Irelands 2012 budget: How much for Overseas AID?

RichieC

Pride Fighter wrote: »

0.7%. Despite being in an economic quagmire, we are still one of the worlds wealthiest nations. The 0.7% would do a lot to alleviate world hunger and improve education. Education is the key, if we can increase literacy levels that would in turn create greater levels of self-sufficiency as education is the great liberator and always will be.

Is there anywhere we can find out -to the cent- where that money goes and who it helps?

And I don't mean the fat arses who get half million euro houses and c class mercs out of it.

Cork boy 55

RichieC wrote: »

Is there anywhere we can find out -to the cent- where that money goes and who it helps?

And I don't mean the fat arses who get half million euro houses and c class mercs out of it.

Some links
Governments white paper 2007 (131 pages)
http://www.irishaid.gov.ie/whitepaper/assets/White%20Paper%20English.pdf
Governments annaul report 2010 (84 pages) (see the annex in back esp no 5)
http://www.irishaid.gov.ie/uploads/Irish-Aid-Report-2010.pdf
Governments website IRISHAID
http://www.irishaid.gov.ie/index.asp


Also Here's a breakdown IRISH NGO group by NGO group (all 170 of them from 2008-may 2010)
Spreadsheet
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmB2HUQaR5vwdDVoUm10Q3N4TlQxZ1ZQWkhxVFhmSFE#gid=0
converted from this dail question
http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2010-05-18.1611.0&s=%22Traidlinks%22#g1613.0.r

as a result of this dail question by Joanna Tuffy on 18th of may 2010

To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs the amount of money given by Irish Aid to all Irish non-governmental organisations for the years 2008 and 2009; the predicted amount for 2010, in tabular form; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

this is only a part the money( i.e. the NGO hand-outs) there is much more, this only covers about one sixth of it. This does not include AID to UN, EU, IMF and world bank projects and bi-liateral AID to non-irish goverments and non-Irish NGOs

Zorbas

RichieC wrote: »

Is there anywhere we can find out -to the cent- where that money goes and who it helps?

And I don't mean the fat arses who get half million euro houses and c class mercs out of it.

To answer your important question - No All the grant allocation and funding information provided by government and NGOs do not provide the details of who it helps. The accounting does not provide for an audit trail which will track funding down to the beneficiary. Funding is provided on the basis of "reputation and credibility" and the transparency and accountability for that funding is inadequate.
With aid somehow the normal standards or expectations of accountability are suspended and the aid industry has been able to live off that "leap in faith" which assumes good faith. Truth is that there are more failed projects than successful ones and that is why so little has been achieved by so much aid over so many decades.
Agencies even use the failures of the past to fund the failures of tomorrow. The amount of money which had been thrown at the Haiti earthquake is typical of that failure. Just look at the Oxfam blog below:
“Nearly two years after Haiti was struck by a devastating earthquake on January 12, 2010, more than half a million Haitians still live in tents and under tarpaulin sheeting. Half of the quake rubble remains where it fell; cholera has become endemic and most Haitians cannot access basic services since around 70 per cent of the workforce is unemployed.”
http://www.oxfamireland.org/blog/2011/12/22/haiti-two-years-after-the-earthquake/
You will rarely hear of the failed programmes and wasted money but the heart strings will be pulled on a regular basis which appeals to the will to help those in desperate need.
What we need is a hard-headed overhaul of how aid is delivered and accounted for and it has parallels with the banking industry with its underwritten losses and lack of oversight.

RandomName2

Zorbas wrote: »

To answer your important question - No All the grant allocation and funding information provided by government and NGOs do not provide the details of who it helps. The accounting does not provide for an audit trail which will track funding down to the beneficiary. Funding is provided on the basis of "reputation and credibility" and the transparency and accountability for that funding is inadequate.
With aid somehow the normal standards or expectations of accountability are suspended and the aid industry has been able to live off that "leap in faith" which assumes good faith. Truth is that there are more failed projects than successful ones and that is why so little has been achieved by so much aid over so many decades.
Agencies even use the failures of the past to fund the failures of tomorrow. The amount of money which had been thrown at the Haiti earthquake is typical of that failure. Just look at the Oxfam blog below:
“Nearly two years after Haiti was struck by a devastating earthquake on January 12, 2010, more than half a million Haitians still live in tents and under tarpaulin sheeting. Half of the quake rubble remains where it fell; cholera has become endemic and most Haitians cannot access basic services since around 70 per cent of the workforce is unemployed.”
http://www.oxfamireland.org/blog/2011/12/22/haiti-two-years-after-the-earthquake/
You will rarely hear of the failed programmes and wasted money but the heart strings will be pulled on a regular basis which appeals to the will to help those in desperate need.
What we need is a hard-headed overhaul of how aid is delivered and accounted for and it has parallels with the banking industry with its underwritten losses and lack of oversight.

Well in a word, 'duh'.

Places like Haiti are quagmires notwithstanding natural disasters such as earthquakes and drought.

In the same way that eejits said that African countries would flourish if their debt was wiped out (which it was). Whilst there are endemic flaws in the civic and governmental structures of these states, aid can only scrape the surface (a canute style endeavour). A school is useless if there are no teachers, teachers are useless if there is no civil service for them to enter, etc.


At the moment people who are borrowing (like the IRISH!) should not be sending money overseas pro bono (not least to aid countries far richer than our own, such as India and China :eek:)

walshb

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Some links
Governments white paper 2007 (131 pages)
http://www.irishaid.gov.ie/whitepaper/assets/White%20Paper%20English.pdf
Governments annaul report 2010 (84 pages) (see the annex in back esp no 5)
http://www.irishaid.gov.ie/uploads/Irish-Aid-Report-2010.pdf
Governments website IRISHAID
http://www.irishaid.gov.ie/index.asp


Also Here's a breakdown IRISH NGO group by NGO group (all 170 of them from 2008-may 2010)
Spreadsheet
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmB2HUQaR5vwdDVoUm10Q3N4TlQxZ1ZQWkhxVFhmSFE#gid=0
converted from this dail question
http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2010-05-18.1611.0&s=%22Traidlinks%22#g1613.0.r

as a result of this dail question by Joanna Tuffy on 18th of may 2010

this is only a part the money( i.e. the NGO hand-outs) there is much more, this only covers about one sixth of it. This does not include AID to UN, EU, IMF and world bank projects and bi-liateral AID to non-irish goverments and non-Irish NGOs

It is a multi billion euro business, and is getting bigger every year. Non stop, and many people are making a killing from poverty and aid.

These NGOs don't want to end poverty. That would mean an end to them, and an end to the river of money flowing their way.

Nodin

walshb wrote: »

It is a multi billion euro business, and is getting bigger every year. Non stop, and many people are making a killing from poverty and aid.

These NGOs don't want to end poverty. That would mean an end to them, and an end to the river of money flowing their way.

....same old generalised crap.

RichieC

Nodin wrote: »

walshb wrote: »

It is a multi billion euro business, and is getting bigger every year. Non stop, and many people are making a killing from poverty and aid.

These NGOs don't want to end poverty. That would mean an end to them, and an end to the river of money flowing their way.

....same old generalised crap.

I dont think hes a million miles from the truth. While I would hate to tar the genuine hard workers out trying to make a difference, it is true that poverty has become a multi billion euro industry and I cannot help thinking that with cash like that there comes the elements of self preservation.

walshb

Nodin wrote: »

....same old generalised crap.

Same old "one liner" crap from you!

Zorbas

Nodin wrote: »

....same old generalised crap.

Would be good to have some specifics from you, then a meaningful dialogue could take place.
Its not a points scoring game or slagging match because the issue of aid is far too serious for that so grown-up opinion would be respected for sure.

Batsy

Ireland should reduce its overseas spending. So should Britain. Despite our economic problems we are still giving millions in aid to India, a country which can afford its own space programme, and to China, a country which has a larger economy than we do.

walshb

Batsy wrote: »

Ireland should reduce its overseas spending. So should Britain. Despite our economic problems we are still giving millions in aid to India, a country which can afford its own space programme, and to China, a country which has a larger economy than we do.

It beggars belief, but the problem is, no matter what you say, some do gooder/smart alec will point to an area/project/injustice in India or China that needs help, our help-Ireland's help. You couldn't make it up. BTW, their economies are colossal compared to ours, not just larger; let us be very clear.

Oh, wait for it, Purchasing Power or earnings per person/average wage may be used as another lame excuse to give them aid.:rolleyes:

doomed

During the boom Ireland earned a reputation for being a nouveau riche, up its own "a**e" country. Overseas aid is one of the antidoes. Keep it going and lets not start conversations about wealthy corupt elites.

old hippy

walshb wrote: »

Horribly poor comparison. Lazy too!

Not at all. The right wit mentality deserves nothing less than complete destitution and a withdrawal of all foreign investment, followed by an isolation that not even NK could emulate.

Might make some of you young bucks here change your suspect tunage.

walshb

old hippy wrote: »

Not at all. The right wit mentality deserves nothing less than complete destitution and a withdrawal of all foreign investment, followed by an isolation that not even NK could emulate.

Might make some of you young bucks here change your suspect tunage.

Ireland have benefitted greatly from their aid and contributions, ansd also, we have given back. We are not a basket case. We made the most of what we were given and prospered and worked damn hard to make things happen. We are up **** creek now, I will say that. But, we are a resourceful people. As are Africans, if only the west would allow them people to take charge of their lives.

Foreign Aid to Africa is a bottomless pit of corruption and waste. Trillions poured in over the years, not billions, trillions, and still we are being told it's the same, and worse? Why is this? Well, because the whole thing has become a massive racket, a massive business. The West have a lot to answer for for this mess. Africa has many of its own problems, and many problems created by western interference.

edanto

Would you like to explain exactly how stopping aid would improve things for the poor in Africa?

Let's just say we give you a magic wand, and all aid from rich countries to poor countries is stopped immediately (that seems to be what you want).

Detail what happens next, please.

walshb

edanto wrote: »

Would you like to explain exactly how stopping aid would improve things for the poor in Africa?

Let's just say we give you a magic wand, and all aid from rich countries to poor countries is stopped immediately (that seems to be what you want).

Detail what happens next, please.

Who knows, but why not give it a try?

BTW, stopping aid compeltely probably isn't the best solution either.

I would love to hear the justification for monetary aid to India and China. Besides the sad examples or reasons I have given.

Zorbas

edanto wrote: »

Would you like to explain exactly how stopping aid would improve things for the poor in Africa?

Let's just say we give you a magic wand, and all aid from rich countries to poor countries is stopped immediately (that seems to be what you want).

Detail what happens next, please.

For me its the aid which is damaging as largely currently delivered.
Current aid delivery mechanisms all to often;

- assists the elites rather and does'nt trickle down to the poor
- encourages corruption because of weak systems of accountability
- maintains the status quo in countries which abuse civil rights
- is damaging to democracy because governments can avoid accountability to its electorate
- maintains a dependancy culture which is both unsustainable and subservient
- is bad value for money because of the inefficient and expensive aid industry's modus opperandi.
- skews the international relationships away from diplomacy and shared values to one which is predominently materialistic
- shifts responsibility for development away from the host beneficiary to the distant benefactor.
etc etc

edanto

@walshb How much aid do you think we give to China? Personally, I don't think we give any, but I'm not 100% sure.

India, afaik we help some very poor communities there. India happens to have some parts that are very, very poor, but still relatively safe when it comes to sending Irish volunteers (e.g Hope foundation) overseas. I think the Irish Aid programmes in India are winding down.

You've spent the past few years repeating the same mantra "Well, because the whole thing has become a massive racket, a massive business. The West have a lot to answer for for this mess. Africa has many of its own problems, and many problems created by western interference."

I'm just asking you to expand a bit on what you are suggesting. You seem to be suggesting that all aid is a souce of problems and corruption, so I just presumed you wanted aid stopped.

But you don't? What do you want?

And can you give some details about what would happen in your scenario, specifically what would happen next month to the millions of people benefitting right now from Irish Aid.

You are suggesting this change, you have to back it up. What would happen them?

walshb

edanto wrote: »

@walshb How much aid do you think we give to China? Personally, I don't think we give any, but I'm not 100% sure.

India, afaik we help some very poor communities there. India happens to have some parts that are very, very poor, but still relatively safe when it comes to sending Irish volunteers (e.g Hope foundation) overseas. I think the Irish Aid programmes in India are winding down.

You've spent the past few years repeating the same mantra "Well, because the whole thing has become a massive racket, a massive business. The West have a lot to answer for for this mess. Africa has many of its own problems, and many problems created by western interference."

I'm just asking you to expand a bit on what you are suggesting. You seem to be suggesting that all aid is a souce of problems and corruption, so I just presumed you wanted aid stopped.

But you don't? What do you want?

And can you give some details about what would happen in your scenario, specifically what would happen next month to the millions of people benefitting right now from Irish Aid.

You are suggesting this change, you have to back it up. What would happen them?

I never claimed to know what would happen if monetary aid was reduced drastically or stopped. Who knows. Do you?

As for India? So, they have poor areas, doesn't every country? Who are we to try and alleviate the worlds problems when we ourselves are up **** creek.

The U.S has poor areas, we send to them too? How about Japan?

Also, does India give us anything? Or have they ever given us a cent in aid, maybe a dig out to help us pay back some of the crippling debt we owe.

edanto

Well, it's a strange thing if you're recommending a course of action without having any idea of the outcomes - intended or otherwise. But we'll continue to disagree on that point. I think we can afford an overseas aid program because we are so wealthy and you think the opposite for a variety of reasons.

I'm not trying to change your mind, your opinion is clearly solidified and not possible to influence.

@zorbas - those list of theoretical criticisms are well and good, and obviously each aid project in particular and an aid programme overall has to be looked at to make sure that it's minimising each of those negative effects.

So, that's what the agencies do - they design programs to minimise those effects. It would be a waste of money to pay consultants/auditors to follow every single euro from the website donor in Ireland to the hungry person in rural Zambia, so the NGOs set a level of audit control that is, subjectively, acceptable.

It's ridiculous to spend 0% on audit and oversight and it's equally ridiculous to spend 100%. So, they pick a middle amount, based on experience, on collaboration with other NGOs and on donor demands. They publicise their accounts, have their activities open to donor (large donor) inspection, and work goes on.

Personally, I'm very interested in what you have to say about aid because you said you have worked in it for many years, and clearly feel very negative about the entire concept. What do you think would be better? (actually, if you would be happy to PM me your email, I'd be on for a pint and a chat if you live in Dublin)

walshb

edanto wrote: »

Well, it's a strange thing if you're recommending a course of action without having any idea of the outcomes - intended or otherwise. But we'll continue to disagree on that point. I think we can afford an overseas aid program because we are so wealthy and you think the opposite for a variety of reasons.

I'm not trying to change your mind, your opinion is clearly solidified and not possible to influence.

What Ireland are you living in? We are up to our necks in debt in this country.

I know, I know, compared to the poor Africans that the aid agencies keep talking about, yes, we are wealthy.

I don't believe we can afford it. It needs to be reduced.

edanto

walshb wrote: »

What Ireland are you living in? We are up to our necks in debt in this country.

I know, I know, compared to the poor Africans that the aid agencies keep talking about, yes, we are wealthy.

Just in case you need any help convincing other people of the second point above, about how rich we are.

You might also like to try the http://globalrichlist.com/

Like I said though, we are unlikely to change each other's opinion & I'm finished trying. We have clearly looked at the same world and formed different conclusions.

shadowninty

The west buys raw materials from Africa (as well as other poor parts of the world), quite cheaply, without giving a damn about the damage caused acquiring it. 0.7% of GDP in aid (although we give less then that), somewhat makes up for that, and targets resources to specific areas. Yes these countries are messed up, and have many structural problems. However since the 80's, many have come a long way. A lot of this is thanks to aid, once the hunger issue was addressed, aid was not really increased, but put into long term projects, wells, hospitals, schools etc.
Perhaps given the nature of the common market, it would be better if aid was handled at a European level, funded by tarrifs and corporations, this would alleviate the direct burden of aid off Ireland.

That said, Ireland should be proud of its aid budget - we give far, far more capita then the US does, and gave more per capita then the UK or France, who once ruled half the world between them.

lastlaugh

Does anyone know how much cash is being given away for overseas aid for 2012?

old hippy

I’m guessing that some of the more earnest proponents of “charity begins at home” & “in these days of economic chaos” have conveniently forgotten the dark days of the 80s, where all was not happy and many of us did moan and leave for foreign shores? Unemployment was out of control and the mood was grim. The someone had the inspired idea to do a big live charity event – bit like Live Aid but this time for us – the said unemployed, as opposed to Ethiopia. 1986 saw Self Aid; a mash up of various artists from over the years – including brave new pretenders that the A&R men were signing up in droves, on the back of U2’s success. The initial welcome and euphoria for this idea was soon tempered with begrudgery from the types who now frequent such forums as this. They (your predecessors) complained that even if the money did trickle down to the unwashed, jobless masses – sure and they’d only spend it on the drink and it would make the heroin epidemic only worse.

The concert itself was hit & miss. Some D4 residents complaining that the music was too loud. But for me, the music was drowned out by the same old begrudgers and knockers that have and always will be with us.

RandomName2

edanto wrote: »

@walshb How much aid do you think we give to China? Personally, I don't think we give any, but I'm not 100% sure.

India, afaik we help some very poor communities there. India happens to have some parts that are very, very poor, but still relatively safe when it comes to sending Irish volunteers (e.g Hope foundation) overseas. I think the Irish Aid programmes in India are winding down.

You've spent the past few years repeating the same mantra "Well, because the whole thing has become a massive racket, a massive business. The West have a lot to answer for for this mess. Africa has many of its own problems, and many problems created by western interference."

I'm just asking you to expand a bit on what you are suggesting. You seem to be suggesting that all aid is a souce of problems and corruption, so I just presumed you wanted aid stopped.

But you don't? What do you want?

And can you give some details about what would happen in your scenario, specifically what would happen next month to the millions of people benefitting right now from Irish Aid.

You are suggesting this change, you have to back it up. What would happen them?

Oh I'm pretty certain we're sending at least some aid to China. http://www.irishaid.gov.ie/uploads/world%20map.pdf
And why not? Even if they are, as a country, vastly more wealthy as us, it is better to direct it towards a country which has a stable (albeit authoritarian) government, than one where the capital ends up wasted.

Same applies for India. I mean, although it really should be us applying for aid from India, and not the other way around, at least we are helping to stem the need for reform of the municipal government in the sub-continent.

But in relation to Africa: despotic regimes that run to anarchy find it hard to fund themselves (a lack of an economy would tend to do that). We can in reality count on one hand the number of sub-Saharan African nations that could be termed as progressive in terms of political and societal development. But if aid in some way increases average life expectancy and the military hardware of regional government, then so be it I suppose. It's been that way for the last fifty years, after all.

I like that global richlist thing which would have a homeless individual in Dublin, dependent entirely on welfare, being in the top 10% earners on earth. For shame!

shadowninty

I can certainty empathize with the idea of putting bilateral aid towards countries where it'll actually be used efficiently, for example in South America, or the ASEAN area, this could also win Europe some allies. Makes me feel a bit heartless though, people don't generally suffer from malnutrition or raging illiteracy in those countries.

Zorbas

shadowninty wrote: »

The west buys raw materials from Africa (as well as other poor parts of the world), quite cheaply, without giving a damn about the damage caused acquiring it. 0.7% of GDP in aid (although we give less then that), somewhat makes up for that, and targets resources to specific areas. .

That is not an argument for aid. You do correctly identify exploitation by multi-nationals who are currently responsible to no one and it does not follow that the ordinary citizen should shoulder the guilt for that exploitation.

Nigeria for example allows oil companies to extract without necessary environmental controls to the benefit of the corrupt while the people of the oil Niger Delta region have less development than the rest of the country. Responsibility for this state lies primarily with the Nigerian government and examples such as this can be found across the continent.
A major criticism of aid is that it is not linked enough to development of the private sector in primary industries and natural resources such as agriculture, fishing, forestry and energy. By lack of development of local capacity in the natural resources sector through this neglect brings in foreign investment with the profit motive as the only concern.

shadowninty

Zorbas wrote: »

That is not an argument for aid. You do correctly identify exploitation by multi-nationals who are currently responsible to no one and it does not follow that the ordinary citizen should shoulder the guilt for that exploitation.

Nigeria for example allows oil companies to extract without necessary environmental controls to the benefit of the corrupt while the people of the oil Niger Delta region have less development than the rest of the country. Responsibility for this state lies primarily with the Nigerian government and examples such as this can be found across the continent.
A major criticism of aid is that it is not linked enough to development of the private sector in primary industries and natural resources such as agriculture, fishing, forestry and energy. By lack of development of local capacity in the natural resources sector through this neglect brings in foreign investment with the profit motive as the only concern.

In the west, we elect the people who regulate such corporations. I have always felt that if we could regulate better our corporations, and end things like the terribly done exploitation of oil in Nigeria, or ripping of countries for large tracts of land, then perhaps we could almost reduce aid.

Zorbas

shadowninty wrote: »

In the west, we elect the people who regulate such corporations. I have always felt that if we could regulate better our corporations, and end things like the terribly done exploitation of oil in Nigeria, or ripping of countries for large tracts of land, then perhaps we could almost reduce aid.

Would contest that we have any control on multi-nationals. Take our own Agribusiness multi-national Masstock International.
When in 1989 they announced they were going to show Africa how to feed itself through irrigated wheat rotated with cotton as the cash cow, questions as to the ethics and sustainability of the project were swept aside.
They went on to set up their operation in the Gwembe Valley in the Zambezi area of Zambia. Mc Guckian brothers formed a local company Masstock (Zambia) Ltd so they could reduce the cost of investment (funded by government and financial development institutions) to a fraction using the sovereign debt buy-back scheme (15% of true value through pipeline dismantling).
Because of the easy money available Masstock were able to be sponsored for a risky agricultural adventure.
The issues raised by those of us concerned with the Masstock adventure turned out to be justified and remain typical of what multi-nationals offer developing countries:-

Employment - the project depended on mechanised cotton harvesting because of time constraints and local employment created was negligible. The cost of ex-pat specialists was excessive and not cost effective because those employed did not have necessary local experience of agriculture or of doing business in Africa.

Feed the world – despite the highly publicised claims the area could not grow wheat (cold winters needed for propagation) and crops failed. There was a negative affect because the high use of fertilizers in cotton production reduced soil fertility into the future. Erosion also proved a problem which was created by the project.

New farming methods needed - the project did not work or prove viable in the end because the new methods were not field trialled before the project started. Masstock did not come with necessary experience of agribusiness in Africa.

Mechanisation the answer for development – lack of parts supply chains and high ex-pat costs for maintenance made it unsustainable.

Improved health – whilst Masstock did build a local clinic, the cost of maintaining the service was taken up by Irish Aid and has since been abandoned.

Sustainability and Value for money - Masstock (Zambia) was put into receivership by its secured creditors in 1994 and put up for sale. Masstock International were the highest bidder and able to get the business for a fraction of the original sponsored cost.
They then converted the business primarily to producing marigolds. It was not a financial success and again failed to service its debts. In 2002 the local banks, who had provided working capital finance, called in a receiver for a second time. For locals there was no lasting benefit but there has been lowered water table and other environmental damage.

When the project was being publicised in Ireland you would have thought that Masstock was a development organisation with humanitarian principles but the above record speaks for itself and demonstrates how development has many players.