Assessing and getting value for our development aid is crucial, but it will not be helped by decentralising the civil servants responsible, writes Tom Arnold
The share of its income which a developed country commits to its foreign aid programme is seen as a key indicator of its commitment to tackling global poverty. As far back as 1970, the UN agreed that rich countries should provide 0.7 per cent of their national income (GNP) towards aid. Very few countries have met this target.
But using this and other simple indexes to assess a country's overall contribution to reducing poverty is a gross oversimplification. Long before Ireland joined the ranks of the rich, it was making a huge global contribution to development through the work of its missionaries and educators.
The Commitment to Development Index (CDI), discussed by Richard Whelan (Irish Times, May 19th) will broaden the debate about the range and coherence of the policy mix used by developed countries to tackle global poverty.
In addition to foreign aid, the CDI adds six other national policies, including trade, technology and security policies, and tries to rank their total impact on global development. Ireland is ranked 18th out of the 21 countries examined, a finding which will surprise, and disappoint, many people.
The CDI is at a relatively early stage in its development - this is only the second time it has been produced. Important issues of methodology and of data need to be refined. The index will not become, at least in the short term, a widely-accepted measure for comparing rich countries in their impact on development.
There is a widely-accepted basis for comparison of the contribution which foreign aid makes to development. The development committee of the OECD makes regular assessments of the quantity and quality of the foreign aid programmes of its members.
Any assessment of aid should fit into the context of how it contributes to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The MDGs are the targets adopted by world leaders at the UN in September 2000 to halve hunger and poverty and to tackle other key world problems, such as HIV/AIDS, by 2015.
The basic deal agreed at the UN is simple. Developing countries must take primary responsibility for their own development. Better standards of governance will be crucial in that regard.
Developed countries also have their responsibilities. Aid flows, which in 2002 amounted to $58 billion, need to be doubled. Such an increase can be afforded - provided it is a political priority. Global annual military spending is $900 billion. The US will spend much more on the war in Iraq this year than the total international spending on foreign aid.
The MDGs provide an opportunity to situate aid in a longer-term developmental perspective. Developing countries should be working towards the day when their own resources, foreign direct investment and trade can provide the basis for their development. That is already happening in a number of developing countries, particularly in Asia.
Other developing countries, particularly many in sub-Saharan Africa, are a long way from such a model. They are caught in a classic poverty trap, too poor to make the investment in education and health systems which must provide the basis for any long-term development.
For these countries, foreign aid will remain crucial in the foreseeable future, both to meet the basic needs of their populations and to lay the foundations for long-term development.
The MDGs also bring the quality of aid into sharp focus. Developing countries need to ensure that aid they receive is coherent with their priorities. Taxpayers in rich countries need to know that aid programmes are making a real difference to the lives of the poorest people. Donor agencies must streamline their reporting and co-ordination arrangements to avoid straining the scarce administrative capacity of developing countries.
The record on the quantity and quality of Irish aid has been relatively good in recent years. At the UN meeting in 2000, the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, formally committed the government to reaching the UN target of 0.7 per cent of GNP by 2007.
Progress towards the target has stalled over the past two years, at 0.41 per cent, and NGOs will be seeking a clear signal in the 2005 Estimates that the commitment will be honoured.
The quality of the aid programme is high. The OECD development committee review, conducted last year, praised it for its effectiveness and focus on poverty reduction.
It is therefore of concern that the impact of a domestic policy - decentralisation - could have a very negative impact on the quality, and, in a worst-case scenario, the quantity of the aid programme.
Under decentralisation, Development Co-operation Ireland (DCI), the section within the Department of Foreign Affairs which administers the aid programme, is due to move to Limerick.
Over recent years, the professionalism and capacity of DCI have been notably enhanced. There are two main risks if it moves to Limerick. There could be a significant loss of institutional memory and, at least for a transitional period, a reduction in capacity.
The physical separation of DCI from its parent Department could lead to a reduction in the coherence between aid policy and our wider foreign policy. It was precisely because of this coherence argument that the Irish Aid Review Committee recommended some years ago that DCI should be an integral part of the Department of Foreign Affairs.
These risks were highlighted in the speech made by Dr Ed Walsh, former president of the University of Limerick, to the recent annual meeting of the Association of Higher Civil and Public Servants. I share his views.
There should be a serious assessment of the impact decentralisation of DCI could have on the Irish aid programme. This should cover not just the consequences for the effective implementation of the programme but the potential impact on the lives of the poorest people if that effectiveness is reduced.
A possible retreat from the 0.7 per cent commitment, due to a lack of capacity to administer the programme, would damage the reputation which Ireland has built up internationally in recent years.
All in all, there could be a very high price for sending 120 civil service jobs to Limerick.
Tom Arnold is chief executive of Concern and is a member of the UN Task Force on Hunger. He is addressing an EU conference in Dublin Castle today on the topic "Does Aid Work?"