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

Members are also 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 that they comply with any such direction.

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

This is our first session in the new Dáil term. We look forward to a very productive session ahead with the members. To the public who might be watching, we rotate through a number of themes. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade shadows and provides oversight of the work of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Today, our topic for discussion is the work of the Eleanor Crook Foundation on combating malnutrition. I welcome our witnesses: Mr. Zander Woollcombe, head of Irish Government relations at the foundation, and Mr. Tom Arnold, economist and policy adviser. You are both very welcome to discuss this important topic. The format of the meeting is we will hear your opening statements, followed by questions and answers with the members of the committee. That is a seven-minute period for each member and includes the answers as well, so try to be tight and compact and we will get a second round in if we are lucky. I ask members to also be concise in their questions to allow everybody to participate.

I pass the floor to Mr. Arnold to make his opening statement, followed by Mr. Woollcombe. They might tell us a little bit about Eleanor Crook.

I thank the Chair. I am grateful for the opportunity to talk to the committee. I want to talk about the worsening global food situation, including its implications for loss of life, broader human security and political instability, and what needs to be done about it at international, EU and national levels.

On 28 May last, The Irish Times published an article I had written warning of the possibility of a gathering global food crisis in late 2026 and into 2027. The reasons for this concern were threefold. The first was the almost 300 million people who were seriously food insecure due to the series of protracted conflict situations, most notably in Sudan. The second related to the risks that the Middle East war brought to future food supplies due to its impact on both the supply and price of fertiliser. The World Food Programme estimated that if the conflict was not resolved by midsummer, an extra 50 million people were at risk of becoming hungry and food insecure. I termed this situation a slow-motion food crisis but given that there then was a 60-day ceasefire in the Middle East war during which negotiations to resolve the conflict were expected, there was a reasonable expectation that the worst impacts could be avoided. The third reason was the possibility that the forthcoming El Niño would severely impact food production through an increased number of extreme weather events such as drought and floods.

In the wake of the publication of that article, the Cathaoirleach met Mr. Woollcombe and I, representing the Eleanor Crook Foundation. I spoke of the main risks outlined in The Irish Times article. Mr. Woollcombe discussed the implications for child malnutrition associated with a worsening global food situation. The Cathaoirleach suggested that this committee would wish to consider the evolving food situation after the summer break. I thank him for delivering on his commitment by having this meeting.

I regret to inform the committee that, over the past four months, each of three concerns I mentioned in the article have gotten worse. There have been no significant moves to resolve the set of protracted conflicts, most shamefully for the world’s largest humanitarian crisis in Sudan. There are no signs of any imminent breakthrough in resolving the two most high-profile conflicts, namely, the Middle East war and the Russia-Ukraine war. President Trump recently said that the conflict in the Middle East will go on until at least after the US midterm elections in November. This slow-motion food crisis is becoming deeper and more serious. There has been little political consideration given to the knock-on effects of these conflicts on the number of hungry people globally and the political instability this will inevitably cause. The assessment of the likely impact of El Niño has shifted markedly since May and June from a likely strong to moderate El Niño to the current high probability prospect of the very strong, potentially historically significant El Niño by late 2026, with substantial impacts extending into 2027. The conclusion from this is that, unless there is urgent and decisive action, the world could be sleepwalking into a global food crisis that could directly cause the loss of millions of lives and many more millions of children having their future life prospects scarred by the impact of early childhood malnutrition.

Urgent action is needed on three key fronts. First, given that there is no sign of any imminent end to either the Middle East or Russia-Ukraine conflicts, there need to be some compromises found that will mitigate the worst impact of the food crisis, such as was achieved during 2022 with a UN-Türkiye arrangement that kept Russian and Ukrainian grain and fertiliser flowing through alternative routes.

Second, there needs to be immediate major contingency planning, with associated financial resources, to mitigate the worst impact of El Niño. Third, there needs to be new forms of political leadership to enable the other two measures to happen.

With the diminished status of the UN and probably without support from the current US Administration, the EU should have an important role in framing an adequate response to the emerging food crisis. Ireland's EU Presidency has the will and capacity to support the EU. Other major powers, such as China, India and Brazil, should contribute to an agreed set of initiatives to make the global south, which has most to lose from a deepening food crisis, find its voice. There has to be a serious effort to prevent this crisis from happening, rather than responding when it does happen.

Discussions on the political and economic risks associated with the deepening food crisis will be held this week at the UN. This will indicate what appetite and scope there is for political action for a set of measures to address the crisis. There can be no doubting the urgency of the need for action. This crisis will not be confined to late 2026 and early 2027. The world is entering a sustained period when food and nutrition security will be central to political stability and human security and the role of climate change and conflict will be key to food and nutrition security.

The medium-term perspective indicates that it is now timely that Ireland should define how it can maximise its influence on the global food crisis in the medium term. This will involve increased co-ordination between Departments dealing with foreign affairs, agriculture, climate and the environment. This committee should have a key role in overseeing the implementation and monitoring of such a policy. I thank the committee for its attention.

I thank the Cathaoirleach, Deputies and Senators for having me, a representative of the Eleanor Crook Foundation, here today. Eleanor Crook is a 94-year-old lady whose family set up and run HEB supermarkets in America, the eighth largest private employer. She was very struck by various humanitarian crises and how they impacted on mothers and children, in particular, linked to malnutrition. Over the past 30 years we have spent about $200 million, exclusively focused on malnutrition, largely looking at policy, research and advocacy. We are a comparatively small foundation compared to others in the United States, but by having a focus on malnutrition and working with other philanthropies and Governments around the world, we have helped to put this agenda on the political map. We are very grateful for the opportunity to speak to the committee.

Malnutrition is an area where Irish values, leadership, expertise and innovation in international co-operation is making a difference, including, as we speak, at this week's United Nations General Assembly. Malnutrition is entirely preventable, yet it is the leading cause of death for children under five, claiming a child's life every 11 seconds. Right now, more than 40 million children are suffering from acute malnutrition. Fewer than one in three acutely malnourished children actually receive treatment. Despite it causing half of all child deaths, less than 1% of official development assistance goes to programmes specifically focused on malnutrition.

We scale proven, high impact and cost effective solutions to malnutrition and prevent malnutrition through investment in food and health systems. However, at a time when more than 2 million children are dying each year from malnutrition, investment in two specific interventions could prevent most of these deaths. The first is ready to use therapeutic food, otherwise known as Plumpy'nut. It is formulated to bring a child back from the brink of death, rapidly delivering the nutrients their bodies need to recover. It is essentially peanut butter paste with vitamins and minerals. It costs 22 cent for one packet or €44 for a complete course of treatment. Over 90% of children who received this fully recover in a matter of weeks and most do not relapse. Reaching every starving child with ready-to-use therapeutic food, RUTF, would cost €1.5 billion per year, less than 1% of what the world spends on snacks.

The other area we focus on are multiple micronutrient supplements. These are prenatal vitamins. Pretty much every woman in Ireland who is pregnant will take prenatal vitamins, but in parts of the world where pregnant women are suffering from anaemia or are malnourished, getting these supplements can make a massive difference to the birthweight of their babies. The first thousand days of a child's life are critical for brain development and other areas of development. If the children fall back at that stage, they do not catch up. These tablets cost two cent each and €3.50 over the course of a pregnancy. They reduce low birth weight and the risk of infant mortality by 29% among anaemic mothers, laying the foundation for brain development and a lifetime of health.

We work with governments and ministries of health in Nepal, Ghana and Senegal to scale up programmes that are found to help. We work with international organisations like Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, UNICEF, the World Food Programme, private sector partners, data groups, technological innovators, including in Ireland, and philanthropies like the Gates Foundation, the Children's Investment Fund Foundation, Spencer Kirk and a range of others. In June, we incubated a new €120 million public-private partnership in the United States, combining philanthropic and public funding from the US State Department, aiming to end child deaths from starvation. It is called operation end starvation and the aim is to bring the success of Gavi and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria to the malnutrition space for a more cost effective and sustainable funding model.

Over the past seven years, as ECF's UK and Ireland director we built partnerships in Dublin, London, Paris and Brussels, in addition to our work in North America, Africa and South Asia. We focus on supporting UNICEF's child nutrition fund and broader investments to prevent and treat malnutrition. The child nutrition fund is something Irish Aid gave €10 million to in 2025. We hope there will be more. It combines domestic policies and funds, local supplier networks and global financing under one umbrella to permanently end child wasting. Critically for Irish taxpayers, their contributions leverage a one-to-one philanthropic match mechanism.

As we discuss critical interventions to combat global malnutrition, and while Ireland's leadership though Irish Aid is hugely important and welcome, the single greatest threat right now is the upcoming October EU budget negotiation box on the 2028 to 2034 multi-annual financial framework. We understand the Irish Presidency is an honest broker in this process, but we are deeply concerned by preliminary reports indicating cut to heading three, the global Europe instrument from which comes all funding for external action, including on social sectors, including health, agriculture, food security, governance and human rights. Given how difficult cutting other areas of the budget is likely to be, it seems likely from reports in the Financial Times and Politico today on scenarios being run related to this that front-line cuts to the budget will be made. If that happened, malnutrition would be a front-line casualty.

When external aid lines are squeezed, health systems collapse and life-saving therapeutic food pipelines vanish. In this geopolitical context, the committee should encourage the Minister for Finance and Taoiseach to hold the line on a robust external budget before the first week of October and work with their European counterparts to get them to make the case in their member state capitals. Agreement in Brussels must not come at the expense of support for the most world's most vulnerable children.

I ask the committee to please continue to scale up Irish political and financial leadership on malnutrition and hunger. Ireland leads the way, and is the only country, along with Spain, that is increasing its aid budget, but it still gives substantially less then peer economies like Denmark. Ireland is doing a great job, but there is always more that can be done.

Ireland should leverage innovative partnerships with partner governments and philanthropies to increase impact. It should think about innovation, support the child nutrition fund and actively explore new ways of working. Ireland should seize the opportunity of its European Presidency as decisions are taken this autumn. New research shows that for every one euro of aid from EU institutions, roughly €6.80 in additional European exports is generated. That is through aid specifically for social sectors, not just aid for trade, which is important. Even core aid areas help the European economy in the long run. Africa is also a massive strategic partnership.

While the MFF is focused on security and competitiveness, this does not mean that food security, health security and climate security should not be part of that conversation, or that strengthening our partnership with the fastest growing continent on earth is not a competitiveness priority. I thank the committee for its leadership and for the invitation to come before it.

Is the Eleanor Crook Foundation founded on retail? That is the business the family has. Did Mr. Woollcombe say it is the eighth-biggest company?

Private employer. It is the biggest supermarket in Texas and various other parts of the south-western United States and it is also big in Mexico.

I will kick off with an obvious question before I go to my colleagues. What kind of conversations take place between representatives of the company and the US Government on the substantial cuts in US aid under the present Administration? Are conversations possible? Do these conversations take place?

We work very closely with the US Administration. One of the things worth noting is that in February Congress put forward a budget that increased substantially the amount of money spent on international development and overseas aid. There was an additional $300 million for malnutrition and out of this has come this new partnership between the US Government and philanthropy on Operation End Starvation. We are pleased there is cross-party support in Congress for these programmes and that despite what happened last year we are able to find new ways of working and engaging with the US Government at international level to save children's lives.

I thank the witnesses and I really appreciate the presentation, which is extremely concerning. My first question is for either Mr. Arnold or Mr. Woollcombe. We have had a fair bit of discussion about Sudan. I expect an awful lot of the children and families in most need and who are suffering the greatest malnutrition are in areas of heightened conflict, areas that are difficult to reach and areas where either the Sudanese Armed Forces or the RSF are trying to prevent aid workers coming in. Perhaps this is replicated in other countries. Is part of the challenge that even where there is the will to help from the likes of the Eleanor Crook Foundation or the World Food Programme that at times it is difficult to get some of the supplements and foods to those who need them most? Mr. Arnold and Mr. Woollcombe have made a number of calls. Is encouraging the parties to these conflicts to open greater access to aid workers part of the calls that need to be made?

The Sudan problem has been getting worse for the past three years. Essentially it is due to an internal conflict in the country but it has grown to be, by common consent, the world's largest humanitarian crisis. The problem is that with the other two high-profile crises and conflicts going on in the Middle East and Russia-Ukraine there has been very little attention given to trying to solve the problem. It is basically a neglected crisis at this stage. It is very hard to see at this stage where an initiative can come to begin to tackle and resolve this problem. The UN does not seem to have the political authority to do something serious. Given the scale of this crisis and the potential loss of human life that will continue unless it is dealt with, some kind of initiative will have to be taken to begin to tackle this crisis.

More generally, the question one would ask is what Europe can do because there does not seem to be any willingness from the US to take leadership on this. One would hope that some other countries could begin to recognise the scale of the crisis. Perhaps China and India could be players in this. At the moment it is a bleak scenario and there is not a lot of positivity that can be said about it.

I want to touch on the 2022 UN-Türkiye arrangement for Russian and Ukrainian grain. There is a lot of discussion at European level about sanctions. My perspective is that sanctions are best directed against individuals. At times there is, maybe, scope for a broader approach but they are best targeted at individuals and companies that are complicit in wars and conflicts. Are various sanctions, not only in that conflict but in conflicts generally, proving an obstacle to ensuring there is enough grain and staples in circulation to alleviate some of the major food crises?

There is a basic reality that the scale of hunger in the world at the moment is directly linked to conflict in many countries, and particularly the set of protracted conflicts which have been there for some time. This has coincided with the reality that the UN seems to have lost much of its capacity to intervene either to resolve conflict or prevent conflict. This is a basic issue that will have to be addressed at international level.

Perhaps Mr. Woollcombe can answer this question also. If he were to identify the particular parts of the world about which he is most concerned, and we are talking about malnutrition and food shortage which can potentially tip into famine, which parts of the world is he most concerned about this escalating in?

Sudan is the largest humanitarian crisis in the world so that would be the one which I think is most concerning. Recently we worked with the LSE on a report about hunger and instability and how national security integrates with conflict, fragile states and food insecurity. The civil war in Sudan was kicked off by a food price riot. It was the increase in the cost of food that drove a very fragile state into a situation of conflict. Prevention is better than cure so as we are looking at it from European level this is why it is a security issue. This is probably the area of greatest concern.

When David Beasley was at the World Food Programme he often cited that conflict drives hunger and hunger drives conflict. These things are interrelated and they need political solutions and political engagement at the highest level to be figured out. At the same time, when 2 million children die every year of starvation, making sure that as many as possible of these children receive life-saving food should not be sacrificed under the idea that these conflicts are endless and there is nothing we can do. We can do something and we can save those lives. As far as the Eleanor Crook Foundation is concerned, in our partnerships with ministries of health, working with countries such as Nepal, Senegal and Ghana, we have ministries of health we can work with there but there also remain areas where there is still a great amount of need.

In his statement Mr. Arnold said the World Food Programme estimated that if the conflict had not been resolved by mid-summer an extra 50 million people were at risk of becoming hungry and food insecure. This was an extra 50 million people. Is there a number for how many people altogether in the world are at risk of becoming hungry and food insecure?

This was an estimate made last year in May as the consequence if the problem in the Middle East continued beyond mid-summer. It was an estimate of the number of hungry people that could come about.

The reason it was talking in these terms was that the conflict was impacting the quantity of fertiliser coming through the Strait of Hormuz and its price. The reason I termed it a "slow-motion food crisis" was that it was not immediately impacting but it was building up to have a longer-term impact on the amount of food that could be produced and the number of people who could be vulnerable from that situation.

The other big factor is El Niño, which is the warming of the Pacific Ocean and the impact that has on extreme weather events like floods and droughts. Over the last four months, most serious scientists have said that this is a problem that could be of historic proportions and impact a very large number of people. This is why I think it is very clear that a number of institutions have to do some serious contingency planning to make sure that if this happens, countries will be much better prepared to deal with the problem. I do not see any sense yet of this happening. It is a very serious issue and one would hope that some of the discussions at the UN this week will give an indication that some countries are willing to recognise the potential scale of the problem and begin to put in place measures to deal with it.

I thank the witnesses for their opening statements. I was sitting at home last night in Gorey and looking up the exact nature of the work being done, and it really hit a nerve. In 2004, I went to Sri Lanka and tried to help out there after the tsunami. It led me to looking at charities well before I got involved in politics. We are letting the children of this world down. It is as simple as that. I have no doubt that the witnesses have seen it, but when you see a starving child, it affects you deeply. While I have seen a lot of things in my life, there has never been an incident that has affected me as deeply. It still does today. It really does. You see these children's vision loss, skin diseases and organ failures. They are gone. Their brains are gone. You walk away and you just have to question what sort of a world we are living in when we see the excesses in so many parts of the world, and not too far from this very building. We simply have to do something about it. To be fair, the organisations represented here are doing it.

I looked up the information. When a child is brought into the world, they have rights. To deny them the basic right to food and clean water is simply unacceptable in this day and age. I admire the work being done. Where I am dumbfounded by the whole thing is that we have a problem. We discuss many problems here but we also struggle to find solutions. The organisations represented here, however, have a solution to this problem and have the food. The issue is to combine them and get the people in authority to put them in a position to roll out this solution and make sure these kids get what they deserve. It is really shocking. These are kids and they have no voice.

If we look at Sudan, my fear about that country, and I am worried at the moment, is what the future will bring if the kids are starving to death over there. Those lucky enough to survive will be severely mentally and physically damaged. As I said, we have a solution. We know the issues. How do we get to the final point? How do we convince people in this regard? How can the organisations go now and seek extra funding when leaders of very big, democratic countries are pulling back on funding? How can that be squared off? I ask Mr. Arnold to take this question first.

I was in Sri Lanka after the tsunami as well and I saw the situation there. That was, though, in essence, a once-off act of God and nature. In the more than 20 years since then, real progress has been made in terms of identifying the causes of malnutrition. There has been full recognition, as Mr. Woollcombe said, of the importance of the first 1,000 days and the need for pregnant women and children to get properly nourished during that critical period. In the subsequent years, something called the Scaling Up Nutrition, SUN, movement started. It was led by the great Dr. David Nabarro, who died last year. This was to put a particular focus on addressing proper nutrition during that first 1,000 days. A number of countries have made progress, but the reality is that there are still 150 million children in the world suffering from stunting and this problem is eminently addressable. With proper government attention and collaboration with civil society, NGOs, etc., but particularly with societies in the countries affected by the problem, this can be solved. It does, though, need sustained effort.

There is also the fact that aid cuts have happened across the board recently. Ireland is an honourable exception here, but most other countries have cut back their aid in the last two to three years. More focus will have to be put on the countries themselves to deal with their own problems. This is the reality. At the heart of it is the need for a recognition that preventing stunting in children, with all the long-term consequences inherent in it, has to be a key priority.

Could Mr. Woollcombe answer this very straightforward question for me? Is he saying that it will cost us €1.5 billion to eradicate child starvation in the world?

At the moment, one third of the children who need this are able to access it. If we were to increase the amount being spent on delivering this by three, that would, in theory, and, hopefully, and very likely, in practice, end starvation.

Returning to what the Deputy was saying before, all of it resonated so much with me. I thank him for those words and for his work. The Eleanor Crook Foundation does not deliver any of this. The health workers who are going out and doing that are working with local government, UNICEF and local implementing partners and charities in these different countries. They are the brave ones and we are the ones trying to talk about this to elevate the topic.

We can do it. We have the solutions and it is doable. Once we have got this product to every child that needs it, we then, at the same time, have to think about how we will deal with all the other challenges that child will be facing. If there is dirty water, for example, is it possible to supply small sachets of very weak chlorine that can help them to have clean drinking water? We work with Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, on the question of when we give children this product, whether it might also be possible to talk to their parents about giving them vaccinations that will stop them from getting further diseases in future. All of that is possible. These solutions work and we can scale them up, so it is just a question of political will. It is also a question of public support, having the right narratives, having the right numbers and showing the impact and driving progress.

One of the reasons it is often hard to explain to the public, speaking as someone from the UK, is that we had a cross-party consensus on the 0.7% commitment from the UK Government ten years ago, but the UK is now at 0.3%. There is no room for complacency on this agenda, and it is about being able to show the public, taxpayers and European partners where progress is being made, where impact can be demonstrated and where data and innovation show how these programmes are becoming more efficient, and that while we are in a crisis at the moment, which feels very overwhelming, there is also an opportunity in this moment to do things differently that was not there before.

Turning to the point made about when we see a child like that, I have one of those mid-upper arm circumference, MUAC, bands that is put around a child's upper arm to see at what level of malnutrition they are at.

The red zone is literally the size of a €2 coin. It behoves us to do everything we can to help these children and to stop this from happening. Ireland is playing a critical role in this, but despairing is a luxury. We cannot afford that luxury. That is why we are here and that is why we appreciate the committee's work.

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. We are speaking a lot about food security, and that links to climate change and the worsening impact we will see in terms of food security in a lot of places. As regards Mr. Woollcombe's comment that "conflict drives hunger and hunger drives conflict", that will also now be "climate drives conflict and hunger" as to what we will see.

One of the challenges is with the next multi-annual financial framework. We expect aid to be severely reduced, and that will have an impact when we have already seen, as well as the External Action Service for EU funding, lots of individual EU member states that were traditionally really strong partners in aid. We talk a lot about USAID and how it has been slashed and burned by the Trump Administration, but partners in the EU we once really relied on to be good donors have completely withdrawn or cut their support. What do the witnesses want to see the Irish Government do more of in that space, particularly when we are coming up to the multi-annual financial framework? What are the cuts to Global Europe? What will that mean when we see the funding cuts around that arm? We talk about bang for your buck, and there is a lot of need in the aid space to emphasise transparency, accountability, value for money and so on. Mr. Woollcombe demonstrated that when he talked about Plumpy'Nut and the impact it can have on nutrition. Will the witnesses speak a little about why aid matters, why value for money matters and why, when we talk about hunger driving conflict and climate change, in the broader picture of global stability and peace, this support is crucial? It is not a little nice-to-have. It is not something we are doing just out of benevolence and - not in Ireland's case but in Europe's - postcolonial guilt. Will the witnesses speak about why it is something any individual country should be doing as a good citizen of the world?

The first point I will make is that we do not yet know whether the MFF will cut heading 3 or external action substantially. Those decisions will be made in the coming weeks as the Presidency releases its negotiating boxes. Now is the time when all is to play for. Making all the points that the Senator just made and that we have been discussing as to why this agenda is so critical is important because there are a lot of member states that have cut their bilateral aid but recognise that European action on this agenda is important. The first thing to say, then, is that all is not lost. There is a window of opportunity; let us seize it.

Why does it matter? Sudan shows why it matters. All these humanitarian crises and climate crises we see across sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and other parts of the global south show why we need this new form of partnership. The risk is that as Europe pulls out from Africa, other actors who may not uphold the same values we have will move in. Europe needs to think about the importance of having not only influence but also partnership, not a form of charity but a genuine form of partnership that will increase European markets in the future and will improve stability and competitiveness. These are our closest neighbours, and Africa is the fastest growing continent in the world. They will be new markets in the future, and we need to work with these countries to help them. There are success stories where countries in sub-Saharan Africa that were least developed countries are now middle-income countries, that is, they were receiving funding from donors for their health or their education but are now paying for that themselves and helping other neighbouring countries with that. Ireland and other countries, such as Spain and Portugal, were net recipients of EU funding but are now net donors. There is a good story to tell about progress being possible but not inevitable. That is how we show that aid matters, and not as a stand-alone thing that is just a nice-to-have to make ourselves feel good about ourselves as people and how generous we are. That is also how we show hard-headed long-term strategic political thinkers that this is critical for who we want to be, who we want to be friends with and how we work with and engage with the rest of the world.

I will just make one small additional comment because I agree with what Mr. Woollcombe has said. We need to recognise that the Irish Government at this moment is keen to have a debate. It accepts the reality that aid levels have gone down and probably will not come back to where they were. In that context, there needs to be really serious discussion about the value of aid, the impact it is having, and making sure that in its implementation it is getting real results. That is at the heart of what the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, wants to talk about at an informal meeting of the development ministers that will happen early in October. I think it is the right approach to go down. The fact that Ireland is one of only two European countries that have kept their aid levels up rather than cut them gives moral authority to that debate, which is welcome.

Those discussions in October are really important. As a committee, we can contribute to highlighting these issues in that context when the discussions are happening. It would be useful to hear from the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, and to give a chance to amplify that position such that it be given focus. It is sad to see there is almost an acceptance of the idea that there will be cuts. There needs to be a strong pushback as to where this comes in. Simply not scaling up in the current context itself looks like a cut, so we may be talking about cuts as well as a failure to provide against catastrophes we see coming, one in terms of the conflict and the other in terms of El Niño and Super El Niño. The witnesses might comment on the preparedness issue as to what will be coming at that time, even in the context of logistics. We will see the crisis as it unfolds. Is it the case that there should be warehouses that are filled with emergency supplies that are not being filled with emergency supplies now because the funding is only at one third of where it should be? What would preparing for just this winter's predictable crisis look like, as well as the wider principle?

Another thing I am worried about is that while there seems to be a lack of looking ahead to that politically from the European Union collectively and so on, the speculative markets look at these things and see that there are shortages coming. Maybe the witnesses could comment on that. We have seen a consolidation of a huge control of grains and so forth into a small speculative market. The witnesses might comment on the dangers of maybe opportunistic exploitation of what will be or could be a huge food crunch this autumn and the danger of the most vulnerable taking the hit in that context.

This gets to the heart of the matter. There are many signs that we are facing into a potentially very serious food crisis, and that brings with it a responsibility to do preparedness. Prevention is better than cure and it is certainly a lot cheaper. There is therefore every reason that the international agencies and countries over the very short-term future should take serious measures to prepare for the worst because that is in everybody's interest.

The European Union should be playing a leading role in this and Ireland, in its Presidency of the EU, should have a key role to play, but prevention and preparedness are critical.

To add to that, one of the biggest challenges with this agenda is the lack of predictable funding. Very often, a lot of funding goes in response to a crisis and not enough in preparation. I know some donors are thinking about this and some multilateral agencies will be thinking about this because they will have projections as to where things are likely to get worse and will try to prepare for that, but very often there is not funding for that at the scale required and it ends up being quite last minute. That lack of regularity or predictability of purchasing and supply then also drives costs higher. There is that long-term preparedness agenda and also the resilience agenda. Whether it is health, the risk of pandemics, or food security, drought or the impacts of the El Niño climate change, this is all one resilience agenda about how we try to make societies and countries better able to both prepare and respond to crises we know are going to happen.

The Gavi scheme was mentioned. Perhaps Gavi was not the full vision that had been talked about in terms of UN aid. During the Covid crisis, others talked about the idea of the pooling of technology that was due to happen. Gavi is meant to be a step out of the market mechanisms in relation to extreme health need. Are there equivalent mechanisms that could serve to curtail market speculation when it comes to a food crunch or issues of access to food? I know that Gavi is a point of constraint and is a parallel piece. Are there equivalent or collective measures? We would get an awful lot more for our money if we spend now on prevention rather than at a time of escalating and heightened prices halfway through, say, a super El Niño.

I am quite horrified by what we are hearing about what can happen and the fact that the factors are getting worse. Are there regulatory, legislative or other measures we could do to ensure that if we are facing into a food crisis that it is not purely lost to speculation and that there is something?

I do not know that everybody is aware that Gavi is the global vaccines initiative. The insight that drove the formation of Gavi was that there was not a market to vaccinate the world's poorest people against the diseases that were killing them. Governments, philanthropies and the private sector came together to create a pooled fund to see whether it could be guaranteed that there is a market for reaching the poorest people with vaccines against the diseases that are overwhelmingly affecting people who suffer from them, who would not be able to afford the vaccines at a market rate, and that it could be viable. Over the last 20 years, Gavi has shown that is possible. What UNICEF's Child Nutrition Fund does, and what Operation End Starvation hopes to do, is to create a comparative market mechanism for producing this, having those reliable supply chains and high enough quality as much as possible for these products to be produced locally, which, in turn, would stimulate local food markets and food production.

The Child Nutrition Fund is one of the key mechanisms being highlighted in that regard in terms of UNICEF and its cross-cutting-----

Yes. It is still the case that in western Nepal these sachets are delivered on mules. There are major challenges in terms of infrastructure and that kind of aspect but it is about building local markets, resilience and ways in which there is guaranteed supply rather than there being peaks and troughs, which is what we have seen in the past.

My apologies; we ran quite late in the Seanad Chamber. It is good to see Mr. Arnold and Mr. Woollcombe again. I had the privilege of sitting down with them before the summer to talk about the excellent work being done by the Eleanor Crook Foundation and the €200 million that has been allocated in grants. Obviously, we are very supportive of the work that it is doing in addressing malnutrition and continuing to bring our attention to all the unfolding disasters in a part of the world that is sometimes forgotten about. In general, we are very focused on Ukraine and the Middle East and sometimes we can forget about Sudan and other parts of Africa and the world.

I will ask a few brief questions. There has been a lot of focus on prevention, which is hugely important. If we got that right, everything else would follow. What interventions are the most cost-effective? I hate using the word "cost-effective" because we are talking about children and people, but there is a shortage of money going into grants and foundations, such as the Eleanor Crook Foundation. I know that everything has to be cost-effective as well but in reducing maternal and child mortality, what intervention is most effective?

I have looked at the list of countries on which the foundation has focused its efforts. I am interested in learning about the selection criteria used by the foundation. Have there been any barriers to implementation in any of these countries, or in any other countries that are not on the list where the foundation could not do anything?

Research is a big part of the work of the foundation. That is really important for policy analysis and advocacy. Are there data gaps that need to be examined? How does the foundation measure the impact of what it is doing?

I thank the Senator for her kind words. It is nice to see her again.

In terms of the most cost-effective interventions, I would again go back to the RUTF and prenatal vitamins. We also support mothers with breastfeeding training because that makes a huge difference to outcomes for babies. There is vitamin A supplementation. Access to primary health centres and front-line health workers is also absolutely massive. At a very bare minimum, it is about some kind of system that enables these communities to be reached, particularly in the hardest to reach places. These are what we say are the most cost-effective interventions.

On barriers to implementation, there are all the political challenges in some places, capacity challenges, infrastructure challenges and security challenges. In terms of the countries we work in, we partner with governments in countries where there is a genuine appetite and clear alignment with what they are trying to achieve, what we are able to support and where we think we can be helpful based on our skills and experience but also, critically, where we have good local partners who are able to really understand the context and, again, work with government ministries. That is the criteria on which we operate.

Data gaps is an area where there has been a huge amount of progress over the last decade, which does not necessarily always get the attention it should. For example, there is the way in which GPS can be used to see where health workers are going and whether they have reached all these different communities, and satellite maps to see where people are. In quite a lot of places that are very dry and arid, and affected by climate change, there are pastoralist communities that move around. There are also issues around trust. There was a big issue during Covid, not just in the Global South but also in our own countries, around whether people wanted to be vaccinated and whether they trusted the authorities and each other on some level. That is a really interesting component of where there are data gaps in what can be measured. We have got so much better at measuring because of technological innovations.

As AI increasingly gets implemented and there are more high-quality biometric tests, there is huge capacity to increase the measurement, transparency and accountability of where these interventions go, how they are being reached and what is working and what is not. Another critical element of it is that trust has to be maintained with communities and people for them to understand that this is for their own benefit and that we are all on the same side. It is complicated.

The dreadful irony here is that we know how these problems can be dealt with. We know the sort of interventions that work. We know they are cost-effective in terms of results. However, to achieve that in many of the countries we are talking about requires a level of political will and political focus in those countries to say, "This is hugely important for the future of our children and the future of our societies". That can only come about through sensible policies and through building up capacity. I ended my intervention earlier saying that the problems we are facing over the next six to nine months, which are pretty obvious, and the risk that they could be very large problems, are not going to be confined to the next six to nine months. We have a medium-term future where the combination of conflict and climate change means that the global food situation will be very vulnerable for the next number of years. I suggested that if Ireland can get its act together in terms of policy and political will, it will make a disproportionate difference taking that medium-term perspective. I said that perhaps this committee should have a role in monitoring the development and implementation of such a policy. That is the core message I want to leave with this committee today.

The discussion here is primarily focused on food and I want to just tease that out. We have had discussions about the picture of the aid situation overall, including the huge cut to USAID. There is an awful lot of concern about the impact that will have on public health, vaccination, HIV-AIDS, gender equality initiatives, support for local employment and things like that. The general sense we seem to get from a lot of the aid organisations is that even if the best will in the world did exist from countries in Europe, which it does not, the gap left by USAID is too large to be filled by anyone else. In any event, that will is not there in most European countries. Most European countries are going in the opposite direction. Ireland is at least holding its own and expanding a little, although not perhaps as much as it should, but the trend is in the other direction. We have not discussed the issue of the row-back of USAID interventions. Is there less hostility at a US governmental level towards interventions that are specifically food related? Is the witnesses' view that the situation is what it is and we simply need to respond whatever way we can?

I have a question about two other countries if it is not too simple a question to ask. They are ones that occupy a fair bit of thought, particularly the situation in Gaza. What is the level of hunger and malnutrition there at the moment? Also, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, DRC, is a country that has experienced a terrible amount of conflict in recent years and there are an awful lot of implications for malnutrition and hunger there as well.

On the first point, as I said, the US Congress put forward in its budget in February a $300 million dollar increase to combat global malnutrition. Operation End Starvation, which the US Government has put $100 million dollars into, is part of the package. That is an area where we are seeing support from the United States. There are also other areas like the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, OCHA, which I believe has received $2 billion to $3 billion dollars of US aid. In the absence of USAID as an organisation, the funding that exists for these issues needs to be distributed differently. There are new mechanisms coming up and new partnerships forming around that and that is encouraging.

To the Deputy's other question about European aid picking up what has been cut by the US, I do not see any situation in which that is likely. That does not mean that we all throw up our hands and say, "Oh well, there is nothing that can be done". It does mean that Europe has an opportunity to then say, "Okay, what are we going to do? How are we going to do it differently and how are we going to try to support these communities as best we can?" A point to add to Mr. Arnold's one is that Ireland has a different role in this context because it is one of the few countries that is not cutting its aid budget. It does have a disproportionate influence, expertise and experience in this sector of food, food security and hunger. There are partners around the world who want to hear more from Ireland than they ever have done before. Obviously, Ireland remains a middle-sized economy, so it will not be possible to supplement or backfill what might be cut from other bigger economies. However, as we look for how to create the innovation, maximize the impact and scale up the delivery of these interventions, which are the most cost-effective ways to save lives, that leadership can make a massive difference.

We do not work in Gaza and DRC so partners on the ground would be better placed to speak to that. Perhaps Mr. Arnold might say something.

There may be one small silver lining to the broad cuts in aid over the last two to three years. It is that many countries, particularly in Africa, are beginning to realise that they have to take more responsibility for their own development needs. Many of them have accepted the fact that the levels of aid that were in place will not come back and therefore they have to be able to generate their own development through their own efforts. That can be a positive thing because it is basic responsibility for their own future. That will necessarily involve investment in their own people. The lesson from this country over the last 60 years is that investment in education and human resources is probably the single key factor that explains our development. That same basic message is relevant to many other countries. That plus the fact that many of the problems, as I said, that have to be dealt with, particularly in regard to nutrition, are eminently doable and eminently solvable. If we are to take any broader positive picture, that is the key message I would take today.

I am hugely interested in what is being discussed today. Quite simply, if the Irish Government is donating €1 to a charity, how much of that is going to the coalface or the kids on the ground? How much of it is eaten up by administrative costs? I know it could be a long answer on that one. From my research, I find that between 20% and 35% is being used for administration and costs. I am not looking for zero but the witnesses made the point that we have to be more prudent as a Government and the people on the receiving end also have to be more prudent.

It is a two-way thing to make sure that the people at the coalface get the maximum. When someone quotes 20% to 35%, that is a huge gap of millions that have been donated.

The track record of Irish Aid is strong. It has been measured and assessed by the OECD development action committee and has regularly, over decades, come out with a favourable assessment of the effectiveness of the aid. That goes hand in hand with evaluation, learning and monitoring. I would not have thought that it was 25% to 30%. I would say it is a smaller percentage. That is just the Irish Government side of things. I am also familiar from my own work over the years with Concern and some other NGOs. The figure we used to talk about in Concern was about 10%.

That seems reasonable and acceptable. I was not talking about Irish Aid but a worldwide basis. That is the current figure of 25% to 35%. It is huge.

It is hard for me to be definitive. I would not for a moment ever suggest that all aid is most efficiently spent, but I think the vast majority of it is.

Going back to the chart, is the Eleanor Crook Foundation reaching every country in the world where children are suffering? If not, what are the barriers?

As the Eleanor Crook Foundation, we do not deliver any services on the ground and we partner in Nepal, Senegal and Ghana and have some small research investments in other countries in Africa. It would be UNICEF or the World Food Programme that is delivering at that scale to those countries around the world. Wherever there is humanitarian access, service is going in. It is much less than it was. Some countries are either turning away the aid or other donors are saying they do not want to give to that country. There are those pockets. Within countries, even where these large agencies are operational, there are still barriers in the form of conflict, governance, infrastructure and community engagement. Barriers remain, but overwhelmingly, people want their children to be helped if they are starving. I found my mid-upper arm circumference, MUAC, band. That is the width of the upper arm of a child who is ill enough on this red band of malnutrition to receive this intervention. Parents want this for their children and will go to great lengths to be able to receive it, but only a third of them are able to access the Plumpy'Nut that they need.

There are barriers but they can be overcome. They are not insurmountable. More is being done. On the Deputy's point about transparency, accountability and administration, that is an area where there is increased analysis, data and tracking where these things are going to see whether they are reaching where they are meant to be. A big problem in the past has been stock-outs, where they run out of stock at critical times because they do not know where the people are going to be at that time. Much more data is helping with smoothing that as well as, it is hoped, more predictable long-term funding.

The big figure I am taking from today is that Mr. Woollcombe is telling me that it will take just €1.5 billion to eradicate child malnutrition.

Starvation. That is the cost of getting these Plumpy'Nuts to every child that needs them. It is €1.7 billion.

There is a broader context here, which is that over the last 60 years, there has been massive improvement in, for example, one particular measure, the level of child mortality. This is not just due to aid levels. It is through a whole series of improvements in health and investment in welfare of pregnant women and in early childhood nutrition. That is the broader context that we are talking about. We should not forget that at all. That is of key relevance. You still have the reality of 150 million children who suffer from stunting. I was speaking at a conference recently about Africa and I said that is the single most important priority that countries should be focusing on. Improve nutrition so that the level of stunting reduces. That is an investment in your own future. That is a key message that I would like to leave with the committee.

Will Mr. Woollcombe tell us more about the partnership with the Irish Government, its history and how exactly that works?

Between the Eleanor Crook Foundation? We started off working in Europe about seven years ago, initially in the UK, through initiatives like the Paris Nutrition for Growth Summit in 2025, when Ireland announced €1 billion over four years for nutrition. We established a relationship working at a technical level on some of these different mechanisms and innovations that are going on in the field of tackling global malnutrition. Since then the nature of the relationship is that we talk fairly regularly when there are relevant meetings about different technical issues or programmatic ones, but also key political moments coming up, and then we look for ways to work together. We do not have any formal funding relationship with Irish Aid, but we are both big supporters of the Child Nutrition Fund, and so we talk about ways to help make that more effective and bring together other donors. We work closely with the Gates Foundation, as I mentioned. We also work with British, French and Canadian counterparts.

Mr. Woollcombe is head of Irish government relations for the Eleanor Crook Foundation. What kind of conversations would he have with the Irish Government? What would they revolve around?

We would be talking about forthcoming opportunities to try to encourage more donors to contribute to the Child Nutrition Fund. We would be talking about the importance of ways in which philanthropy can support bringing together new voices in support of this agenda, both at political level and with other philanthropies in Ireland and around the world. We also address work that our partners have been doing on public perceptions of development. I was talking about complacency earlier. The UK was complacent about public support for development. We want to be partners with the Irish Government, Irish Aid and everyone at this parliamentary level because we see Ireland's leadership and expertise on malnutrition as critical to keeping this agenda high on the political profile that we need at European and global level. Does that answer the Cathaoirleach's question and does he understand what we do? We are meeting and talking to each other about ways in which we can work. I have technical colleagues based in Washington and other places who will be working with counterparts in Irish Aid to try to make sure all these interventions are as impactful as possible.

So Mr. Woollcombe deals with Irish Aid and the Department of foreign affairs?

Yes.

Directly?

We have had meetings with different officials from the nutrition team but also-----

I am trying to get a sense of those conversations. I am not trying to trip Mr. Woollcombe up. I am just trying to figure out what those conversations would entail. Is it that Mr. Woollcombe would be bringing a certain amount of expertise to them or a certain amount of intelligence from the foundation's own people or from the programmes it supports on the ground, including what it hears and areas of vulnerability that require support? Might they may say to Mr. Woollcombe that the foundation is in one location where Irish Aid is not present and where it would like to do something?

Examples would include research that we funded. We did a project with Gavi on immunisation-nutrition integration. That report was about how, in these hard-to-reach areas, the vaccination rates went up because the parents would bring their children to get this intervention and, while there, they would also be vaccinated.

That is useful because it gives the Government an insight into how money can be well spent and aid can be provided.

The Cathaoirleach would have to ask them if it was useful but I think the utility comes from where sometimes philanthropy can take risks and do things that it is difficult to do with public money because maybe it does not work. We can share experiences we have had from different projects that we have supported that it is hoped will inform partners of how they can be most effective.

From Mr. Woollcombe's notes, one of the points I am taking away is these 12 million lives have been saved since the foundation has been at this in 2005. That is a pretty impressive figure.

I do not think we would claim that is directly the result of just our work. It takes a whole range of different partners, but that is a good statistic. The other one is the number of children who died before the age of five has halved since the turn of the millennium. That is despite a growing population. However, 2026 risks being the first year where the number of child deaths increases, so we need to do everything we can to stop that from happening.

Is Eleanor Crook in good health?

I think so. As far as I am aware she is still hosting our board meetings and is actively involved. Her grandson is currently the CEO, but according to my most recent intelligence, she is sharp as a tack and will be tracking closely how effective we are being in investing these funds as well as possible.

Mr. Woollcombe might convey the appreciation of the Oireachtas Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade to her.

I will certainly do that.

Thank you. Is there any last word that anyone wishes to have among the members? No. Is there anything that the witnesses did not get to say? Their messages have landed. I think you had three key messages, Mr. Arnold. Do you want to come in again?

I just think it is important that this committee, given its mandate, has had this hearing today, but I would suggest that, given that this issue of food is going to be crucial to human security and political security over the coming years, it is a subject to which it would return at the appropriate moment. The reality is Ireland has had a very honourable record in this field based on its experience. It should be looking to how that record can be even more enhanced over the coming years because this problem is not going to go away. It is going to increase.

That is noted. I said at our private meeting today, where we discuss housekeeping, that there are a number of formal Oireachtas committees, of which this is one, but there are also informal Oireachtas committees. One has not been established on the piece of overseas development assistance, Irish Aid, Ireland aid or whatever it has been called over the years. Dóchas, in its pre-budget submission, indicated it would be a good thing to happen to get a cross-party discussion going. There is not an ad hoc committee on that. I have initiated that process. I am Chair of this committee and have no interest in being chair of that committee. That is starting up as well and that will start a cross-party conversation going, I hope, on this in Parliament here, which has not taken place for a little while. It is to be hoped it will meet a number of times a year, not just for the sake of meeting but also to be able to feed into the work of this committee. Your point in relation to food as an item on the agenda that has to be considered and has to be prioritised is well made.

I thank Mr. Woollcombe and Mr. Arnold for their time here today. It was really valuable.