farmers who do not want to scale up because they know if they produce too much, they cannot sell on their products. Road and energy infrastructure has a big impact, especially in the rural communities where the extremely poor live.

Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It might be interesting to talk about the long term again. Humanitarian aid is really important but it links to infrastructure and the ability of individual countries to develop their own healthcare or education systems and deliver their own public services. The goal is to support countries to do that. Have the witnesses been working with education programming, whether with people with disabilities or women? Education is the link between humanitarian intervention and development programming. It is crucial. The witnesses have spoken about global civic education and how that is all tied into it. It would be interesting to hear in the context of Sierra Leone and Liberia - I have spent a bit of time in Sierra Leone but not in Liberia - about the chronic long-term humanitarian response. Is there donor fatigue? Are we moving into longer term development and response? Crises in places like South Sudan probably saw a lot of funding moved away from places like Sierra Leone and Liberia. After the horror of the conflicts there, time passed and people forgot about it.

Ms Ciara Smullen:

I will take the question on education from the perspective of Sightsavers. Under the Irish Aid funding grant, we do not have an education piece per se in Sierra Leone. However, through our citizenship and political participation piece, we run school civic clubs across four of the five regions in Sierra Leone, where we educate children around climate mitigation and adaptation and how they can mitigate with their own small measures. It is a small piece but it is cross-cutting in relation to education and longer term development.

Ms Reka Sztopa:

I can come in a little bit on both Sierra Leone and Liberia. In Sierra Leone over the past few years, the government has fully taken on primary education so there are now not many NGOs directly involved in it. Concern has worked with out-of-school youth, particularly out-of-school girls and young women, looking to get them back into the formal school system or for vocational opportunities into the economy.

In Liberia, we have seen a big impact on primary and secondary education with the US Government cuts. Approximately one third of the teachers and schools were supported through programmes. That has also had a large impact on school feeding programmes, for example. We recently began, through some funding, to work again in primary education. Education is one of the key links for decreasing malnutrition and improving health outcomes, maternal mortality outcomes and hygiene outcomes. All of that is quite connected and is a concern.

Ms Dee da Silva:

In the area of women and girls, we do not have one gender-specific programme. In actual fact, gender runs across all our programmes but we use a YoCARE approach. Through our adolescent sexual reproduction health programmes and social behaviour change, we are seeing tangible results. That is through peer mentoring, community dialogue and providing a space for young people to speak up about their concerns. Tangible results include a reduction in youth pregnancy from 4,383 in 2019 to 1,682 in 2025. Through our health programmes, more people are staying in school, particularly young women. I will give a small example of that. When it comes to Africa and maternal mortality, west Africa has had one of the highest rates for quite some time. To counteract that, we looked at getting more women and young girls attending antenatal care units. We found it was not just about telling them the benefits; it was about enabling a certain trust. A woman from a community will not go into a centre if she does not think the people have the qualifications to deliver the child or that the facilities are safe and clean.

We worked on two initiatives. The first thing was a clinical mentoring programmes. We did not get externals to come in and give the training. Instead, we trained existing healthcare workers in the Ministry of Health so that knowledge would continue on and they would mentor community healthcare staff, so almost immediately the woman has peace of mind that the person who will help deliver her baby has certain qualifications. That was with the support of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and the university of Kenema. It looked at competency assessments of the mentors and mentees to ensure they reached a certain standard. The second related to the facilities. We rolled out the WASH FIT assessment across 510 facilities. This is an improvement development framework by the World Health Organization to ensure community healthcare workers had access to clean water and could check whether measures were in place around infection prevention. All these things helped, particularly the mentoring and educational piece, and knowing it would last for quite some time within the community.

Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the locally led approach, working with existing institutions where feasible, and strengthening that capacity. That is the best model.

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

The reason the witnesses are here now is that members of the committee will soon visit Sierra Leone and Liberia. I have two questions for the witnesses to come back on, starting with Mr. Molloy. What can members expect to see? What do the witnesses recommend they see or take in during their visit?

Mr. Conor Molloy:

From a Trócaire perspective, I suggest two things that would be impactful. The first is the logistics to get there. These are off-grid communities that are essentially the furthest behind and have no hope of being connected to a grid. It might be a challenge, but if the time and logistics allow, seeing the installation of these solar kits into whole communities and being able to talk to people about the impact of that would be important.

The second would be around some of our gender and women's empowerment programming, particularly some of the sexual and gender-based violence prevention and response work. Again, it is an area of work that can be challenging to visit sometimes, particularly for men who are visiting, and more generally for anybody who is going to visit centres where this work happens. If the centre is responding to or working with clients, then visitors are not allowed at that time. It can make planning a little challenging but, again, it is impactful to be able to see the comprehensive nature of that.

Ms Dee da Silva:

First, members should definitely see the waste-to-energy plant in Freetown. It is exciting, and not only that, but the World Bank has expressed the possibility of expanding it and opening up something similar on the other side of town. That ticks a lot of boxes in relation to climate resilience and marine protection, and it is a sanitation solution for the people of Freetown. That is the first thing.

Second, the blue economy makes up 12% of GDP and employs over 500,000 people, and women are central to the fisheries system. The committee members will be able to speak to them first hand, and they will be able to talk about the strengthening of the livelihoods.

Ms Reka Sztopa:

For Concern, in both Liberia and Sierra Leone, the first thing that members should expect to see is extreme poverty in rural communities, and the communities that we work with are the furthest behind. It can be done in a day but, usually, having an overnight and being able to spend a full day or day and a half in these communities is very important. One of the things members will see is the core of our programme, the village savings and loans associations. They are really the fundamental starting point for all of our food systems, the resilience of communities and the independence of individuals to invest in their own businesses. There are also the systems of rice intensification, the new cassava yield systems and the value chain linkages that we are making. Members will also be able to see the infrastructure, the road networks and all of the challenges around that.

Mr. John Rynne:

My colleague, Ms da Silva, stole a lot of my thunder. What I would say is that members should look for the positives in what they see. It is very easy to do these visits, and everything is “glass half empty”, and people might have a negative filter about what they see. From my perspective, we are very lucky to work with these communities and very lucky to have the support of the Irish Government. These are resilient, strong communities that are self-sufficient and very capable, and they can teach us a lot of lessons. I was there late last year and experienced the warm welcome, the sense of community and the real vibrancy there. It is a visit that the committee will really enjoy. It is something to look forward to, rather than maybe being slightly nervous about.

Ms Ciara Smullen:

I echo Mr. Rynne’s sentiments on the positivity and positive impact. I would encourage the travelling delegation to visit a hospital at either Bo or Jui. It kills two birds with one stone. How? First, members will get to see our solar installation that is providing energy to the entire hospital, not just the eye health clinic of the hospital. Second, my favourite part of doing a country visit is witnessing cataract surgery. Members will get to meet a person before they have the surgery. I would encourage them, even those who may be squeamish, to witness it and to speak to the patient afterwards. They will get the tangible and immediate positive impact in terms of how that person's life is changed forever. I have witnessed many over the years in my time with Sightsavers Ireland. It is one of the most moving experiences to share with somebody who is undergoing that type of surgery. This has impacted their livelihood and their time with their family, given all of the challenges that they faced in having a condition like cataracts, which has created a level of blindness. I would certainly encourage them to visit a hospital like that.

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

There is not a lot that I can add. Ms Sztopa made the point about getting out and staying overnight. If members are able to do that, we will do our best to accommodate them between us, and I am sure we will find somewhere for them to stay. Spending time on the ground, talking to communities, talking to people who have come to the cataract programme and talking to beneficiaries of the programmes that we run - there is nothing that can beat it. I often think to myself that, God, I do not have to do another field trip, but you always learn so much, you always get so much and you always come back with a deeper and better understanding of the reality of people's lives. That is what we have to do, as NGOs. I get the sense that is what the committee members are hoping to achieve. I welcome them and encourage them.

Ms Emma Murphy:

What they should expect to see is that positivity piece, but they would also expect a recognition of the work of the Irish Government and the partners on the ground. It is very strong, and it is something that is very positive. I would echo what Ms Smullen said with regard to the surgery. I was privileged last November to be invited by a surgeon to see a cataract surgery, which is a 20-minute bloodless surgery. I am very squeamish, but I was glad to see the impact of that. I would encourage members to go back for the bandage removal two days later because that is when they will see the huge impact of the programmatic side.

There is also the infrastructure. On their arrival in Freetown, they might arrive at an airport, but they will have a journey left to go to actually reach Freetown. It is absolutely planes, boats, trains and automobiles. It is about preparedness. Sierra Leone and Liberia are both beautiful countries, but they have varying infrastructural challenges.

Members will expect an extraordinarily warm welcome from the Sierra Leonean and Liberian people. They should enjoy the trip and the experience, but also the programmatic side. Mr. Crowley is 100% right. Please go deep into the field and see the depth of the programmes.

There is one final thing I would encourage members to do. We work with really strong partner OPDs, or organisations for people with disabilities. The stories they have to tell, and the stories they will be willing to tell members, are something that will stick with them and demonstrate the huge impact. That would be my recommendation.

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

We should have done this last. It has been very uplifting. I ask Senator Higgins not to bring us down.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am going to have to. I would have liked it if that piece were last. I echo the comments. Regarding cataracts, my aunt worked on cataract removal close to the Eritrean-Ethiopian border for about 30 years. It is an extraordinary thing.

I am afraid that I have to go back into the bones of things, which is that question of tied and untied aid. I think we should reaffirm those phrases because untied aid is better. Sometimes, the flip to “conditional” has been used to blur it a little because it is implied that aid is unconditional when, of course, all aid has standards as to how it is to be applied and all of that. However, the tied issue is the real issue, where you are attaching other asks alongside a gift. You are not giving. You are giving, with a hand ready for taking. We know part of that is trade for aid, and we also increasingly see immigration control measures for aid. There is also military support for aid. There are a few pieces getting attached to aid. I ask the witnesses to comment. This is crucial. As was said, Ireland has a chance to have a values-led approach, with us championing not just the level of aid issue, but that approach to aid, to our European colleagues in the crucial discussions during our Presidency.

On trade, I note that Sierra Leone took a very strong stance against the investor-statement dispute settlement, ISDS, mechanism, as I understand it, having experienced ISDS cases around the African continent free trade area.

The witnesses might comment a little on trade, not just on trade generally but also on trade with investment clauses attached, which can tie the hands of development.

Although I am aware that Senator Stephenson touched on it, I am going to go back to the topic of peacebuilding, including the importance of really dedicated peacebuilding. We know from our own country that you do not achieve peace without ongoing effort. Dedicated funding to support and maintain peace is important. Maybe the role of women under UN Security Council Resolution 1325 should be considered in this regard.

My final point is on climate. I understand the importance and power of the examples, but what I was getting to was the question of the message Ireland should be bringing forward at COP to meaningfully support those bearing the hard impact of climate change, such as the 2 million islanders in Sierra Leone who might be displaced.

Mr. John Rynne:

I will take up the Senator's climate question. She is 100% correct. I am the regional director for Africa. GOAL works in seven countries. We want a very significant humanitarian response in Ethiopia, Sudan, South Sudan, Niger and so on. It is really clear, as the Senator said, that those who are most vulnerable, the extremely poor, are, perversely, the people most affected. We are working with farmers and pastoralists who have lost their livelihoods because of erratic rainfall. In Ethiopia, for example, people farming at the midland levels cannot rely on the rains. At the desert level, the camels of pastoralists die en masse every 18 or 24 months.

The message is that when we are talking about aid, we should recognise that these countries have been massively damaged by climate. Where the credit and debit aspect is concerned, from our perspective we owe them a debt as opposed to the other way around. They are suffering on our behalf. We need some effort to balance the books and some degree of humanity, kindness, morality and recognition.

The circumstances lend themselves to conflict, as the Senator probably very well knows. There is no doubt that a very significant amount of conflict is arising. There are already fractures and stresses related to scarce resources that communities need to rely on. They fight over these scarce resources and then conflict erupts again. That would be one of the narratives.

We can also link in the reality of migration. I refer to the harsh realities people are fleeing from. Missing a lot of the time in Europe is the narrative that the people in question are directly impacted, have lost their livelihoods and have little or no opportunity, meaning that one of their only hopes is to migrate. A focus we should have in the EU is how we can manage that as best we can, but while making our approach as safe, humane and kind as we possibly can, recognising the bigger picture.

Ms Ciara Smullen:

I will not take up too much time, because I am aware that my colleagues would like to speak. The Senator spoke about tied aid versus untied aid. An important thing we have not spoken about here today is the generosity of the Irish public. The other organisations represented here depend on the Irish public and the generosity of their donations through public fundraising, not just through ODA. What the latter gives organisations like ours is unrestricted funding, allowing us to put funding where the need is greatest. That is a very important aspect of this discussion today and it is important to highlight it.

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

One of the areas that has not been touched on by Mr. Rynne and Ms Smullen is peace. I thank the Senator for her questions. It feels to me that she is very well placed to lobby the Government on the things it should be taking up during the Presidency. It is probably universally acknowledged now that there can be no stability and development without peace.

Deputy Ó Laoghaire used the phrase "peace dividend" earlier. In the first decade after the civil wars, that was the biggest concern. There is no peace dividend coming for those people who have laid down their weapons. It is quite a remarkable achievement, despite all their anxieties, that there have been several rounds of elections in both countries, more so in Liberia, and, even with attempted coups and what have you, largely peaceful transfers of power. Each time there is an election, though, there is concern as to whether things could slip back. Keeping stability, peace and development, and helping people to come out of poverty and into situations of greater prosperity, have to be a focus for all of us because otherwise there is a danger of slipping backwards.

Mr. Conor Molloy:

To go back to the question on climate, I saw at first hand the role Ireland played at COP28 in Sharm el-Sheikh in helping to shift the balance of weight around loss and damage to the question of the 2 million people on low-lying islands. This is the type of situation that the loss-and-damage funds are designed to help support. In Turkey later this year, I hope Ireland will continue to play a strong moral leadership role in international discussions and debates and continue to support loss-and-damage funding.

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

Is there anything our guests did not get to say that they will regret not saying when looking back? Is there any point they wanted to make that they did not get the opportunity to make?

Mr. Dominic Crowley:

I thank the committee for the focus on these two countries. They are countries that get very little attention. They are not high profile. If you did a media search in respect of either, you will probably not find much at all. Therefore, it is good that the committee focuses on them. It is good that they are part of Ireland's aid programme. Whichever committee members visit will be very welcome. They will see countries that have come through a lot and are doing well overall but that still have a long way to go because of the high levels of poverty.

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

I thank our support officials because they have done a lot of work in preparing the travel episodes, as we call these events here.

I am not going to ask my colleagues whether there is something they did not get to say because we would be here all day if did. I am taking away the answers to the question I asked. I am referring to the uplifting aspect. The guests all lit up as they conveyed some of the stories. I guess that is what keeps them going and what makes their work worthwhile. It was very telling and evident when their faces lit up for the first time in two hours.

There is an uphill challenge and that is not lost on us here in respect of the overseas development aid pillar. In the context of the loss of USAID, the US does not seem to appreciate that it is losing a lot of influence, never mind anything else. It is about having good-will as well. We can be proud, although not with any sense of superiority, of whatever it is in our DNA that makes us make our essential ongoing contribution, which we would be very slow to let go of.

I thank the support staff and our communications people, who keep broadcasting us. Did Mr. Molloy say he is in Nairobi?

Mr. Conor Molloy:

I am, yes.

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

I am impressed with how stable the connection remained throughout. I thank everybody involved in that. I thank our witnesses, namely Ms Dee da Silva and Mr. John Rynne from GOAL, Mr. Dominic Crowley and Ms Reka Sztopa from Concern, Mr. Conor Molloy in Nairobi from Trócaire, and Ms Emma Murphy and Ms Ciara Smullen from Sightsavers, for appearing before the committee today and for their invaluable contributions. We will adjourn until 12.30 p.m. next Tuesday, 26 May 2026, when we will meet in private session.