Joint Committee on European Union Affairs debate -
Wednesday, 26 Jun 2024

On behalf of the committee, I am delighted to welcome Ms Jane-Ann McKenna, CEO of Dóchas, Ms Angela O'Neill De Guilio, head of global partnerships and funding at Trócaire, and Mr. Dominic Crowley, emergency director at Concern. The joys of technology mean we are joined, by video link, by Ms Emily Wigens, EU director of the One Campaign. I thank all the witnesses for joining us.

Our discussion today will focus on an interesting area, particularly for me, EU funding of the development sector and role of the EU in international development, which is where it fits into the remit of the committee.

The witnesses are probably familiar with the note on privilege, which I will run through. All witnesses 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 him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against either a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I remind members of the requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. If they are not present, I cannot permit them to participate.

With that bit of housekeeping done and dusted, I will kick off the meeting. I understand the witnesses will divide the opening statement among themselves. We will start with Ms McKenna.

I thank the Chairman, Deputies and Senators for the invitation to meet with the committee on EU funding of the development sector, and particularly the role of the EU in international development. As members may know, there has been a shift in the direction of EU external policies affecting development programmes, including funding cuts to existing programmes. As development and humanitarian organisations working on the front line of crises around the world, we find this extremely concerning.

In 2022, Ireland delivered 44%, or €354 million, of its official development assistance to the EU. Earlier this year, the European Council decided a cut of at least €2 billion in Global Europe-NDICI, mainly to fund Ukraine and internal migration pressures. At the time, we wrote to the Tánaiste, Deputy Micheál Martin, to share our concerns on this, urging Ireland to work at EU level to make sure that cuts are not made at the expense of people, communities and countries that are furthest behind and benefit most from EU support. We fear that these cuts will leave the 2030 Agenda even further off-track.

Last week, the 2025 EU budget proposal was announced. In this, there is a 10% reduction of the budget spread across different programmes. In terms of new projects and programmes, the cuts will be largely in geographic and thematic areas, including human rights, peace-building and civil society space.

Global Europe ODA allocations should be aligned with each country's specific development needs and aspirations. In addition, according to the NDICI regulation, least-developed countries, LDCs, should receive between 0.15% and 0.2% of EU GNI. Indeed, in the current context of increasing global crises and inequalities, many of us would argue that least-developed countries require even greater support. During our engagement with the Department for Foreign Affairs over the past few months, we have sought a differentiated approach to these decommitments which would protect least-developed countries, fragile and conflict-affected states and the most vulnerable within these contexts.

However, we are also very concerned that the EU specifically deprioritises programmes in countries where it has a weak relationship with the national authorities. Yet, it is precisely in the most fragile and difficult contexts that engagement and aid must be maintained. Quite simply, cuts within Global Europe funding should affect least-developed countries or fragile countries least. Otherwise, it is the most vulnerable who will suffer most. This is relevant not only in the current rounds of cuts and how they are implemented but as we look to the future revised multi-annual financial framework, MFF, on which negotiations will start shortly and which will form a key part of the lead-up to Ireland’s EU Presidency.

We urge the Irish Government to challenge the use of the EU’s international co-operation budget as an instrument to advance geopolitical and primarily foreign policy objectives. Foreign policy and international co-operation should remain distinct, allowing international co-operation to focus on the long term and prioritising support to people. The use of the Global Europe funds should not be determined by the nature of the EU's relations with a given state, nor should they be used to advance EU economic interests as per the Global Gateway or to address domestic priorities such as migration.

Global Gateway, as it currently exists, should not be the only lens through which we look at the future of the EU's external action and its commitment to addressing the multifaceted challenges we are currently witnessing around the world. New Global Europe instruments should have the flexibility and scope within them to include our foreign policy values to protect women, children, people with disabilities and those essentially who are the furthest behind.

The EU does not operate exclusively in contexts where investments should be the sole way of working. We believe the EU must also be a reliable partner in fragile contexts and in those in which there is no reasonable expectation of a return on investment.

Earlier this year, two prominent EU documents suggesting the change of direction we have highlighted came to light - an internal Commission briefing book from DGINTPA on international partnerships and a draft EU Strategic Agenda 2024-2029 at leadership levels. These documents suggest a first mover agenda-setting for a harder agenda among some EU policymakers, relegating the roles of the environment and of civil society actors. However, we believe Ireland can play a leading role in pushing back on this agenda.

As clearly stated in the Lisbon treaty, the eradication of poverty is the main objective of EU development co-operation and policies. We must uphold this principle as we look to budget negotiations and the next multi-annual financial framework, MFF.

Ireland's representatives in the EU, the Commission, the Council and the Parliament need to build on new alliances based on our foreign policy values. We recommend that the Government, with the support of this committee maintains the integrity and long-term objectives of EU development co-operation in line with Irish foreign policy values as expressed in A Better World. We recommend that the Irish Government ensures that the EU Commission’s development policy objectives respect the EU’s legal and political commitment to promoting sustainable development. We recommend that the Irish Government commits to sustainable human development and putting the well-being of people and the planet at the centre of decision-making; that we ensure that funding for external co-operation remains distinct from migration, asylum and internal security; that we strengthen the role of civil society, both local and international, who have a recognised vital role in implementing humanitarian, peace, development and environmental policies; that we provide quality funding for sustainable development that is aligned with the 2030 Agenda; and that we protect humanitarian funding and retain European civil protection and humanitarian aid operations.

I am joined by Ms Emily Wiggins, EU director of the ONE Campaign; Ms Angela O’Neill, head of global partnerships and funding with Trócaire; and Mr. Dominic Crowley, emergency director of Concern Worldwide and former President of VOICE Europe. They will illustrate the impact that the current cuts will have and the implications for the EU’s role in international development if the current trajectory persists.

I will now hand over Mr. Dominic Crowley, who will share some of the operational implications of the funding cuts.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to address it. I will focus on half a dozen structural and policy issues and Ms O'Neill De Guilio will pick up more deeply on the impacts of these on the ground with disaster-affected populations.

First, the funding situation is deeply worrying. The global humanitarian situation is not sustainable in the way it is currently being implemented. Faced with a record and seemingly ever-growing level of need in the last three years, as reported on the UN's financial tracking system, the UN has contributed between 69% and 73% of all global funding. Within that, the US has been responsible for between 35% and 47% of all global funding and this reliance on a very small number of donors is not sustainable. If Trump were to win the election - I hope this is not too political - we would expect there to be a cut in the humanitarian and development funding budgets. Any sort of cut would be catastrophic.

The reality is that too few EU member states are allocating anything like the 0.7% of GNI to development aid funding and some member states do not transparently report on their funding allocations at all. The result of this is was a record funding gap for humanitarian action in 2023.

Second, there were hopes that the MFF mid-term review that was completed recently would see an increase in aid budgets. When not realised, as Ms McKenna mentioned, cuts were made to the

NDICI-Global Europe budgets to support Ukraine and migration costs. NGO hopes that the humanitarian budget would be increased were not met and, in real terms, the European Council on Refugees and Exiles, ECRE's, budget was cut because the emergency aid reserve was taken out of the solidarity and emergency reserve, SEAR, and limited to an absolute maximum of one third of the SEAR. In the two previous years, ECRE had accessed very close to 50% of the SEAR so in real terms their budget for this year is lower than it was for last year or the year before.

Third, civil society organisations' access to NDICI funding is difficult. Despite the NDICI commitment to establishing strategic partnerships with civil society organisations, this is proving to be challenging. A recent Concord report noted that there is an over-reliance by NDICI on allocating funding to UN and member state agencies for the implementation of programmes and that the eligibility process and criteria are obstacles to effective civil society organisation, CSO, engagement. More needs to be done to ensure CSO access to multi-annual NDICI funding streams. Greater transparency, easier access and more inclusive country-level dialogue would go a long way to achieving this.

To touch on the political again, the implications of the recent European parliamentary elections are potentially disturbing. It is unclear if a more right-wing Parliament will be sympathetic to a humanitarian and development agenda but the sense is not positive. Negotiations around the annual budget allocations and the next MFF may well be more challenging from the perspective of the NGOs in Ireland.

There are also concerns about the lack of structural connectedness and coherence within the EU. The recent leaking of the briefing book of the Department for International Partnerships, INTPA, for the incoming Commissioner - referred to by Ms McKenna - reflected a pattern that has been evident for the past few years. The focus on the global gateway and the EU's economic interests is to the detriment of fragile and conflict-affected contexts - contexts in which ECRE rightly focuses its attentions where humanitarian and development needs are greatest.

In terms of the next Commission, it is unclear if it will bring more clarity to this structural connectedness issue but if, for example, INTPA and ECRE were to be brought together under one Commissioner finding common ground must be done in a way that allows them to retain their own competencies and regulations. I will hand over to Ms O'Neill De Guilio.

I thank the committee for the invitation to speak today. We, as NGOs, are working within a grim backdrop of diminishing rights and freedoms; misinformation and extremism; climate change; conflict; economic shocks and other disasters; and, as Mr. Crowley referred to, the declining commitment of the international community to respond to meeting the humanitarian needs which is leading to unprecedented crises and global suffering.

The El Niño weather pattern, exacerbated by climate change, is currently creating extreme weather events, most recently in the southern Africa region. Both drought and excessive rainfall have led to national emergencies being declared in Zambia, Zimbabwe and Malawi. Conflicts are widespread, complex and protracted. In the context of a failing and polarised multilateral system, conflicts are already spiralling and creating enormous, but entirely preventable, human suffering.

We do not have to look much further than our television screens to see the extreme violence in Gaza at the moment and, less visibly, in Sudan. Two concurrent famines are now unfolding on our watch. In Sudan, with the conflict now in its second year 18 million people are acutely hungry, including 3.8 million children who are acutely malnourished. Famine is closing in on millions. Sudan now has nearly 10 million people who are internally displaced - the largest number in the world. By the end of May, only 16% of the $2.7 billion needed for this response had been received. Further funding cuts would devastate further.

There are currently 300 million people in need of humanitarian assistance and protection in 73 countries. There is a growing gap, as already stated, between the financing available and the need. In 2023, in Somalia nearly half the population was in need of immediate life-saving assistance. Trócaire currently has ECRE funding for an emergency lifesaving health, nutrition, water and sanitation and protection support to vulnerable populations affected by disease outbreaks, conflict, displacement and natural disasters, both floods and droughts, in the southern and central region reaching more than 350,000 people with €1.1 million over a 12-month period.

We operate on the basis of 12-month funding cycles and cuts to funding would mean these lifesaving services will be either reduced or would have to stop completely depending on the funding situation.

In Ethiopia, we have a programme called stability and socioeconomic development for vulnerable and marginalised communities in the Tigre region of northern Ethiopia, which has been so ravaged by conflict. We are addressing local conflict and building social cohesion and enhancing and diversifying livelihoods. This has been a critical humanitarian protection and gender-based violence response in a region that has been so devastated by conflict. Programmes like this require ongoing funding. They are not something that will be solved in a short period so any cuts to funding like that means any gains made will quickly regress. In Sierra Leone, we have EU funding to support gender equality and social accountability through strengthening civil society to engage in advocacy, monitoring and policy dialogue at national and district levels and upholding an enabling environment. This funding has been instrumental in helping to develop local civil society, to the extent that two of our local partners with whom we worked under previous funding rounds have secured funding in their own right without an international NGO.

We are witnessing a concerted attack on civil society space across the globe where people's rights to freedom of assembly, association and expression and their ability to engage in civic activities are being curtailed. Freedom House calculates that global freedoms declined for the 18th consecutive year in 2023. Some 401 human rights defenders were murdered for their work in 2022. Trócaire works in partnership with local civil society organisations. It is critical that EU funding for CSOs is equitable, flexible and targets the most vulnerable groups. The 2021 to 2027 Global Europe instrument, which is the principal tool for the EU's international co-operation is supposed to have civil society engagement as a priority. When civil society space is shrinking so rapidly, it is more important than ever to have funding that is flexible and accessible to a wide range of civil society organisations, not just the biggest players. However, Global Europe seems to have gone in the opposite direction, supporting a less diverse group of actors and significantly reducing the number and frequency of calls for proposals for funding and contracting out grant management to fund managers. This has added a layer of complexity to civil society organisations and their ability to access funding.

These statistics represent men, women and children whose basic needs are not being met and who are being deprived of their civil liberties and freedoms. It is now more than urgent than ever that we look to global co-operation and solidarity rather than narrow-minded self-interest, which is the direction of travel we are now seeing in Europe.

I thank the members and the secretariat for the opportunity to speak, and to Dóchas for bringing us together. As others have said, the mid-term revision of the EU budget sends a damaging signal to the EU's international partners about where the European Union's priorities are. Our view at the One Campaign is that the bloc's ability to lead globally rests on whether or not it has the resources and, crucially, the credibility to shape how the world responds to global challenges. It is our view that the mid-term revision risks leaving the EU with neither of those things. What is particularly troubling is that this comes at a time when poverty in Africa is worsening for the first time in a generation. The World Bank recently published estimates to the effect that it anticipates one in four developing countries being poorer this year than was the case at the beginning of the pandemic. That is coupled with the fact that the share of the EU's development assistance to Africa is at its lowest historical level at approximately 20.5% of the EU's overall development budget. This is really a vital moment for the EU to rethink its approach as we head into negotiations on the next seven-year budget.

Others have already spoken of the scale of the challenge as being staggering. I will add one reflection from analysis the One Campaign recently carried out, which is that this year alone the global south will send back $50 billion dollars more in debt repayments than it receives in loans or grants. The money is flowing in the wrong direction. I also want to highlight that Europe needs Africa as much as Africa needs Europe. Europe is facing a range of complex global challenges, which it cannot solve alone. Looking just at population projections, Africa has a vibrant youth population and will add almost 800 million people to the workforce by 2050. That is compared with Europe, where our populations are ageing and our workforces will decline over the same period. It is similar if you look at the potential of renewable energy sources. Africa has 60% of the world's solar potential, but just one 1% of the constructed capacity. We really need EU investments in people and climate to be consistent in order to ensure that we are able to maximise Africa's potential and strengthen our relationships there to make sure we can work together to tackle issues like climate change or pandemic preparedness for the benefit of citizens on both continents.

I will now speak to what Ireland's role could be in all of this. Ireland has a credible voice in Brussels. Not only is it increasing its ODA budget, it also has the reputation for being forward looking and not inward looking. That makes Ireland an important champion and voice on development in the Brussels context. With the significant convening power it has, one of the most effective things that could happen ahead of Ireland's 2026 Presidency is to build a coalition of the willing to defend development and international climate action in the negotiations on the next long-term budget. As others have stated, it is also about increasing the focus on low-income and fragile contexts where grant financing is essential and badly needed, as well ensuring a sustained focus on human development, which is to say education and health investment. This group could operate like a friends of cohesion group, or the frugal countries that band together and flex their collective muscles in budget negotiations. It could perhaps be a friends of global Europe that would align strongly behind the need for the next budget to have a long-term outlook and use this group's collective influence to press all 27 member states on the need for EU investment to demonstrate to partners that the EU is a reliable partner, and that even in challenging times it will prioritise investment in shared challenges and not only its own interest. What is most vital is that we are working together to encourage our leaders to take a long-term view on the investment potential in Africa and in Europe's influence internationally.

Go raibh maith agaibh go léir. On some level, the witnesses present an absolutely frightening view of the world.

That is where we are at the minute. On the proposed cuts and the cuts from an EU point of view, what are the exact outworkings of them? Obviously we are talking about everything from lifesaving right through to alleviating poverty and the issues around the lack of freedoms that exist across the board. Something that was pointed out to me previously relates to what the witnesses said about the model not working in the sense that it is in no way sustainable and that the sector is reliant on six or seven countries with the United States of America being one of them as they put a huge amount of money into overseas. This does not alleviate some of the issues they create themselves, be it with Gaza or right across the world.

Nobody operates without some element of self-interest, whether it is the European Union or whatever. While I accept there is a change in geopolitics, Ursula von der Leyen and others have spoken about the need for an EU-wide military industrial complex. If the focus is there, it might not necessarily be there in relation to overseas aid. For many years, there has been a significant amount of overseas aid going to a large number of countries but, as Ms Wigens said, a huge amount of debt comes out, which is a greater amount. Even if we take the conflict areas out of that and just talk about the places that have not benefited from an economic point of view, we are referring to places that have huge populations and huge population growth and economies that cannot necessarily facilitate that. I am told that at time a lot of overseas aid increases, let us say, the educated middle class. What happens then when a huge number of people feel they need to move and they move? That is part of the migration issue.

Alongside the involvement of the European Union, the western powers, the Russians and the Chinese and that conflict of self-interest, there is also an element of self-interest around migration. Is it a case of doing whatever we can to settle Africa and make it more prosperous and make the rest of the world more prosperous? I know that sounds very fanciful but if we do not deal with that, then we have the issues we are currently dealing with.

The questions are around the impact of the cuts and how bad these are going to be and the fact that all the overseas aid in the world will not work if we maintain the status quo given the amount of debt being taken out, which dwarfs it. Beyond that, what can we do to make a marked improvement while accepting that the European Union and some of the western powers are not the only players here and that there is an element of nouveau imperialism right across Africa?

I will start on the response and will then ask Mr. Crowley to come in on a couple of those points. On the impact of the cuts, it was only announced last week where those cuts would take place. It looks like it is spread over a number of programmes and how they divide both geographically and thematically. There is still scope to try to advocate and lobby. This is spread over the next couple of years, so there is scope still to really push for those cuts to not affect the most fragile or least developed countries. This is one of the reasons we wanted to come in here. The timing of this committee is quite important because there still is an opportunity for Ireland to continue to push for those cuts not to affect those who are furthest behind.

The Deputy's point on ODA is very relevant. Last week we launched our pre-budget submission. In this we looked beyond not only Ireland fulfilling its commitment to ODA and looking for an increase in the budget for next year, but we looked also at what needs to happen in order for there to be a fair financial system. We looked at how Ireland can support debt cancellation, debt treatment alternatives, and IMF surcharges. We have a series of recommendations in there because we know that ODA in isolation will not have the desired impact. We need to look more broadly and be much more transformative in what we are trying to achieve while supporting a new UN tax convention, for example, and fiscal bodies at regional global south levels, and in looking at how Ireland can do this in its role not only in Europe but in its candidacy for the UN Human Rights Council. We definitely have some clear recommendations there.

When we look at other powers in the world and the direction of travel, this is where we are trying to focus, which is where we really think Ireland can have a significant impact. We know that in Europe and among civil society, Ireland's aid is principled aid. It is something we can be very proud of. We can see now the direction of travel in Europe and we want Ireland to step up at a European level to champion those principles, to ensure our aid is going to those who are furthest behind and is not being caught up in geopolitical agendas. This is where we are focusing today: what we can do at this very critical time to try to push back on a very hard agenda of divesting funds away from sustainable development.

I thank the Deputy for the questions. The first point in relation to debt is a really important one. If more were to be done in terms of debt relief or debt forgiveness, it could have a huge bearing on the degree to which governments could afford to deliver the level of services that are required. This could in turn maybe contribute to a greater degree of stability in some of these very uncomfortable countries.

The question of cuts needs to be considered in the context of inadequacy. If one has a pre-existing level of inadequacy of funding, then the cuts just deepen that and makes it worse. If we look at the humanitarian situation in any given year, the global humanitarian overview, which is the UN's projection of humanitarian needs, shows that less than one third of funding needs are met. The consequences of that year-on-year increase in the level of needs is that the year-on-year gap between needs and the funding being supplied is just getting worse. By failing to meet needs adequately in the first place, we are leaving people weaker and more vulnerable or exposed to shocks and stresses that they might otherwise be better able to withstand.

The Deputy asked about taking conflict out of it. We cannot because conflict and conflict-affected contexts use up between 80% and 85% of all humanitarian funding annually. The reality is that we are seeing more conflicts, more protracted conflicts and more recurrent conflicts. We are seeing an increasing number of coups across the whole of the Sahel belt, which has seen multiple coups over the last number of years. The level of political instability, I would suggest, is at an all-time high. Conflict and the consideration of conflict needs to be at the heart of all of our considerations.

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. It has been quite sobering to listen to the facts they have presented. I thank them also for the work they do in advocating for the most vulnerable across the world. The work they do is really important and it is important we hear the reality on the ground as to what they are dealing with on the front line. The witnesses all made very interesting points and they came from different angles. My first question is for Ms McKenna who spoke about the EU having weak relationships with certain national authorities which in her view has a direct correlation to a reduction in funding across certain programmes. Will Ms McKenna elaborate a bit on that as to where she sees those weak relationships and how that has impacted the decision to reduce funding to certain programmes?

Yes. I will ask Ms Wigens to come in here also as she might have more of the specific detail. We are seeing the shift within the Global Gateway instrument and within the Team Europe funding essentially towards more friendly states where they are going to see a clear return on investment in terms of any financing that is spent.

This is where we are saying that if we are looking at principles of humanitarian development assistance, it is very much on the basis of needs. Those are the principles and the values that Ireland espouses and which we would like to see retained at European level.

I will ask Ms Wigens to come in and speak on clear areas where divestment is taking place.

On the specific cuts in the mid-term revision, we do not have that clarity just yet. We anticipate they will impact both geographic and thematic areas but we do not have a sense yet of exactly where they will fall and which programmes will be impacted because that information has not been made public. The way we are able to anticipate and project where we think they will fall is by comparing different budget documents. There has not been a single communication from the institutions that sets out where the cuts will fall. We have to do the analysis of the different budget documents and check where projections from one year may have been down-graded. With the budget lines we can see, we anticipate it will eventually impact the African budget lines but also the budget lines for global challenges, including the global challenges planet line, so that would potentially impact the EU’s involvement in international climate action, which is coincidentally the target within the Global Europe-NDICI instrument that the EU is behind on meeting, so that is quite troubling. However, we do not have the precise details of where those cuts will fall yet.

It is very nice to hear positive commentary around Ireland and the development aid we contribute. I agree that the Irish people want to continue in that vein and to see that replicated at an EU level.

The EU looking internally at its own challenges was mentioned. The obvious challenge is around migration but also the war in Ukraine and the level of EU budget that is demanding. Looking at it practically, there are demands from member states that those challenges are met internally because they are putting pressure on individual member states, so I can understand why that is resulting in a reduced budget elsewhere because the view of some is there is just not enough to go around. In that context, would there be an acknowledgement that there are significant pressures internally that there is a demand from member states to deal with that?

On climate, even here in Ireland, we have seen pressures. The transition to a greener economy is putting pressure on vulnerable households and demands are being made on politicians in Ireland to deal with that. The intention behind that is not bad. It is human nature to look at things internally sometimes. I think it was Ms Wigens who said that Europe needs resources and credibility to tackle these issues and that we are in a position where we might lose both. Will she elaborate on how Europe might lose credibility?

There are a couple of areas where there is a little bit of tension between Europe and its partners at the moment. There have been accusations of double standards on a number of areas, such as the treatment of migrants from different regions. During the pandemic European member states pumped unprecedented, historic amounts into their economies to prop them up whereas the corporate global financial response to help lower income countries to respond to the economic aftershocks of the pandemic were underfunded. That, coupled with vaccine nationalism, means there is a tension and, frankly, a trust issue between Europe and some of its partners. I would agree that credibility is not only about resources but is also about delivering what you have said you will do. Europe talks a good game and rightly focuses on the need to work together with Africa to tackle some of the greatest challenges facing citizens on both continents, whether it is the climate crisis or pandemic preparedness but at the same time, there are cuts to these very programmes. All that fuels the fire and damages trust. That is what I was getting at with my point about needing credibility in order to bring partners along to prioritise the issues that really need to be addressed. Europe is very good at that but there is work to be done in ensuring that it has the resources and can work on that trust deficit that exists.

We do acknowledge that there are financial pressures for Europe and that there is a number of issues that require considerable funding. However, it is not just that the funding cuts are happening in isolation and that the funding has to come from somewhere. We would argue that those furthest behind should not be affected. That should be the last pot of money to be looked at. However, it is coupled with a clear agenda and this is what we really fear. It was clear from the leaked document from the director general of the international partnerships that the EU’s international co-operation instrument will be used to advance geopolitical, and primarily foreign policy, objectives. That is what we really fear. One fear is the direct impact that these cuts will have but it is also that we are seeing this agenda play out in real time. That is why we are saying that it is not only important to see that these cuts do not affect those who are most behind, those in the least developed countries and fragile states, but that we need to ask where this train is taking us in terms of the agenda being set, where Ireland is within that and how we can push against that and ensure that our foreign policy values are reflected in the EU’s international co-operation budget.

I understand that. The intention is always good but sometimes the pressures put on decision-makers are not always acknowledged and the context of why those decisions are taken. Human nature is that EU citizens will want to make sure that internal issues are dealt with as a first priority. That will be the way for most citizens. It was interesting what Ms Wigens, I think, said about the EU needing Africa the same as Africa needs the EU and shifting the narrative around global stability because there is a lot of conflict in the world. Until we solve the root cause of these problems, we are throwing money at something but not really fixing the issues. That is another conversation to be had. However, shifting the narrative around the idea that we all need to work together because it benefits everybody is something that is not focused on enough. We need to explain to citizens why we are doing this. It is not just about giving grant-aid to people to fix the immediate issue but about the long-term goals that we all share. That might help garner greater support for more funding. Does Ms Wigens wish to respond to that briefly?

To make one additional point, the next MFF proposal will be coupled with a package of measures called own resources. That would be new revenues that would enter the EU budget. That is another opportunity for us to look at how we can grow the overall pie when we know there are existing financial pressures on member states. This is another area where we have to collectively encourage more ambition, whether it is looking at things such as a financial transaction tax that could raise tens of billions each year that could be used to finance the EU’s priorities, including externally. That is just one example but there are many examples out there. Those are some of the things that we need to think about parallel to the contributions member states make from their domestic budgets. That is the way we need to go to grow the overall pie and make sure we are able to invest in a range of priorities and not limit ourselves to, say, the more internal ones because that would be a false economy.

I apologise for being late. I had to be in my constituency last night for an important event and the traffic getting up from Wexford was not the easiest in the morning, so I apologise for missing the presentation.

I warmly welcome this interaction. The organisations represented here are very important. When we talk about cultural organisations, we praise them for being the visible heart of Ireland. In many ways, the organisations represented here are the social heart of Ireland, and they are very important to us.

If any question I put has already been covered, the guests should just say so. I want to follow up on the point on development because I have had an interest in development issues for a very long time. There has been a fundamental shift. I have had a number of meetings in Brussels with representatives of INTPA at senior level and have made a presentation to the Committee on Development of the European Parliament on supports for Africa. This committee has met many similar committees across member states. There is a fundamental geopolitical shift. Maybe the result of the most recent European Parliament election has not been as shocking as feared, but the trend is undoubtedly real in the national governments and we have to come to grips with that. It is not a matter of saying, "These are the resources." There are fundamental pressures to alter the focus of European social development. I am referring to nationalism in all its manifestations, including protected trade or the putting up of trade barriers, which will have an impact on the developed world. This may well be compounded if Donald Trump is re-elected, but it is manifest everywhere.

The point I am making is that there is a political shift that has to be acknowledged. When dealing with matters, we can have an Irish perspective but that is not going to have enormous leverage in the context of what has happened in Europe. The growth of authoritarianism is not just a European phenomenon as it is also a world phenomenon. What is happening in Africa, which has seen a series of coups across the Sahara in the past three or four years, coupled with growing antipathy to Europe, particularly antipathy to France across the former French-dominated areas, and the growing embrace of Russia and its proxies, has two consequences. One, it is alienating Europeans for investing in the countries in question and, two, it is not representative of a march towards democracy but of a march towards its opposite. I would welcome the guests' general view on this.

I have a couple of questions. Consider the way in which we always used to tie aid to democratic progress, or, if "tie aid" is not the right phrase, make aid conditional on democratic progress – for example, progress on LGBT rights. Very worrying new legal instruments are being adopted in several countries that Ireland partnered with in the past, such as Uganda, where it is now a criminal offence not only to be gay but also not to out somebody who is gay. This is just shocking. How do we deal with that sort of authoritarian view across countries we are partnered with?

My second question is on the debt relief issue. We have talked about this for a very long time but have not been very successful, although there have been individual instances of success. How do we construct much better dialogue to allow countries to manoeuvre? Considering what is happening right now in Kenya, where there were very serious riots yesterday and whose parliament was occupied because of tax increases to meet demands from the IMF, how do we, as a country, deal with such phenomena?

My third question relates to the future. This was touched upon by Senator Chambers. There is going to be an enormous financial cost, amounting to hundreds of billions of euro, to rebuild Gaza and Ukraine in the coming decades. That will be an enormous strain that will be hard to resist. Since world focus is limited on particular areas at any given time, how will we ensure we do not take our focus off other issues as we deal with the matter? I do not know whether the delegates have thought these things through at all.

Yes, three big questions, but we can touch on a few points. On conditionality, as civil society actors we fundamentally believe in giving aid to those who need it the most. Often in partner countries, you do not have to look too far. In other states, including Afghanistan, where we might not have the presence, dire humanitarian and development needs still exist.

No. I am saying that, in our approach, we have to consider how we can deliver aid most effectively in those contexts. That is essentially where we advocate civil society action. Civil society actors can deliver more effectively in some contexts than in others. I have been in many places around the world where no access could be obtained other than through civil society actors. It is about a differentiated approach and being able to consider, not only in our own aid programme but also in that of the EU, a role for civil society actors and supporting them within the affected countries. I am referring in particular to local actors who are more aware of what their communities need and can deliver assistance most effectively. We are already seeing that. In Gaza, for example, all our members are working with local partners, local people who can deliver. The same applies in areas like Sudan.

May I respond on that also? In 2022 in Nicaragua, Trócaire was one of hundreds of civil society organisations, local and international, whose legal status was chopped up. Essentially, we were told to cease operations within 72 hours. That has happened to about 3,500 civil society organisations in the country. They have been closed down since 2020. The point is that, under the radar, we are still trying to provide support to the local partners. Some have moved to Costa Rica but are trying to provide assistance across the border. In the absence of a credible government or a government willing to recognise human rights, it is not a case of ignoring the affected country and moving to one that is much more conducive to recognising them. However, you do end up working below the radar for quite a number of years. At present, we are working in Honduras, Guatemala, Zimbabwe and Myanmar, where circumstances are less than conducive to recognising human rights, but you just need to stay the course, work with local actors on the ground and build capacity at local level not only to respond to local needs but also to continue to talk at international level about the human rights abuses. Often, the problem is that some of the crises become completely forgotten or ignored at international level. For us, it is important for us to stay in the country in some shape or form, even if the activity is quite low key and often without fanfare, and support the local actors, human rights defenders, etc., who are trying to create a society that is conducive at some level to what they desire.

I thank the Deputy for his questions. We could spend days talking about any one of them. Maybe I will touch on the last of them, which concerned the issue of Ukraine and Gaza. It was probably late last year that Ireland was one of the member states – I believe there were six – that wrote to the ECHO Commissioner or DG ECHO to question the allocation of funding and the disproportionate draw on funding by Ukraine and suggest there needed to be a better balance of funding allocations. The Ukraine facility was intended to address some of that so much of the ongoing support needed by Ukraine would be taken away from the humanitarian budget, allowing the balance of funding to go to other conflict-affected contexts. The reality is that the conflict in Ukraine is now at a very precarious juncture. What we are seeing on the ground is the internal displacement of more and more people from the east and the areas around Kharkiv. The situation will get worse. Politically, Ms von der Leyen’s stated commitment to establishing a defence Commissioner within the new Commission will pose interesting challenges and questions for Ireland.

It will give rise to questions on budget allocations that will make funding for humanitarian and development expenditure even more complicated and difficult. Against that, we have the Eurobarometer reports, which consistently state that between 80% and 85% of the European public are fully in support of the EU having a strong development budget and strong support. There is probably a broadly comparable level in Ireland, maybe slightly less. Where it is contentious is that we have so many competing demands, but if it is the public will, then the political will needs to be found to ensure that-----

If given a choice between funding something overseas and funding something domestically, if it is put in those stark terms we may not get as positive a response. The aid budget is 0.7%. If we take out the own-country expenditure, the real expenditure of the ODA in Ireland is probably around 0.4%. We are not talking about a huge amount of money. The political will needs to be found and we as organisations need to ensure public awareness of the level of need and the importance of the work that we are doing. The Deputy is right in that Gaza and Ukraine are going to be an ever-bigger draw but we need to find ways to address that, exactly as we found ways to address Covid. Solutions can be found.

I will respond to some of Deputy Howlin's other points. If we look at the debt piece and I mentioned this to Deputy Ó Murchú already, we have looked at this in our pre-budget submission this year. In particular, we had Professor Attiya Waris, the UN independent expert on foreign debt, over to Ireland recently to bring forward some of these ideas on how we can tackle this massive issue. There are certain things Ireland can do and is doing, in particular around participating in the reallocation of the IMF special drawing rights, that are beneficial. It is great to see that we are moving forward in areas like that where we can have a direct influence. Obviously we are looking at the Irish candidacy for the UN Human Rights Council and the upcoming EU Presidency, as well as the Summit of the Future event happening later this year. These are all opportunities where we can put forward both what we want to do to build on the 2030 agenda and what we need to do on debt relief and cancellation and alternatives.

To touch on a little bit of what Mr. Crowley mentioned around public support, the Cathaoirleach will be familiar with some of the research we have done in Ireland, especially on the Irish public's support for international development assistance. What we have seen is that 77% of Irish people support ODA. They support official development assistance and the same number of people, approximately 76%, believe that it makes a difference. They believe it helps relieve poverty in developing countries. It is important to note that. We are talking about our own ODA obligations but also what we are championing at a European level. This is what Irish people want. To them the most important values are humanity and humanitarianism. That is inherent in a lot of Irish people and we have seen that through our research. It has been consistent over the past four years that the majority of Irish people support Ireland's position on this issue. There is a huge level of work going on, particularly within the Department of Foreign Affairs, on some of these EU issues. At this stage it really does start to get political in terms of what we in Ireland are calling for at the highest level, on the future we want to see for Europe and our international co-operation policies.

I thank Ms McKenna. Coming at it from my own perspective, I very much agree with what has been outlined today. There is an absolute key importance in taking the core principles of our policy and working to ensure that we enshrine them in the EU philosophy policy. I agree totally that there is a drift away from it. We are entering a very dangerous period. There was an allusion to it earlier on and it is not in any way political. The implications of the second Trump Presidency with regard to the potential damage it would cause on a global level, particularly to those countries that are most disadvantaged, are difficult to contemplate. In the USA, the Biden Administration did a tremendous turnaround job within a fairly quick time to allay some of the worst impacts of the first Presidency but we are in an even more precarious state as we have talked about, because of Gaza and Ukraine. A very worrying drift is taking place within Europe.

In the last period in which I was there, something that was quite openly discussed was the interlinking of a country's position in support of the EU on certain key international policy issues. That did not used to be the case and that involved countries which used to have incredible, proactive and positive positions very similar to Ireland, which moved in the space of about 12 months to a position that was greatly at odds with their historical perspectives. From our country's perspective, we need to use every lever we can within our European contact level to extend the capital on making sure that we fight for what we collectively believe in. That is one of the really positive things about the development aid position within Ireland, in that in both Government and civil society there is huge understanding and agreement about what we jointly want to see. That is what we need to focus on.

I appreciate the witnesses coming in and highlighting the work they do all the time in order that we as a committee can take that message to the Ministers in the Department, the Government, etc. to say that this is vital. I am sure the witnesses already have done so. I always say that when it comes to international institutions, their attitudes to the development side are a bit like the personal attitude to a pension. Everybody believes it is vital but nobody wants to fund it, not realising that the implications of not funding it now are making it more expensive by trillions in the years to come. It is in Europe's interest. We only have to see at first hand, as have the witnesses and I on the ground, where we are within the African context if we get this wrong. Within a short number of decades, the problems that Europe sees as its fundamental problems at the moment such as migration will be exponentially greater than they are now because of our short-sightedness. I hope that we as a committee can play whatever role we can. If there are any other issues the witnesses want to come back to now, we will focus on them before we finish up. I really do appreciate both what the witnesses have done as organisations and groups and NGOs in civil society on a daily basis and the time they have given us today.

I think the Cathaoirleach, Deputy Brophy, for his words. The key message - I will ask others if they would like to say a few words to wrap up also - is, as the Cathaoirleach mentioned, around using our leverage where we have it. It is great to see that Deputy Michael McGrath will be going to the Commission and we have new MEPs on the ground. We will have a visit next week from Commissioner Urpilainen, who will be coming to Dublin. There are significant opportunities already to start influencing and scaling up how we can mobilise and ensure that our values are reflected in the foreign policy of Europe.

As Ms Wigens mentioned, there are other allies in Europe and we need to be strategic in how we are positioning ourselves and gathering other member states who have the same values as we do and ensuring that we are putting that on the table and pushing back some of the agendas that are being set at the moment. I will hand over to my colleagues to add some parting words.

I thank members for their time this morning. The leadership role that could Ireland play by setting a good example is vitally important. We have seen for ourselves how some member states that would have been supportive and sympathetic have moved away quite considerably.

Countries like Norway, where we had a good link in the past, seem to be taking a far harder line and a less sympathetic approach towards aid funding. It is quite worrying. It is not just at the parliamentary level; it is also where the member states are going. Where it is all going to end for us is my biggest concern.

Migration has been mentioned a few times this morning. If we tackle the symptoms of migration, we might be able to get to a better place, instead of worrying about how we are going to augment our borders and prevent them moving. People are only moving because they are desperate and have nothing in their own homes. We must continue to focus on the root causes of migration, rather than trying to keep them out. In addition, this will cost us much less in the long run.

I thank the committee for its time and the questions from members. I underscore the message Mr. Crowley powerfully conveyed, which is that this is a matter of political will. Business as usual is not going to get the job done. We really need to see creativity, ambition and the willingness to explore different options that may have been controversial at one moment in time. We have seen in the past, during the Covid-19 crisis and the war in Ukraine, for example, that there are creative ways to find money for emergencies and emerging crises that were unforeseen. We need to throw the same kind of energy at solving some of the complex global challenges, as we have done with the pandemic and with the war in Ukraine. Ms McKenna mentioned special drawing rights as one of those creative, less-used opportunities to create or give developing countries a financial injection to help them meet some of their climate and development needs. That is the approach that we need and we would be delighted to work with Ireland in the preparation for its Presidency to try to inject some of that energy and creativity into the debate in Europe.

I will come in very quickly on something Mr. Crowley said. The witnesses have laid it all out in respect of the frightening vista, the necessity for action and that if leadership can lead, we can get to a better place. That will deal with some of the major issues that we are dealing with currently, and that goes without saying. My point around conflict was to take it out of the equation. Even where there is no confict, there are still significant issues. I accept that those issues are multiplied and worsened when there is conflict. It impacts on all of us globally, but particularly the people in those desperate circumstances. Go raibh maith agaibh go léir.