The purpose of today's meeting is to engage with representatives of the development co-operation and Africa division of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on the subject of EU development. I welcome to the committee Mr. Michael Gaffey, who is the director general of the division, and Ms Ruth Parkin, who is the director of the Department's multilateral EU unit. They are both very welcome to the committee.

This meeting continues our previous engagement on EU development in May, when we considered development policy in Africa and the Middle East, EU-Africa relations, and funding of the development sector under the EU budget, most notably under the Global Europe instrument. As this environment has come under increasing pressure in recent years, the role of the EU is ever more important. This is certainly important in an Irish context as we hold the EU Presidency.

Before we begin, I must read a note on privilege. 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 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 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 they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask any member partaking via MS Teams to confirm prior to making their contribution to the meeting that they are on the grounds of the Leinster House complex.

Mr. Gaffey will have five minutes in which to make his opening statement, after which I will open up the floor for questions from members.

I thank the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach, Deputies and Senators. I welcome the opportunity to engage with this committee at a time when, as stated by the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach, development assistance globally is at a critical juncture and Ireland, in our role as President of the Council of the European Union, is facilitating discussions to bring into focus the future of EU development co-operation and humanitarian assistance. The international environment in which the European Union operates has changed considerably in recent years. We are seeing increased geopolitical competition, prolonged conflicts, climate shocks, rising humanitarian needs, growing food insecurity and significant pressures on development budgets globally. At the same time, there has been a significant decline in the volume of official development assistance, ODA.

OECD figures show that global ODA fell by more than 23% between 2024 and 2025, the largest annual decline on record, with projections indicating a further decline in 2026. Least developed countries have been particularly affected, with ODA to these countries declining by almost 26%. These pressures are occurring against the backdrop of major crises in Ukraine, Palestine, Sudan and across the Middle East. Humanitarian needs continue to grow while the resources available to address them are under increasing pressure. With this in mind, Ireland's EU Presidency has placed particular emphasis on creating space for an open political discussion among member states to develop a shared understanding of how the Union’s development assistance can best position itself in a changing global environment, while remaining anchored in the core objectives of poverty reduction, sustainable development and humanitarian action. These objectives came through strongly as priorities when the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, undertook extensive engagement with Irish civil society organisations in preparation for Ireland’s Presidency. The Minister of State also appeared before the European Parliament's development committee in July to outline Ireland's Presidency priorities, including the core dimensions we chose for focusing the strategic debate on the future of development - food security, global health, gender equality and climate action.

The EU remains the world's largest provider of development assistance and humanitarian aid. When global development financing is under pressure, maintaining that leadership role is more important than ever. This objective was at the centre of discussions at the informal meeting of the EU directors general for development, which I hosted in Dublin last week. That meeting provided a valuable opportunity for senior officials from across the Union to exchange views on emerging trends in development co-operation, reflect on the implications of declining global ODA and consider how the EU can remain an effective and credible partner in a rapidly changing world. More importantly, it helped to foster a shared understanding of the opportunities and challenges ahead. The meeting recognised the important role of ODA, in particular in meeting the needs of least developed countries and fragile contexts. It also recognised an important complementary role for investment, trade and the EU's Global Gateway strategy, where those tools are best suited to bridge the development finance gap and contribute to sustainable economic growth. These exchanges will prove useful in preparing for the strategic discussions that development ministers will hold at the informal meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council for development in early October. The discussions are happening in parallel to the ongoing negotiations of the next EU long-term budget - the multi-annual financial framework, MFF - covering the period from 2028 to 2034.

During the Presidency, Ireland is acting as an honest broker and is working to build consensus among member states on a complex and strategically important package. While there are many competing demands within the MFF, from agriculture and competitiveness to security and defence, it is fundamental that the EU’s leadership in providing development and humanitarian assistance in a sustained and long-term manner with global partners is upheld. I am happy to answer questions on all of that.

The committee also asked that we address developments in the Middle East. The humanitarian and development challenges across the region remain profound. Ireland supports continued EU engagement in Palestine and across the wider region, including Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Yemen. We continue to emphasise the importance of sustained humanitarian assistance, support for recovery and resilience, and the resolution of the appalling conflict in Gaza. The situation in the Middle East has also featured prominently in Ireland's Presidency programme, most recently on the agenda of the informal meeting of EU foreign ministers held in Wicklow at the start of September.

The EU remains committed to working with international and regional partners to protect the two-state solution and its viability. This will be an important focus of EU engagement and outreach during next week's UN General Assembly high-level week in New York.

From Ireland's perspective, building a shared understanding of the changing development landscape is an essential first step towards ensuring that the European Union remains a credible, effective and values-based partner in the decade ahead. I look forward to comments and questions on all of these issues.

I will open the debate to members. Deputy Gogarty was the first to indicate.

I thank Mr. Gaffey for his presentation. I thank the delegation for coming here on the day of the official resumption of the Dáil.

I welcome the engagement by the Irish Government to keep this subject as a priority as part of the Presidency process. As we know, there is a lot of pressure among other EU member states to invest more of their overall budget in defence. Even in Ireland, as a militarily neutral country, we feel that pressure. We are committing to our percentage of overseas development aid going up, although we are still a long way from 0.7%. In that context, while my question is not a rhetorical one, I am interested in hearing an honest opinion. How difficult does the director general think it would be to get the collective European membership to commit to reinvesting some of the lost funding? Is it a case of trying to maintain the level we are at, given the defence constraints? With the USA's contribution totally collapsing, some countries are in massive jeopardy.

I want to hear firstly about the split between the focus on humanitarian crises, most obviously those in Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan. Second, the historical definition of development aid involves helping countries to help themselves. Groups like ONE.org would say that if money is tight, you should try to leverage wealthier people through specific types of taxation levies and focus on the poorest countries rather than middle-income countries.

Is there any discussion of what kinds of countries would get the help? Obviously, helping people who are suffering from malnutrition, fleeing war and who need immediate help is one thing. However, for a country that is on the pathway, should there not be more focus on those countries that are actually making a concerted effort, where you will get the best bang for your buck, if the buck is not high enough? Is any of this going to be discussed? Has any of this been raised at a European level, or is it purely about the overall amounts and percentages?

I thank the Deputy. We decided that it was essential to keep development co-operation as a priority in the Presidency. To be honest, it has not been such a priority in recent Presidencies, and there has not actually been a meeting - an informal meeting - of development Ministers since the Polish Presidency, which is a long time ago. Because of the two things - the ODA cuts, but also a tendency for some countries to say that aid should now be used in the national interest rather than on a values basis - we felt it was important to open up the discussion on the importance of development co-operation and its future, and to try to demonstrate our view that we do not need to have an opposition between a values-driven approach and an interest-driven approach. In the world of today, the two are completely intertwined. We would argue it is not in the EU’s interests, including its security and defence interests, to reduce ODA to areas where it is most needed. In addition, if countries are focusing on trying to stem irregular migration, for instance, it does not naturally follow that they cut their development assistance to the poorest countries.

It is true that there have been serious reductions in ODA across the board. USAID was the main headline, and there has been a major cut in the UK, which was committed to 0.7%, then to 0.5% and now to 0.3% for ODA. The absence of the UK is a big thing, as well as the situation in the EU, given there have been cuts by some others. In fact, the countries that are maintaining and increasing their budgets are small enough in number - Ireland, Spain and a few of the Nordics. We are trying to have a debate that develops a broader understanding of the importance of development co-operation, and of ODA within that.

Looking to the future, it will be really important that ODA, even if it is constrained, is used where it is most needed and most effective, and that is in the poorest countries. For Ireland, our development policy is defined by trying to reach the furthest behind first. That makes sense. However, some countries that have moved to middle income status are also receiving ODA. What the EU is now trying to do is find new instruments that help those countries to grow, and new ways to bridge the development finance gap in those countries. We have argued that ODA has a very important place. To be honest, in the immediate future, getting an increase in ODA among member states across the European Union will be a little difficult, but things change. For example, the Netherlands has changed its Government and has recommitted, and we will see what happens in Sweden. It is all the more important, therefore, that the level of ODA that the European Union, as a Union, can deploy is protected, and that is where the MFF Global Europe instrument comes into play. We see it as important for the interests of the EU, and in line with the values of the EU, that a strong Global Europe instrument comes out of the MFF. That is a big focus of our current work.

We are discussing these issues in some detail during our Presidency. We have discussions on investment and a global gateway, and how that could work in the countries. We also have discussions on what are termed fragile contexts - that is, the poorest countries or countries subject to conflict and climate change - and how the EU can work there. That is not just done through humanitarian assistance; it is a mix of humanitarian assistance and trying to build up capacity and resilience. Last week, at our meeting in Dublin, we had a full session on how the EU should work in these fragile contexts.

It is a big debate, and it is a debate that is happening with less money than before. Nonetheless, the truth is that the European Union and member states are now the largest provider of development assistance. Some 48% of all global ODA is coming from the European Union. Our big aim is to have this on the agenda. When the development ministers meet in Dublin on 8 and 9 October, the two big subjects will be the future of development co-operation and how we can be more effective in humanitarian assistance.

We would agree completely with the Deputy. We do not want to focus exclusively on one. In the short term, humanitarian assistance is essential in meeting crises. It is essential in Sudan, in Gaza and across Palestine. However, we also have to work at how, in the long term, we can help countries to empower themselves and build up their economies. It is a big debate. I think we are opening it up again in the European Union, which is good, and we are committed to staying the course there. As the Deputy said, Ireland is committed to and has been increasing its ODA. We are still not at 0.7%; we are close to 0.4%. However, at the moment, in terms of ODA as a percentage of GNI, we are number eight. That is a good position from which to use our influence as holder of the Presidency.

I thank the witnesses for their presence today. I will begin with a question. I have seen a lot of commentary on social media and so on, some of it fuelled by public representatives in this House of democracy. There is a view that people watching and listening today may have a housing crisis, a health-related issue, scarce resources or pressures at home, and a view that we should be spending this money at home, first and foremost, and not spending money overseas. I want to be very clear. I abhor that particular view. I ask Mr. Gaffey to set out what his answer for those people is. How do we demonstrate to the Irish taxpayer that development assistance overseas is not simply an act of generosity and that there is a tangible benefit to Ireland and the European Union in terms of investing in stability, food security, health and development elsewhere?

We in Ireland know that there is strong support for our work and the work of development assistance. All surveys show that it is over 70%, it is about 73% at the moment. However, I would not be complacent about that.

We cannot take that support for granted.

Exactly. I would not be complacent about that for a second. In addition, the depth of that support would need to be looked at. The Deputy is absolutely right. We have to answer these questions. What we would say that a country like Ireland, with its history but also its engagement globally, cannot cut itself off from the world. Ireland’s continued prosperity depends on our engagement in the world, obviously through trade, but I would argue also through our work with developing countries. We respond to the need in developing countries. That is how we define our priorities - based on need. The truth is that if we, in collaboration with partners, can address that need and help countries to empower themselves - especially in Africa, although that is not an argument we make explicitly - it will have an impact in the future on the building up of those economies, on developing new trading partners and on addressing migration. I would say it is obvious in the context of Africa. We have argued strongly within the EU that the EU and Africa need to work together as partners because their development is tied together. The demographics of Africa alone show that.

I think the Irish people recognise the importance of responding to need, malnutrition and hunger, but they also recognise that Ireland’s place in the world, and the work we do in building relationships, building trading links and building diplomatic and other relations, is done in part through this development assistance.

We are recognised internationally as one of the countries that has maintained its commitment. I would not take that for granted; we have to continually demonstrate the impact of what we are doing. We can see it. We need to show it to the Irish people. We produced our annual report last week. The Minister has visited virtually all of our programme countries. We are working in Karamoja in northern Uganda, the poorest part of the country, where we focus very strongly on education for girls. We have seen over the past decade or two the impact this is having on girls who could not go to school, who were married off early and who had no life other than to try and rear children in enormously poor circumstances. They are now developing. They have education. They are getting secondary education and are demanding third level education. Industry is starting to move into that area. They are looking to continue to live there. In just that one example we can see over decades - it takes a little time - that there will be opportunities for Ireland and that people will not be forced to come and live here. We do recognise the importance of migration but we also recognise that irregular migration suits neither those who are forced out of their countries nor those countries which cannot cope with them. Development has an important role in that context.

I will ask one final question. In terms of the contraction, most of which is happening on the western side of the globe, is there a risk that China, for example, or the Gulf states are filling the vacuum? Does Europe and the western side of the world risk losing influence and the relationships we have built up over many decades?

Absolutely. We try not to define what we are doing as being in opposition to them, but the reality is that China, Russia, Türkiye and the Gulf countries are moving into Africa. In many cases, they are doing so in order to access critical raw materials or getting involved in many of the conflicts, for example, that in Sudan, which are fuelled so much from outside. If the European Union is seen to be pulling back, we will cede the place to those states. That has been recognised within the European Union. At the time of the invasion of Ukraine, there was a lack of understanding in certain parts of the European Union as to why some of the African countries were not voting in the same way as the Europeans. Essentially, the Africans were saying that they do not want to be taken for granted. They want to be regarded as equal partners. What Europe and Ireland need to develop is a relationship based on equal partnership, not just on the provision of aid. We try to put our aid in that context.

I thank Mr. Gaffey.

I thank Mr. Gaffey for his presentation. He mentioned that 48% of funding comes from European funds. That is a vital statistic. Of course it has to. We all agree with humanitarian funding and what has to be done there. Mr. Gaffey mentioned that Ireland is eighth in the world.

We are eighth in the world in the provision of official development assistance as a percentage of GNI, not in terms of the overall figures.

It is a very strong position to be in, even with a 0.4% contribution. Is there broad support for maintaining dedicated and ring-fenced humanitarian funding within the future EU external action budget? That is a very important question. On what regions will the global Europe instrument be focused? Are there regions where the Council has sought changes in terms of where more money will need to be spent? They are my questions.

There has been a debate. The global Europe instrument that is being proposed by the Commission, for which it has proposed an overall budget of €200 billion, pulls together a number of disparate instruments from the previous MFF. There is the broad development instrument and there is also the enlargement instrument. Separate from that, funding has been ring-fenced for Ukraine.

In the early discussions on the proposal, we and a lot of development organisations asked whether it would not make sense to ring-fence humanitarian funding. The Commission has argued that it wants maximum flexibility - the word it uses is "agility" - in the use of those funds. We argue strongly that it is very important to maintain humanitarian funding. Although it is not ring-fenced, we have been arguing in the discussions that there needs to be a dedicated amount or a floor below which it cannot go. The proposed allocation for humanitarian funding is very good, but we will see what happens in the negotiations.

The question of which regions is another item for discussion at the moment. We are looking at the overall amounts. For instance, it is no secret that Ireland would stress the importance of focusing on least developed countries in Africa. In our own policy, we also have a focus on small island developing states. Those discussions are to come. Those will be major discussions within the Union.

At present, the role that Ireland has as Presidency is to try to build a consensus around the different elements of the overall package. Global Europe is a relatively small part of that package but there is obviously the funding for everything that is in the European Union budget, including the Common Agricultural Policy, which comes into play. Those discussions and consultations are going on, being led by the Presidency at the moment. We will see what the outcome of those discussions is.

Mr. Gaffey mentioned the humanitarian obligations. As we adapt to the changing geopolitical landscape and our sphere of influence it is crucial that we do not lose sight of our humanitarian obligations. He mentioned the fact that there was a meeting of officials, in particular in relation to stepping up to their obligations in that whole area. Many of the states that are probably most vocal on irregular migration are those which have been supplying weapons to many areas of Africa and other parts of the world where there has been conflict. One of the contradictions that this is throwing up is that on the one hand they are complaining about irregular migration and war and yet the same countries are contributing to them. It is interesting that the countries Mr. Gaffey mentioned, which are increasing or trying to maintain their ODA, are not specifically part of the industrial military complex in the area. The point is that if we do not try to limit the damage of humanitarian crises, be it famine or climate change, we are going to have irregular migration and people will travel to areas of the world where there is a potential future for their children.

In an ever more connected world, wars that seemed very far away are not as far away as we originally thought and are impacting on everyone, particularly in Europe. The pull factor is that people are travelling here because there is the potential for change for their children.

Mr. Gaffey mentioned the Irish plan to reach 0.7% in aid and noted that it currently stands at 0.4%.

Is it a weakness of our system that we do not actually have a clear plan for reaching the target? We are in a lucky position in that the national finances are in a healthy state. Mr. Gaffey mentioned the meeting with the Minister that is planned for October in relation to the whole area of ODA. What is his sense in that regard? He said that the EU is at 48% in terms of aid provision following the stepping out of USAID and the reductions in aid on the part of some others countries. Does he get a sense that there is an appetite to move from 48% to 50% right across Europe, or is there such a focus on rearmament across Europe that we are looking at a situation whereby more and more money will be spent on arms? Historically, rearmament around the world, particularly in Europe, has not been a positive for many countries. It has led to more conflict, not an end to conflict. That is one of the concerns for many of us who want to see more input on aid.

The Deputy must allow the witnesses time to respond.

Unfortunately, the fact the European Union is providing 48% of ODA, as opposed to approximately 40% or 41% two years ago, is the result of the absence, in particular, of USAID provision. It is just an increased percentage rather than anything else. The Global Europe proposals would lead to an increase in development co-operation and ODA, but we will have to see how those proposals go.

On Ireland's position specifically, I can only answer as an official that we are at about 0.4%. Budget time is coming. The programme for Government commits to annual increases in ODA towards meeting the target of 0.7%.

The Deputy highlighted many of incoherences that exist in the world today and which feature a lot when dealing with humanitarian assistance and development co-operation. A lot of humanitarian assistance is going to deal with man-made conflicts and man-made disasters, with funding often coming from some of the countries that actually are contributing to those conflicts in the first place. In the much bigger picture, climate change is a particularly good example of that, whereby the countries least responsible for it are affected most, while those most responsible are perhaps not taking the action they need to take in terms of mitigation but are instead providing some funding to the countries most affected.

Conflict is a particularly important issue at the moment. The issue of hunger in the world is driven largely by conflict and by climate change. The Sudanese conflict, which has been going on since April 2023, could not be sustained without outside assistance to both of the main parties. It is the largest humanitarian crisis in the world, with 25 million people displaced from their homes and huge numbers dependent on humanitarian assistance. We have been pretty vocal in saying that the international political efforts to resolve that conflict are not sufficient. At the UN next week, we will again be involved in discussions on this. One of the problems is that outside countries, both in the region and beyond it, are providing arms to sustain the conflict.

Some conflict is driven by the wish to get critical raw materials out of particular countries. Even though we do not want to make a link directly, the link between migration, poverty and what is called "fragility" really is quite clear. Many of the poorest and most unstable countries in Africa, for instance, are those with the most reserves of critical raw materials that are needed to drive the global economy, and there is international competition to get at those reserves. Yet, by 2030, some 60% of the people in the world who live in extreme poverty will be living in countries that are classified as fragile contexts. Obviously, the solution to that is not to go in and extract the critical raw materials and make those countries poorer, which will lead to further migration. The solution is to build stability in those countries and help them to build up their economies. In the long run, doing that will cost much less for everyone.

Migration management features quite a bit in discussions on development co-operation but we would always try to broaden that discussion, emphasising that it is in the interests of EU stability and economic growth that we have partnerships with countries in Africa that can start to be built up by ODA without becoming dependent on it. As an international community, we should never, for example, have allowed countries in southern Africa to become so dependent on the US for their AIDS treatments. When that provision was cut overnight, people died. Building up the ability of countries to build their own health systems cannot be done overnight. That situation has led to deaths and it is also not in the interests of the European Union.

In pointing out these incoherences, it is very important to understand them. There are issues there that require more political attention rather than just more ODA.

I apologise for being late to the meeting, which was because I got delayed at the Order of Business in the Dáil.

I want to put on record my admiration for Irish Aid both in terms of the work it does and also because that work comes without strings attached. That is a hugely important part of proper ODA that actually serves communities rather than serving the community back home. We have much to be proud of in that regard. Mr. Gaffey mentioned the commitment in the programme for Government to continue to increase ODA to aim for the target of 0.7%. From discussions I have had with Ministers, I believe that will happen. I hope it happens.

The focus of my questions is more on the European level. Ireland and Spain are the only countries that have increased ODA in the past year. We are central now to the negotiations on the MFF. I am worried, given the stance taken by the so-called frugals and by many of the countries in the European Union on defence spending, in particular, that the European External Action Service, EEAS, will be an easy cut to make to ensure the sums add up at the end of the MFF negotiations. How much do the witnesses fear that will happen?

My colleagues working on this as honest brokers would not like to hear me answering that question. I will say that the Global Europe instrument, no matter whether cuts are made to it, will not solve the other problems we are facing. The amounts are not sufficient to address the much bigger issues. We are talking about an instrument with a total budget of €200 billion. We are talking about humanitarian assistance of €25 billion. The argument the Minister will make, and that we will be making internally, is that if cuts are needed across the board for obvious reasons to do with own resources, the overall amount and the frugals, there should not be disproportionate cuts to Global Europe. It is an easy area to cut but it is not an easy cut in that it will not solve the problems immediately. The work of Global Europe is interests-based as well as values-based.

Within the EEAS, there is more than just the ODA element; there is also the diplomatic footprint. Does Mr. Gaffey fear that the European global diplomatic presence might be reduced?

No, I do not. The Commission has made some changes to the staffing of its missions in Africa as it has moved more towards an investment approach. Some of the development expertise in the missions has been concentrated in hubs in Africa, about which we had some concerns. However, I think it is working. There is still a strong focus on development programmes. The argument we have then is about how we ensure the European Union maintains its broad development co-operation as well as its investment work under the Global Gateway. We see the two as complementary, not as substitutes.

There is still a very strong commitment to the diplomatic footprint of the European Union.

We work very closely with the EAS in our missions. In some countries in Africa, such as Malawi, there are not many EU embassies. The only EU member states with embassies in Malawi are Ireland and Germany, and there is an EU mission. We have a very strong focus on food security and nutrition in Malawi. We have a big influence there. There are very few EU missions in Sierra Leone. Ireland is one of them and stayed there even through ebola. There is also Liberia. We have chosen our missions in a manner that means we can be influential, rather than one of a very large number of countries. I do not see a risk in respect of the number of EU missions.

You mentioned Malawi. I assume America and China are in every country.

Yes.

I am conscious of what President von der Leyen said in her state of the European Union speech this morning. She spoke about setting up a specific task force - I cannot remember the exact term she used - that would focus on rare earth minerals and things like that. There is strong evidence that Europe has abdicated its responsibility to engage with African countries in the way that China is doing. China has swallowed up resources in Africa. Do you think that her speech today is an indication that the European Union will change tack on that, and stand up and take responsibility for engaging with African countries? That has to be done on an equal basis. Far too often, the colonial past of Europe has meant that we see them as dependents rather than equal trading partners. Do the witnesses think that is something that will change?

A lesson has been learned from how many in Europe took Africa for granted politically at the time of Ukraine and then saw the influence Russia and China had. We have watched the growing influence of China for several decades. Türkiye has developed influence. Of course these countries have every right to develop their interests, but how does Europe maintain its influence? There has been a growing realisation that it can only be done on the basis of genuine partnership.

The term "mutually beneficial partnerships" is used a lot nowadays. That is fine if "mutually beneficial" actually means that it is to the benefit of Europe and countries which build up their health, education and governance systems. We have always said that you cannot focus on investment and infrastructure alone if you do not also assist with the work of building education, health and social security systems. That partnership approach is much more recognised now. President von der Leyen has seen it on her visits to Africa.

Ireland had a great opportunity because we were recognised for our work when we were invited last year to be a guest member of the G20 by the South African presidency. We were able to play a big role in explaining Europe better in African countries. We have an ability to do that without suspicions of colonial baggage. We have played a diplomatic role.

Any notion that there can be a scramble for critical raw materials in Africa will not work. That lesson has been learned. There were those who believed that should be how we look at Africa. It is now understood that there is a much broader relationship.

Okay. Thank you very much. Does anybody else want to come in?

I thank Mr. Gaffey for his earlier responses. I wanted to come back in on what the Chair said about China's belt and road initiative. A lot of it is benign, but Chinese money is involved and countries are on the hock. One could argue it is a different kind of colonialism. Historically, Europe, including the Germans, the Belgians, the French and other colonial countries, said they would give aid to countries in Africa, but they must respect human rights and do certain things. It is almost like the guys who treated them like dirt and exploited them for centuries are now telling them what to do, and they should go and get stuffed.

There are one or two EU departments located in Dublin. Maybe this Presidency is the opportunity to address whether overseas development aid can be subcontracted to Ireland, which has a slightly more benign colonial influence. Nigeria, for example, has a huge relationship with Ireland because of the missionaries. We were trying to export a certain type of ideology while also helping people. Given that we were subjugated colonially, there is greater understanding. Is there an opportunity for Ireland to become the de facto EU representative in Africa? We have human rights standards and are trying to promote them, but the benefit from working with Europe is that we will treat African countries as equal partners. There would be trade, not aid. We would not try to come after them with loans. There is a chance to rebuild with middle income countries. I presume such work is already happening to some degree. What is the potential to develop it further from a geopolitical point of view, given that everything appears to come with strings attached historically, whether that is colonial Europe or expanding China?

I do not think there are many countries in the European Union that want to cede their engagement in Africa to Ireland. We take a lead-----

In terms of PR-----

-----and are seen as taking a lead. During this Presidency we are putting Africa on the agenda more than it has been in the past in terms of the conflict in Sudan, engagement with the African Union and the overall focus of development co-operation and not just aid.

The Deputy is absolutely right. I meant to say earlier that China's engagement was famously originally based on the famous belt and road initiative. China brought in huge numbers of Chinese workers to build roads and infrastructure. They lived in towns and villages in Africa. Questions started to arise in Africa as to the efficacy of this as an engagement.

One of the major constraints on development in Africa is debt. Countries are paying far more in debt repayments than they are in their funding for their education and health systems. In a way, the debt problem was more easily dealt with 20 years ago because of the source of that debt. Much of the debt is now to China. I read recently that China is now taking more out of Africa than it is putting in because of debt repayments. That is a change which has opened eyes across Africa. It is true that many in Africa said the Chinese came in and there was no strings attached to what it gave countries, but European countries go to Africa and demand human rights standards. It is important we understand that a significant part of sustainable development is based on human rights standards. An essential part of it is gender equality. We will not make progress on sustainable development without work on gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls.

Mr. Gaffey mentioned Uganda in the context of working with girls who are now getting to second level and want to go to third level. That could be done through soft influence rather than lecturing. It can be done in a subtle rather than a controlling way.

Exactly. It could involve building future partnerships. There are a few areas in Africa that are a little more difficult. When people say the human rights components and gender equality are western notions, we say they are rights and countries have signed up to human rights, but if they want to forget about that they also need to look to how economic growth is built through such frameworks. Issues such as LGBTI rights and sexual and reproductive health rights are more difficult. We speak openly in Africa on LGBTI rights. We raise our concerns with governments on legislation outlawing LGBTI people and activities. We do so directly at the political level.

We speak quite only openly on sexual and reproductive health and rights because not only are they rights, they are also important for sustainable development and economic growth. The point is the tone and the way in which engagement takes place. We do it straightforwardly and openly and not in a lecturing way.

Europe, I think, was for a long time seen as lecturing and linking its aid to the adoption of standards that countries or communities maybe did not fully understand or commit to. It is long-term work but we are doing it and we have very effective embassies right across Africa.

I thank the witnesses for being with us. My apologies; I was delayed at another meeting.

Deputy Gogarty has touched on a lot of the points I wanted to make. In regard to overseas aid and humanitarian aid, we are probably not putting enough emphasis when it comes to the lessons around democracy and peace. I take Mr. Gaffey's point that, up to now, Europe was seen almost as a lecturer to the Middle East and Africa when it came to these things. I feel that is still the way it is perceived: that we are giving with the one hand but on the other, saying that they have to do this on our terms. This is not a case where you have had a lack of aid or development over a short period; this has been going on over a very long time. While we were complacent with regard to the support the US was providing and on the role the EU has to play on development within overseas aid, that allowed an opportunity for some areas in the Middle East and Africa to go to China and Russia to receive aid from and build stronger links with these countries, making them feel they were operating as partners. Mr. Gaffey commented earlier on the importance of the EU acting as a partner, not as some kind of commandeering parent towards these countries. Yes, we need to provide education and the actual aid but it is so vital that we can provide training and education on democracy, how society works and on peacekeeping and to do that from a position of speaking to these countries, not speaking at them. As I see it, at the moment, all we are doing is isolating them and the decrease in the aid budget is obviously not helping this.

What does Mr. Gaffey feel we can be actively doing? How does he think Ireland can play its role within the Presidency, or indeed the next EU Presidency, to push forward this agenda? When we look at how incredibly severe the geopolitical situation at an international level is at the moment, we have left so many countries behind due to complacency and, possibly, arrogance and ignorance as well. I found it very interesting, at an international parliamentarians' conference I attended recently, that the divide between the West and the East - and I include Africa in that - is so vast. It was a conference on human rights and speakers from the EU, Canada and Ireland were picking out countries like Algeria, Belarus, a lot of Middle Eastern countries and several African countries and saying their record in relation to human rights was terrible. Yes, cool, but they do not want to hear that. Immediately, they got support in that room from China and the delegates from Russia, while the Europeans and Canadians were telling them they were wrong. We need to take an approach that is not all stick, where we can do stick and carrot and acknowledge what they are doing right. To me, that does not appear to be happening at the moment and I think the wedge is deepening. The actual physical aid, the humanitarian aid and the education piece in regard to young children and women are all vitally important but if we cannot do that while simultaneously progressing democracy and peace and treating these countries as equals rather than somebody we are looking down on because we have been ignoring them for years, things are going to be a lot more serious in the next two to three years than what they currently are. I am not sure how much we are doing on that or what more we can be doing in that regard.

I thank the Senator. I agree there is a real role that Ireland can and does play here. The European Union needs to recapture its identity as a peace project in itself and as a project that has delivered prosperity. It was, frankly, not originally a defence and security project, though there are obviously defence and security elements. When we go to our partners in Africa, it has to be with that history.

Ireland has an advantage because, including on the debates within the EU on the future of development co-operation, we can demonstrate how there is a number of member states, including Ireland, Spain and Portugal, who in recent and living memory have benefited from development co-operation. We can show this in Africa in our discussions, that is, that we have received aid, used it to build up our economy and we have had a social and economic transformation. We have done so by building more inclusion, human rights and gender equality. What we tend to try to do is not to lecture but to share our own experience and we get asked for our own experience.

It is difficult to overcome the obstacles of history. If you are sitting in certain countries in Africa, you remember who the colonial power was. If that colonial power in its modern manifestation is taking a sort of lecturing approach or linking its aid in a way that is not comfortable, that is going to build resentment. However, we have a role there, along with some other states, in presenting our engagement as being of course in our interests but also based on our history and understanding of how societies develop. I think that gives us a role.

It is true; whatever about the reality, perceptions in Africa in recent years were that the European Union did not deliver on vaccines for the poorest during Covid. That is the perception, and that the European Union took Africa for granted in relation to diplomatic resolutions in the UN on the invasion of Ukraine. There is also a perception that Europe displayed double standards in relation to human rights with the conflict in Gaza. Ireland is not regarded as having displayed the double standards in relation to, for instance, human rights abuses in Ukraine and Gaza. We have been able to attempt to explain Europe and its positions in a very open way, directly, at the highest levels across Africa and that would be one of the reasons, I am sure, why we were invited to join as a guest country to the G20. We have a strong role to play and the interest in a proper European Union partnership with Africa is stronger now than it was. We have that strong role to play in bringing that level of reality to it. I agree with the Senator.

Mr. Gaffey said in his presentation that there has been a significant decline in the volume of official development assistance. Figures show that global ODA fell by 23% between 2024 and 2025, and a further decline looks likely in 2026. That is a frightening statistic, quite honestly. How can this decline can be addressed or can it be addressed at this stage?

It can always be addressed, yes, although sometimes it takes time for things to come round again. The big shock was the overnight closure of USAID. There have been cuts by other big countries too - the UK, Germany and France. There have been quite a lot of cuts. There was a move away from ODA by some countries. Some countries did it for budgetary reasons. Some countries said ODA does not work and some said they cannot afford ODA because they have to build up their defence and security. I am sure we will come round again on those arguments but for the moment, the cut is there. It will not be as big this year as it was in 2025. That was the big year because of USAID. We will not compensate for that purely through the EU budget. It will be incumbent on governments to look again at how they provide aid and what development co-operation is used for and how we define it. If people say it does not work, we are saying that we should discuss what development co-operation means, how we deliver ODA and what we want to achieve from it. ODA alone is not going to bring sustainable development. We also need finance from the private sector. We need to build better domestic resource mobilisation in African countries, and that is taxation. We need to address the debt problem and get the international financial system working more effectively.

ODA is a small part of it but it is the part that is highlighted. Frankly, cutting ODA while trying to change other aspects of the development system will not work because countries in need of ODA will accuse such countries of double standards.

With regard to the US, while everything was cut overnight, the US system has started to provide some more assistance. For instance, last year, the US State Department provided €2 billion in humanitarian assistance through the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, OCHA. That was unexpected. It is also looking to provide health assistance, albeit with strings attached. The humanitarian assistance does not come with any strings attached, however. There is a debate going on in the US in this regard. I would not give up on this debate at all. We have to be able to demonstrate the impact and importance of ODA. Above all, we must demonstrate that it does not solely relate to our values; it is important for our interests.

At a previous committee meeting, we had a discussion regarding aid and the impact of USAID stopping everything. One of the contributors spoke about how there were all these trucks and warehouses with food rotting in Egypt while people were starving in Gaza. That happened because a decision was taken to not allow them to go. It is a timely reminder of the decisions politicians make in relation to these things.

To go back to the whole issue of aid and support, I remember visiting a project in Tanzania a number of years ago that had the aim and idea of supporting democracy. One of the things involved - there was support from the Irish Government and the EU at the time - was the oversight of budgets. The irony was that this was happening with the support of Irish taxpayers but it was not actually happening in Ireland. The Opposition in Ireland did not have this. We were rolling out this ideal model for people in Tanzania but we did not actually have the same process and supports for Opposition parties in Ireland. I am not complaining about that but I am just saying there is a certain irony there.

I wish to mention the importance of calling out our supposed allies engaged in oppression and wars that are slaughtering people or creating famine in parts of the world. It is vital that that voice still be there and that we call out our friends in this regard. International law has to be sacrosanct. We cannot make excuses or stay silent when some countries engage in that regard. Yemen, Sudan and so forth were mentioned. We know the countries involved on both sides of those conflicts. Some of them are supposed friends. We need to be vocal in that regard. If we are to be consistent in calling out other conflicts, we cannot be silent on any conflict that is happening around the world. That is an important message.

Turning to Africa, countries such as Tanzania, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Kenya had just one single road for travelling and getting supplies to market. The Chinese came in and encouraged road building and so forth. There are positives in that regard. It is not all negative when it comes to the Chinese.

Yes.

While they have their own motives, they are also helping to build the infrastructure in many of those countries. It is not all negative. That is the message coming from those countries.

That is true. Virtually every airport people travel through in Africa will have been built by the Chinese. The parliament building in Malawi was built by the Chinese. However, the road from Freetown in Sierra Leone to the border with Liberia is an excellent road built by the European Union. What the Deputy said is true, though.

The Deputy made an important point - it is also linked to the aid we give - that we need to insist on respect for international humanitarian laws and human rights standards. The Deputy mentioned Gaza. Some 300 UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, UNRWA, workers have been killed in the conflict. It is the most dangerous time ever to be a humanitarian worker. The Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, will chair a conference with Commissioner Lahbib in October along with the International Committee of the Red Cross, ICRC, on the protection of humanitarian workers. Next week in New York, we will have a focus on the protection of humanitarian workers. Crucially, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, will speak at an event on the need to protect international humanitarian law. We have seen flagrant violations of humanitarian law in Ukraine, Gaza, the West Bank and Sudan. Apart from the appalling suffering and breaches of human rights, these violations lead to the need to provide more and more humanitarian assistance. It is adding up the different areas of what comes under the heading of foreign policy that the European Union and all of us need to do more effectively.

Tanzania is an interesting case in point because we focused a lot on the building of communities and democratic participation in Tanzania. The challenge is always there. The crackdown by its Government following last year’s elections led to the deaths of a large number of people, which was a shock to the system. It emphasises the need to keep an eye not just on the governments we are dealing with but also the communities and the people, specifically young people. Huge populations of young people across Africa are not ready to accept corruption, bad governance and poverty. If we are not partners in helping to address those issues for the future, we will feel the impact too.

The Deputy pointed out those incoherences very clearly.

I wish to raise two other issues. I was quite surprised to hear that there were only two EU national embassies in Malawi. Are there particular diplomat black spots in Africa that we should be aware of from the point of view of the European Union’s coverage?

As some countries have reduced their aid budgets, they have finished their bilateral programmes in Africa and are then closing their embassies. I saw today that the Netherlands was closing its embassy in Zimbabwe. Norway is closing its embassy in Malawi. Sweden is pulling out of Tanzania. Norway closed its embassy in Uganda and the Irish Embassy moved into the building. That is just as it happened. Some countries are also opening embassies in other countries. For example, the Netherlands will open an embassy in Namibia. In a way, there is a sense of some countries moving where there is greater opportunity rather than staying in countries where it is more long term through the building up of development.

We have expanded our number of embassies over recent years. The newest embassy was opened in Senegal two years ago. We have good coverage across Africa. It is a concern if countries are closing their embassies because embassies are not just there to develop aid. They are there to develop relationships, including trade and people-to-people relationships. That is a concern.

In the context of our bilateral programmes in Africa, if other countries withdraw, it is a concern for us as to where that leaves Ireland. We are continuously reviewing our programmes in Africa to ensure they remain relevant and have impact because the last thing we want is Ireland to become isolated in a country in the provision of aid. We need to collaborate with others and the governments in question. That means we have to review constantly what we are doing. We are not intending to pull back. Rather, it is about how we adapt and change to remain relevant.

It is true, however, that there are shifts in embassies at the moment.

There are a number of countries, particularly in Africa, that have embassies in Ireland but we do not have embassies in their countries. Is that right?

That is correct.

I am thinking of Sudan and Lesotho.

Sudan has an embassy in Ireland.

I do not think we have an embassy in Lesotho.

We had an embassy in Lesotho and we closed it about 12 years ago. Ghana is opening an embassy in Ireland this year and we do not have an embassy in Ghana so, yes, that is the case in some cases. We have expanded, however. The Government has expanded the diplomatic footprint of Ireland under the Global Ireland initiative. It has doubled the footprint of Ireland globally, so that has been a major achievement.

Maybe Mr. Gaffey is not comfortable answering this question but in terms of the possible expansion of Ireland’s budgetary allocation for ODA, if he had €100 million or €200 million extra in the budget, what would his priorities be?

All I can say is that there is need - there is massive need - and we feel that it is not being met. In the crises in the world, the humanitarian crises are not being funded to the extent that the UN requires. This is the case to such an extent that in the humanitarian reset that Mr. Tom Fletcher is leading in OCHA, he has had to define that assistance will be provided only to those in the most extreme need. Our focus is based on need. We could increase our funding on humanitarian issues everywhere but what is really important is that we maintain and try to develop our long-term development assistance and not just become the providers of humanitarian assistance. We have redefined our humanitarian assistance as trying to address humanitarian need so that we are also anticipating crises and trying to build resilience against future crises. I have kind of avoided the question and talked around it but I am essentially saying that we will have no shortage of issues to address.

I can imagine. Does anybody else want to come in?

One thing that struck me when talking about the importance of value for money is that we need to be vigilant in relation to how that is spent. One of the things that saddens a lot of people is the fact that there is huge investment from Ireland and the wider EU into the likes of the occupied territories in relation to schools, water treatment plants, infrastructure, community facilities and so on and they are being destroyed by the Israel Defense Forces, IDF, particularly in the occupied territories. We try to build and rebuild. At some stage, do we call a stop to it? Do we make these people accountable? At some stage, someone has to say "Halt" in relation to how facilities keep getting destroyed. We need to hold those people who are destroying them to account. We have international arrest warrants, yet those individuals are able to fly over European space and they are not being arrested. Again, it comes back to the importance of international law. Some people can do anything they want in relation to genocide and not be arrested and a blind eye is turned by some countries in Europe. It is the importance of Europe being consistent and speaking out in relation to many of these issues. Ireland has done so. If Netanyahu ever travels over Irish airspace or if he ever lands in Ireland, I would like to think he would be arrested. However, there are other elements in relation to the Government and so on.

I thank the Deputy very much. Does Mr. Gaffey want to come back in on that?

I will just say very quickly that it is the case, for instance in the West Bank, that we monitor the destruction of property that has been funded through us along with a consortium of others and we highlight it. We make claims against the Israeli authorities. We have not received anything back. Gaza is a completely bigger issue because the flattening of Gaza has destroyed vast amounts of property and institutions that were funded by international assistance to the extent that a lot of the Gulf countries said they are not going to fund rebuilding until it is in the context of a political solution. In all of this, in our case, we try to maintain our aid. There is a massive problem in Gaza at the moment in getting the access for humanitarian assistance, and we highlight that. It is a good point, however. We cannot just build and rebuild forever. Politics have to come into play. When it comes to Palestine, the political solution is the only thing that will stop this.

Gabhaim buíochas leis na finnéithe as ucht na hoibre a dhéanann siad agus as ucht an léargais a thug siad dúinn sa chruinniú seo.

I thank the witnesses very much. Their time is very valuable but they have given us great insight into the work they do. I thank Mr. Gaffey and Ms Parkin so much for their time. We will now go into private session to deal with housekeeping matters and the business of the committee before adjourning until Wednesday, 23 September 2026 at 3:30 p.m. when we will discuss EU enlargement. I thank everyone very much.