Part III: The business of aid - how they spend it: Between now and 2012 Ireland will give €8 billion to the developing world, writes Paul Cullen
As part of the Government's commitment to increase aid to UN target levels, spending will grow by massive increments over the next decade - starting with an increase of over €150 million next year and a similar rise in 2007.
Nothing like this increase in Government spending has been seen before in any area but, remarkably, the decision to reach the target of 0.7 per cent of GNP has the support of all political parties and the approval, albeit grudging, of the Department of Finance.
Increases of this magnitude throw up all sorts of challenges for those spending the money. There is no doubt that developing countries, with their chronic problems of poverty are in massive need of assistance, but how can we be sure that Irish aid will be effective? Or that it will get to the people who need it most?
We may need to make changes to other areas of Government and EU policy if we are to get the greatest "bang for our buck" from development aid. Is there much point, for example, in throwing millions of euros in support at African farmers if at the same time the EU is blocking the exports of these same farmers?
And shouldn't we be making more efforts to see whether Irish aid actually works, by reducing poverty in the countries and districts on which it is focused.
According to Hans Zomer of Dóchas, the umbrella body for development NGOs, accounting for where the money goes in aid and finding out whether it has been well spent is "the next big thing".
"All NGOs have to ensure that they can show clearly the impact the work they support has had," says Trócaire's head of communications Eamon Meehan. "This is an area we want to work on."
The main international body for assessing the quality of aid is the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD. In 1999, the committee gave Ireland's aid programme a positive write-up, though it suggested room for improvement in several areas. Its 2003 report was glowing; it said the programme "distinguished itself by its sharp focus on poverty reduction and its commitment to partnership principles".
However, these reports are essentially peer reviews by other members of the aid donors' "club" rather than true external audits; they are also limited in their scope. Meanwhile, the work of the individual aid agencies is not generally subject to any external assessment by the OECD committee or any other body.
The agencies aren't shy about telling us of their good works, but there is remarkably little scrutiny of their effectiveness.
As in other areas, fashions come and go in the aid business. In the 1960s, when big infrastructural projects were all the rage, Western governments pumped billions of dollars into the construction of dams, roads and factories in some of the world's poorest countries. Much of the money was siphoned off by corrupt leaders and their bureaucracies, and much of what was actually built never worked.
"In the past, aid was given as political handouts to friends and there wasn't much thought given to how it was used or where it went. Today, though, it's a more professional enterprise," says Meehan.
These days, paternalistic models of aid rooted in colonial pasts have been replaced by more talk of partnership with developing countries.
"It's true you need to build schools, but what use is a school without salaries for the teachers to work in them?" asks Zomer.
The aid business went back to the drawing board, and came up with new ideas. Instead of supporting projects, the emphasis switched to funding for specific sectors, such as health or education.
Development Co-operation Ireland, the State's aid programme, now provides a mix of these different types of supports, including budgetary support for governments, which has proved so controversial in Uganda.
"We've learned that development is about people, helping them to lead productive lives," says Zomer. "By making sure they don't get sick, or that they get an education or can trade, we're making a real difference."
There are almost as many ideas about how money should be spent as there are aid agencies.
On the one hand, agencies like Goal argue for "nuts and bolts" expenditure targeted directly on the poorest sections of the community; they argue this is the best way of getting aid to those who need it without leakage along the way.
Governments, responsible for much larger budgets, have to take a wider view and much of their support is channelled through local administrations in the developing world. Then there are organisations, for example Trócaire, which stress the need for consciousness-raising at home and in the developing world, and devote considerable resources to development education.
Goal's founder John O'Shea has argued trenchantly that aid money should be given for disbursement to aid agencies and missionaries, which he characterises as lean and efficient compared to bureaucratic State funders.
Even other agencies are loath to agree, however. Zomer describes this assertion as simplistic, arguing that states, with their larger budgets, can do things that small groups are unable to.
The extra funding available has helped agencies plan further into the future. In the past, problems arose when funding was withdrawn suddenly, leaving the recipient high and dry and quite disillusioned.
Now most of the larger agencies receive an annual block grant from Development Co-operation Ireland, payable for three years. A second such programme, which is expected to last five years, is being negotiated at present.
New fundraising techniques, such as child sponsorship and face-to-face fundraising ("chugging") also provide the agencies with a more dependable stream of income than the annual or once-off appeal.
Most of the aid agencies publish figures showing how much of their income goes on assistance to the poor, and how much is consumed by administration costs.
Concern, for example, says it spends 1 per cent of income on management and administration (although another 12.4 per cent goes on fundraising).
These figures need to be treated with caution, however. Staff and other significant costs incurred at home are frequently assigned to the field, thereby lowering the true cost of administration. Many agencies, for example, regularly pay for journalists to travel on assignment to developing countries, yet their costs are not listed separately in the annual accounts.
In any case, Zomer says the issue of administration costs is a "red herring". "If you had €1 million to give, would you hand it to the person who would do the best work with it, or to someone claiming to have the lowest administration costs? If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. Why do people assume NGOs will work for free and still do a good job?
"The days when people thought that anyone with a good heart would do a good job are surely over."
He points to the recent tsunami as an example: "There we had loads of stupid ideas where people wanted to send stuff without asking what was needed. It might come from a good heart, but a good heart is not enough."
Disasters pose a particular conundrum for the agencies. They might be good for raising money, but in reality there is often little the Government or medium-sized Irish agencies can do in an emergency situation beyond passing on money to those who are in a position to help. Earthquake survivors, for example, need sniffer dogs, helicopters and heavy moving equipment, and Ireland is unlikely ever to be able to supply these to far-flung places.
Irish missionaries were providing assistance in Africa long before the Government started its aid programme or aid agencies came into being. Much of this help came from the initiatives of individual priests, brothers or nuns, funded by their home parishes or orders.
Until recently, it was assumed that this tradition was dying out, due to the increasing age of missionaries and a lack of new vocations. Now, however, the thinking isthat local communities will take up the baton from missionaries, helped by continuing support from Ireland.
The Irish Missionary Resource Service, set up in 2004, now handles funding applications from 82 different religious congregations; last year it got a block grant of €12 million from Development Co-operation Ireland. "Up to now, there was funding for 'Sr Mary in Tanzania' or 'Fr Dan in Kenya'. Now we've brought all this work together and we're aiming to make a sustained impact over time," says Séamus O'Gorman of the service. This year, funding is being provided for over 630 missionaries.
With dozens of donor countries and thousands of aid agencies, there is a lot of duplication in the business of helping the poor. Doubling up is especially problematic in emergencies, but it also arises in development.
A few years ago, Tanzania, exhausted and tied up by the constant round of visitors from the West, imposed a six-month moratorium on aid visits.
To alleviate this problem, Ireland often teams up with like-minded donors - the UK, Holland and some of the Scandinavian countries.
Channelling all our aid centrally through the EU might seem desirable, but the EU's aid programme is seen as inefficient, wasteful and even corrupt.
Tomorrow: The role of Development Co-operation Ireland