Irish AID 2011 budget

Cork boy 55

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0907/1224278366705.html

Mr Power said he could not predict whether the overseas aid budget, which stands at €671 million for 2010, will be subject to further pruning.

Irelands Overseas Development Aid package in 2010 was 671 million
My understanding is the tax take in 2010 was 33 billion
So 0.671/33 = 2% of the tax money was sent overseas in 2011
I understand that the target for overseas aid in Ireland and the developed world is 0.7%(actual is less) of GDP but in times of defiect and expanding National debt surely this target is erroneous and gives a false picture of what we are spending as a ratio to the National wealth.

I believe that wealthy countries should contribute to the Poorer countries
with strings attached(human rights et all) especially in terms of disaster relief.
However I think with the ROI current cash flow problems, AID in the short term should be drastically cutback.

My question is,
Should in the short term the ROI cut its overseas AID bill
until the state's finances have stablised.

Discuss?

ninty9er

Considering it was one of the only things untouched in George Osborne's emergency budget in June and in his spending review in October, and considering the UK's debt is headed for £4.8 trillion, they are also borrowing more than they have.

I believe that it is an area that could be cut, but I wouldn't like to see it be cut more than the average govt. department.

Just because we have debt doesn't mean that there aren't those worse off. If everyone took that approach, we'd still be an isolated agrarian island nation on the periphery of Europe.

Het-Field

If money is going to be spent on foreign aid I would prefer it to go to charities which export skills such as IT Skills, Legal Studies, Business and enterprise agents etc. This would have a tangable effect economies which are gutted by socialism, failed statism, unqualified corruption, inflation (partially due to the "do gooder" attitude of western states, market distortion and undemocratic processes.

Currently, the money spent on foreign aid is flitted away on domestic administrative beureaucracy, and is being used to maintain the status quo in places like DR Congo, where the state uses the money to butress its position through the pruchase of weapons etc. Very little money arrives at the feet of the intended recipient. In fact it is counter produtive as states rely on surplus goods from the EU, and money provided by foreign aid. It is not beneficial to give aid simpliciter. It is better to put it into encouraging the development of skills, employability, and commercial capabilitiy.

mikemac

It was over 900 million in 2008 so 671 million for 2011 is a pretty big cutback.

Does it need to be cut even more is the question people will ask

From 2008

Irish Aid, the Government’s programme of overseas development, is part of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Ireland’s overseas aid has grown considerably over the last decade, from a budget of €177 million in 1998 to over €900 million this year. This support is focused largely on least developed countries. Irish Aid has nine programme countries with which it has development programmes, they are:

http://www.dfa.ie/home/index.aspx?id=39321

Cork boy 55

It was this in the past

If you look at page 11 of the Government white paper on AID (2007)
You will see a graph showing ROI ODA 1996-2011

1996 142 million
1999 230 million
2003 455 million
2007 734 million
2012 1500 million (projected in 2007)

It looks like an area where spending has got out of control
like other sectors.

http://www.irishaid.gov.ie/whitepaper/assets/White%20Paper%20English.pdf

the groutch

it's always been one of the areas where I've wondered why they havent made cuts.
I'm all for providing aid to less developed nations, but in hte current climate we really need to get ourselves sorted out first

Biggins

I don't see why we should borrow money right now, to then give some equally away!
I know thats a very short simplistic view and the matter is more complicated than just that - but thats what it boils down to in a way.

We are now borrowing from bond markets to fill one money hole, while we are digging another one by giving money away at present.

JUST for the time being, we need to call a halt to this madness.
When we are back on our feet, certainly and instantly we should do the right thing and help more out.
If the economy collapses though further and more seriously, a broke country can help no one in the long term, never mind the short.

bizmark

shouldnt send any money out of the country if we have to make cuts in helping our own people at home tbh

djpbarry

bizmark wrote: »

shouldnt send any money out of the country if we have to make cuts in helping our own people at home tbh

That’s not really comparing like with like though, is it? For example, one of Irish Aid’s principle objectives is ensuring a reduction of 50% in the number of people without access to safe drinking water. You’re suggesting we should hold off on that objective in case someone on welfare has to go without a packet of smokes or a couple of beers? People say the global recession has hit Ireland hard – how hard do you suppose it’s hit, say, Niger?

OhNoYouDidn't

Its understandable, but simplistic, to pull the plug on overseas aid in a recession.

Like it or not, projects will be scrapped if we stop funding them and people will die as a result. Its that stark. We have commitments in this field, and not commiting to new projects is the way to wind it down, not pull the plug on half built schools or hospitals in Malawi

the groutch

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re suggesting we should hold off on that objective in case someone on welfare has to go without a packet of smokes or a couple of beers? who lost their job will lose thier home too?

fyp

OhNoYouDidn't

the groutch wrote: »

fyp

But the state are not intervening to save people from foreclosure. That they should is another debate, but trimming €600m from the overseas aid budget has no impact on that problem.

djpbarry

the groutch wrote: »

djpbarry wrote:

You’re suggesting we should hold off on that objective in case someone on welfare has to go without a packet of smokes or a couple of beers? who lost their job will lose their home too?

fyp

They'll manage - it's unlikely their kids are going to die from malnutrition. Despite the popular Irish belief, owning a property is not the be-all and end-all.

Cork boy 55

i wonder what the imf will make of irish aid

djpbarry

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

i wonder what the imf will make of irish aid

Not much, I wouldn't think. Ireland's overseas aid budget is hardly a significant contributor to our current predicament.

Cork boy 55

djpbarry wrote: »

Not much, I wouldn't think. Ireland's overseas aid budget is hardly a significant contributor to our current predicament.

As I pointed out in the OP its 2% of the entire tax take gone last year
It is a significant contributor to the defiect
cutting it would close the 19 billion bugdet gap by (.671/19) by 3.5%

Its a complete waste of money.

Einhard

Biggins wrote: »

I don't see why we should borrow money right now, to then give some equally away!
I know thats a very short simplistic view and the matter is more complicated than just that - but thats what it boils down to in a way.

We are now borrowing from bond markets to fill one money hole, while we are digging another one by giving money away at present.

JUST for the time being, we need to call a halt to this madness.
When we are back on our feet, certainly and instantly we should do the right thing and help more out.
If the economy collapses though further and more seriously, a broke country can help no one in the long term, never mind the short.

I know that makes sense on a certain level, but the fact is that if we cancel our aid budget, people will die. The €700 million that we spend is trivial in the light of what we have spent on the banks, and what we overspend on current spending. It would also be a massive blow to whatever reputation we have left. One of the most positive things about the Irish people is the fact that we have historically been generous with our aid, public and private, even in straitened economic circumstances. It would be a shame to see that diminished.

Einhard

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Its a complete waste of money.

It saves people from death and starvation. I can understand that people might argue for it to be reduced, but please don't say that it's a complete waste of money.

P. Breathnach

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

...
Its a complete waste of money.

That says it all. Other people's problems, no matter how great, are less important than ours. Let the wasters starve.

djpbarry

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Its a complete waste of money.

I'm sure the recipients would disagree. But who cares about them, eh? They haven't got negative equity to be worrying about.

It's also worth pointing out that Irish Aid accounts for less than 1% of total public expenditure - we obviously have very different understandings of the word "significant".

Nehaxak

I have a big problem with money from Irish Aid being distributed in any way to any NGO/Charity in Ireland who pays any of their staff over 70,000 a year and I think none of it from Irish AID should be allowed to be used in any project by any NGO who has still thus far refused to accept they must cut back on middle, higher management and CEO wages - not have a chunk of that donated money used to fund their own lifestyles.

Cork boy 55

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm sure the recipients would disagree. But who cares about them, eh? They haven't got negative equity to be worrying about.

It's also worth pointing out that Irish Aid accounts for less than 1% of total public expenditure - we obviously have very different understandings of the word "significant".

Wrong its 2% of the tax take

Read the OP again

This the lie at the heart of the Irish aid program

Most people do not know this because of disinfomation like your post.

bleg

Low levels of aid does nothing but perpetuate poverty and overpopulation in other countries.

the groutch

bleg wrote: »

Low levels of aid does nothing but perpetuate poverty and overpopulation in other countries.

so we're supposed to give away money to try prevent poverty on the other side of the world, and in the process allow large chunks of our population to descend into poverty instead

Cork boy 55

Nehaxak wrote: »

I have a big problem with money from Irish Aid being distributed in any way to any NGO/Charity in Ireland who pays any of their staff over 70,000 a year and I think none of it from Irish AID should be allowed to be used in any project by any NGO who has still thus far refused to accept they must cut back on middle, higher management and CEO wages - not have a chunk of that donated money used to fund their own lifestyles.

+1

Theres greed at the top of the so-called NGO's
The wages at the top of the so called NGOs is scandalous
I call them so-called NGOs because without the tax payer they would not exist at least not their current size and form

John O'shea at goal is on 100,000
Head of concern 140,000

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/top-charities-defend-fat-cat-ceo-salaries-1062042.html

And this is after many cutbacks

Another scandal is the sheer number of these groups
theres scores of them, goal concern bothar trocaire et all
there should be just one irish aid overseas charity IMO
Just imaginae the waste and duplictaion, money spend on wages admin adverts overheads etc . Theres incredibale waste here.

Another scandal is the link between some of these groups and the catholic church The state should not be funding the catholic agenda in Africa.

bleg

the groutch wrote: »

so we're supposed to give away money to try prevent poverty on the other side of the world, and in the process allow large chunks of our population to descend into poverty instead

Nope, we should stop all aid until population levels in countries we provide aid to are at reasonable and sustainable levels.

flutered

at least we should make sure that we do not give an african country 3 million, which they immediately give to russia for military aircraft, but what really bugs me is the guys at the top of the aid programs making nice money while asking for volunteers to work.

Cork boy 55

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Its a complete waste of money.

I should not have said this I take it back.

Its not a waste of money but it is money we do not have at present.

BlaasForRafa

Einhard wrote: »

I know that makes sense on a certain level, but the fact is that if we cancel our aid budget, people will die.

Irish people will die due to the upcoming December budget. I have personal experience of a close family member dieing while on a hospital waiting list after McSharry's budget of 1987 decimated the hospitals of Ireland. The aid budget shouldn't be completely cut but it should be significantly reduced, if theres a decision between whether Irish people should die from health service cuts or foreigners due to unspecified reasons then the decision should be clear.

djpbarry

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Wrong its 2% of the tax take
...
Most people do not know this because of disinfomation like your post.

What disinformation? I simply expressed the aid budget as percentage of total public expenditure rather than total tax revenue.

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

The wages at the top of the so called NGOs is scandalous
...
John O'shea at goal is on 100,000
Head of concern 140,000

Why are they scandalous? Those figures don’t seem particularly high to me – CEO’s in Ireland can command salaries in excess of €300k. Besides, shouldn’t they be judged on what they actually deliver for that salary?

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Another scandal is the sheer number of these groups
...
Just imaginae the waste and duplictaion, money spend on wages admin adverts overheads etc . Theres incredibale waste here.

Is there? Or are you just assuming that there is?

bleg wrote: »

Nope, we should stop all aid until population levels in countries we provide aid to are at reasonable and sustainable levels.

Suppose some of that aid is being spent on educating people about birth control?

sarkozy

Whether the official aid budget is 1% or 2% of expenditure, the official amount for 2009 was 0.54% of GNP. And the budget was cut again for 2010. The aid budget goes through all the standard budgeting processes - a budget ceiling is given by the Department of Finance and a detailed budgetary plan is put together and voted for by the Oireachtas. That sets out where, within the governments aid budget, where the money goes.

I've seen how things work and I'm confident that every effort to account for the money is made. It has to be said that, while Irish Aid workers might follow the money, not all NGOs do so to the same standards. Maybe this is right, maybe it's wrong. Burdening poor countries and communities for our obsession with tracking money can have detrimental effects on poor people, too (as much as the risk of financing the lifestyles of the corrupt is a problem, too).

As for the budget's reduction ... it will impact on lives though I think NGOs have been a little disingenuous about that. But it is true. The ODA budget was cut disproportionately over the past two years but if the ODA budget were to be reduced in volume to maintain the 0.54% of GNP, that wouldn't be the worse scenario. We can't compare ourselves to the UK's decision to increase aid spending because the Tories will be using it more as a foreign policy tool than Ireland ever has.

locomo

bizmark wrote: »

shouldnt send any money out of the country if we have to make cuts in helping our own people at home tbh

+1.
Its amazing to think some people have the audacity to think we should borrow hundreds of millions from the bank of last resort, the IMF, which will be repayabe by our grandchildren @ 5% p.a., and give this money to the crooked dictators and governments of the third world.

Will not our grandchildren have enough problems trying to pay back the loan on themselves first ? Its time people copped on.

djpbarry

locomo wrote: »

Its amazing to think some people have the audacity to think we should borrow hundreds of millions from the bank of last resort, the IMF, which will be repayabe by our grandchildren @ 5% p.a., and give this money to the crooked dictators and governments of the third world.

Will not our grandchildren have enough problems trying to pay back the loan on themselves first ? Its time people copped on.

Indeed. How about we all cop on to the fact that Irish Aid is not handing out cash willy-nilly to any dictator who comes knocking.

Cork boy 55

djpbarry wrote: »

What disinformation? I simply expressed the aid budget as percentage of total public expenditure rather than total tax revenue.

The professional Aid industry uses the 0.7% figure all the time
like recently, They did a survey and they asked people do they support the
Irish government meeting that target by 2014 and many people said yes
The average Joe does not know thats its 2% of all taxes raisied.
the 0.5% is the figure thats presented in the public domain all the time
Joe and mary hear 0.7% and they think "thats not excessive"
Public expediture is being funded by borrowed money at high interest rates. In times of debt and defiect its the tax take that counts
It should be reduced to 0.5% of tax take until national bugdet is balanced.

djpbarry wrote: »

Is there? Or are you just assuming that there is?

Yes there is a multitude of charities is this country
Common sense tells me that there is massive room here for cutting overheads and waste and of course JOBS
Just look at post 211 on this link to politics.ie
http://www.politics.ie/foreign-affairs/135015-fianna-fail-tullow-oil-uganda-22.html
and click on the link
Also heres a link to dorhas a network of just 40 of the charties in Ireland
http://www.dochas.ie/members/Default.aspx

Chuchoter

Bilateral aid, as I have always maintained, does not work, has never worked and is at best a waste of money and at worst supporting corrupt dictatorships. Uganda is a brilliant example of our money being spent on war planes and killing gay people and their families.

djpbarry

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

It should be reduced to 0.5% of tax take until national bugdet is balanced.

And then what? And why 0.5% anyway? Why not 0.4 or 0.6%?

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Yes there is a multitude of charities is this country
Common sense tells me that there is massive room here for cutting overheads and waste and of course JOBS

You want to cut jobs?

If it’s all just “common sense”, then you should have no trouble finding more than just meaningless platitudes to support your argument. Maybe you could produce some figures, such as actual spends on operating costs?

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Just look at post 211 on this link to politics.ie

I learned a long time ago that most of what gets posted on that site is utter pants.

crayolastereo wrote: »

Uganda is a brilliant example of our money being spent on war planes and killing gay people and their families.

Really? Could you explain how funds intended for education support, HIV/AIDS control and reform of governance end up being spent as you describe?

truth_not_myth

There are a lot of people posting here who seem to know very little about overseas development and humanitarian assistance, yet they make remarks saying it doesn't work and it is less important than keeping the money in Ireland. There are also people saying that NGOs pay their workers too much.

Before I start separating fact from fiction, let me be very open about the fact that I work for an NGO, one of the Irish NGOs which was referred to earlier in this thread. I work in a post-conflict African country and I manage a programmatic budget of over €4m with 300 staff, for which I am now paid €38k per annum, my starting salary was much lower.

NGO workers do not earn a lot, in general. Yes there are large salaries in the UN and many of us working for NGOs know we could make a lot more if we worked for the UN or if we had stayed in Europe/US and worked for the profit sector, but most of us do not do this work for the money.

Secondly, we do not prop up dictatorships, fuel corruption, encourage high birth rates, waste money, have no impact, leave people without marketable skills etc. People who state these things are betraying their ignorance and they would be better off sticking to discussing topics which they understand. I don't pretend to know why the Irish economy is in such problems, nor do I know the solution, so I listen when other people (who do understand) talk about it.

NGO programmes are in support of local people, assisting communities and local governments (who are very far away from the idea of a corrupt dictator - they are often people with very limited resources doing their best to make things better in their communities) to start to take over the management of their services - whether health, education, water provision or agriculture. We work to reduce dependency, not to fuel it.

Every Euro that we spend has to be accounted for, with an auditable paper trail. Gone are the days when NGOs got away with a yearly summary of their work and they were given another year's funding. We have regular detailed reports, quarterly and monthly financials, M&E systems to check not just on what we spend but on whether that spending has had the right output and impact. We have donor visits, advisors come from all over the place to check on what we are doing and verify our reporting. Yes, there are some NGOs who are better at this than others, but those ones which are weak simply so not get more funding as donors want results, they want NGOs with good staff, low admin costs and who can deliver.

Thirdly, you cannot just stop giving assistance and then restart it in a few years. Imagine if that attitude was taken in Ireland and a school was closed for a few years, or a hospital. Programmes cannot be stopped and restarted like a tap - we have staff, compounds, vehicles, clinics, schools, people who rely on assistance in order to get themselves out of poverty.

I am going to stop now, this is probably a waste of my time as people who say things about how the Irish economy is more important than the overseas programmes the Irish government have funded are almost certainly people who have no idea what real human need is, nor any concept of a shared humanity, nor of the irony of Ireland (of all countries!) taking this attitude to poor people elsewhere.

TM

locomo

Charity begins at home.
If a business was losing over 20 billion a year (and regarding money Ireland is not unlike a business in the overall scheme of things ) would it still continue to borrow every year 500 million EXTRA a year to prop up dictatorships in the third world ?
If you were the bank of last resort, the IMF, wouyld you lend Ireland 500,000,000 euro per year to give to Africa ? If so, when do you think Ireland will be able to pay back this amount PLUS interest , in addition to the money it has borrowed in previous years for similar donations ?

truth_not_myth

Yep, I knew I was wasting my time here, thanks for confirming it locomo

locomo

truth_not_myth wrote: »

Yep, I knew I was wasting my time here

Of course you are wasting your time - and our money, and that of our children and grandchildren - trying to help the third world by throwing some of the money we borrow at them. As someone else said, "Uganda is a brilliant example of our money being spent on war planes and killing gay people and their families." Pakistan has military capabilities, weapons and a nucleur programme far advanced to ours and who gives aid to the other ? We give "aid" to them. If anyone really wants to help them, persuade them to limit the size of their families. Send out condoms perhaps.

truth_not_myth

First of all your post made me angry, but then I read it again and I started to see the funny side.

I guess I just didn't realise that people with such a breathtakingly limited understanding of the world actually had the temerity to post on a website as though they're an expert.

Thanks for the giggle!

djpbarry

locomo wrote: »

As someone else said, "Uganda is a brilliant example of our money being spent on war planes and killing gay people and their families."

Yes, someone did say that. However, you may have noticed that they provided zero evidence to support their claim.

locomo wrote: »

Pakistan has military capabilities, weapons and a nucleur programme far advanced to ours and who gives aid to the other ? We give "aid" to them.

Really? Through Irish Aid? How much (emergency relief aside)?

While I would obviously like to see Pakistan cut down on their military spending, I do believe that they are one of the largest (if not the largest) contributor to UN peacekeeping missions. Furthermore, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (www.sipri.org), their current military expenditure (as a % of GDP) has been declining steadily since the late 80’s.

jimmycrackcorm

locomo wrote: »

+1.
Its amazing to think some people have the audacity to think we should borrow hundreds of millions from the bank of last resort, the IMF, which will be repayabe by our grandchildren @ 5% p.a., and give this money to the crooked dictators and governments of the third world.

Will not our grandchildren have enough problems trying to pay back the loan on themselves first ? Its time people copped on.

Aren't you glad that the people of the countries who contribute to the IMF aren't saying the exact same thing about giving us their money?

truth_not_myth

Thank you djpbarry and jimmycrackcorm for taking the more mature route in response to locomo, but I just cannot manage it...

locomo - you might like to know that I just signed off a purchase which will be paid for by the Irish government, it is for $2,000 for biosand filters which people will use in their homes so the dirty water they collect from rivers doesn't kill their kids with diarrhoea.

Sorry for messing up the future of your children with this. I guess those few hundred kids who will survive because of these filters might see it as money which did not go to waste...

Cork boy 55

djpbarry wrote: »

You want to cut jobs?

If it’s all just “common sense”, then you should have no trouble finding more than just meaningless platitudes to support your argument. Maybe you could produce some figures, such as actual spends on operating costs?
I learned a long time ago that most of what gets posted on that site is utter pants.
Really? Could you explain how funds intended for education support, HIV/AIDS control and reform of governance end up being spent as you describe?

Yes cut jobs there are too many charities in Ireland. There should be consiladated to save money.

If you clicked on the link you would see it takes you to a goverment site
and an detailed answer to a question in the dail.

Why should my grandchildren pay back a 5% loan to the IMF
to treat an STI(HIV/AIDS) in African in a country with richer natural resources than Ireland.

johngalway

Stop it entirely, until we can afford it out of a surplus once more. Over half a billion, which is what €671 million (think that was the number quoted) is, is not an insignificant chunk of change.

greendom

Many of the countries that are providing money to the Irish state in the bail out are suffering as a result of the current recession. If they had the same attitude as some of the posters on this thread (i.e. charity belongs at home) Ireland Inc. would be completely scuppered. Be thankful that many nation states are more enlightened than that

Cork boy 55

greendom wrote: »

Many of the countries that are providing money to the Irish state in the bail out are suffering as a result of the current recession. If they had the same attitude as some of the posters on this thread (i.e. charity belongs at home) Ireland Inc. would be completely scuppered. Be thankful that many nation states are more enlightened than that

they are giving Ireland A loan at 5% interest

Ireland wil use this money to pay back debt owed by the british french an german banks
They are not bailing out ireland their are baiing out their banks bad investments in Ireland.

ITs not AID

Cork boy 55

Overpopulation is the problem

Population Ethiopia 1980 - 35 million
Population Ethiopia 2008 - 80 million

Population Nigeria 1980 - 74 million
Population Nigeria 2008 - 151 million

Population Kenya 1980 - 16 million
population Kenya 2008 - 38 million

Is Africa going to continue getting aid forever ?

If the west stops donating, what is going to happen to all these people ?

Ethiopia was incapable of supporting 35 million in 1985 & one estimate has the population hitting 140m by 2030.

Don't think distribution of aid is the problem.

greendom

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

they are giving Ireland A loan at 5% interest

Ireland wil use this money to pay back debt owed by the british french an german banks
They are not bailing out ireland their are baiing out their banks bad investments in Ireland.

ITs not AID

Who owns the banks -who is responsible for the banks. Who has committed to guarantee the banks in the state ?

And despite the current problems Ireland is a modern state with a half decent infrastructure (a fair bit of which is thanks to Europe too) and it's citizens share a lifestyle that would be the envy of the overwhelming majority of any state we provide aid to.

Kalimah

truth_not_myth wrote: »

There are a lot of people posting here who seem to know very little about overseas development and humanitarian assistance, yet they make remarks saying it doesn't work and it is less important than keeping the money in Ireland. There are also people saying that NGOs pay their workers too much.

Before I start separating fact from fiction, let me be very open about the fact that I work for an NGO, one of the Irish NGOs which was referred to earlier in this thread. I work in a post-conflict African country and I manage a programmatic budget of over €4m with 300 staff, for which I am now paid €38k per annum, my starting salary was much lower.

NGO workers do not earn a lot, in general. Yes there are large salaries in the UN and many of us working for NGOs know we could make a lot more if we worked for the UN or if we had stayed in Europe/US and worked for the profit sector, but most of us do not do this work for the money.

Secondly, we do not prop up dictatorships, fuel corruption, encourage high birth rates, waste money, have no impact, leave people without marketable skills etc. People who state these things are betraying their ignorance and they would be better off sticking to discussing topics which they understand. I don't pretend to know why the Irish economy is in such problems, nor do I know the solution, so I listen when other people (who do understand) talk about it.

NGO programmes are in support of local people, assisting communities and local governments (who are very far away from the idea of a corrupt dictator - they are often people with very limited resources doing their best to make things better in their communities) to start to take over the management of their services - whether health, education, water provision or agriculture. We work to reduce dependency, not to fuel it.

Every Euro that we spend has to be accounted for, with an auditable paper trail. Gone are the days when NGOs got away with a yearly summary of their work and they were given another year's funding. We have regular detailed reports, quarterly and monthly financials, M&E systems to check not just on what we spend but on whether that spending has had the right output and impact. We have donor visits, advisors come from all over the place to check on what we are doing and verify our reporting. Yes, there are some NGOs who are better at this than others, but those ones which are weak simply so not get more funding as donors want results, they want NGOs with good staff, low admin costs and who can deliver.

Thirdly, you cannot just stop giving assistance and then restart it in a few years. Imagine if that attitude was taken in Ireland and a school was closed for a few years, or a hospital. Programmes cannot be stopped and restarted like a tap - we have staff, compounds, vehicles, clinics, schools, people who rely on assistance in order to get themselves out of poverty.

I am going to stop now, this is probably a waste of my time as people who say things about how the Irish economy is more important than the overseas programmes the Irish government have funded are almost certainly people who have no idea what real human need is, nor any concept of a shared humanity, nor of the irony of Ireland (of all countries!) taking this attitude to poor people elsewhere.

TM

Very well said. I too work in an NGO and I second all you have said. My colleagues work for 21k a year or thereabouts in the admin area in Ireland so on no account are we vastly overpaid.