Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 17 Jun 1986

Vol. 368 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Food Aid Convention, 1986: Motion.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. G. Birmingham)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the terms of the Food Aid Convention, 1986 done at London on 13th March, 1986.

Fundamentally, the approval that is sought is an endorsement of a comprehensive policy of food aid for countries with serious food problems and of a valuable and sound international framework for such vital assistance. We have all been made aware in recent years of how critical the food problems of some developing countries really are and how precarious is the margin between, on the one hand, the basic subsistence level of much of the world's population and, on the other, famine and starvation. The solution to the problem of hunger lies in the attainment of food self-sufficiency by the developing countries and the main priority of international development efforts must be to help the developing countries produce enough food to feed their populations.

In the meantime, however, the reality is that many developing countries do not themselves at present have enough food to feed their populations, nor can they afford to pay for sufficient food imports. In others, sudden disasters or accumulated hardships can give rise, sometimes with little warning, to widespread famine and death, such as we are all witness to in Sub-Saharan Africa in recent times. In these diverse situations, it is food aid that prevents food shortages becoming famines — it is the difference between life and death. In the medium term, food aid, supplied for example through food for work programmes, can be used to support programmess designed to encourage agricultural development.

The Food Aid Convention provides an important framework for international food aid action, which has demonstrated its effectiveness over the years. While the new Food Aid Convention obviously does not provide a complete answer to the problems of hunger and underdevelopment, it represents a step in the right direction.

I would now like to say something on the legal and technical details of the Convention.

The Food Aid Convention is one of two legal instruments, the other being the Wheat Trade Convention, 1986, which together constitute the International Wheat Agreement, 1986. The second instrument, the Wheat Trade Convention, 1986, does not involve contributions directly from the Exchequer and therefore does not require the approval of the Dáil before ratification.

The first International Wheat Agreement was negotiated in 1949. The second International Wheat Agreement come into effect in 1971 and remains in force until 30 June of this year, hence the urgency of this debate. In 1967 the original agreement was extended to include the first Food Aid Convention, which was replaced by the second Food Aid Convention in 1971. Although Ireland did not immediately become a party to the Food Aid Conventions, we did so in 1973 as a result of our accession to the European Communities. Since then Ireland's contribution under the Food Aid Convention, like that of all the other member states, is counted as part of the overall European Community's contribution. The 1971 Food Aid Convention was replaced by the 1980 Convention. This was extended by two protocols, the most recent of which extended the convention from 1 July 1983 to 30 June 1986.

The International Wheat Council met in London on 13-14 March 1986 to negotiate a successor to the 1971 International Wheat Agreement, and finalised the text of the Food Aid Convention, 1986, on 13 March, which is before the House today for approval. Besides the European Community the other parties involved in the negotiations were: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States.

The objective of the Food Aid Convention is to carry out a food aid programme for the benefit of the peoples of developing countries. The programme's annual target, established in 1974, of ten million metric tonnes of food aid in the form of wheat and other grains, has been maintained in the 1986 Convention. The total minimum contribution agreed by the members of the 1986 Convention has been increased slightly from 7,592,000 tonnes annually under the 1980 Convention to 7,617,000 tonnes annually under the 1986 Convention. The FAO estimate that in fact over 12.3 million tonnes of food aid in cereals was provided during 1984-85, and that 10,996 million tonnes will be provided in 1985-86, including 3.3 million tonnes to Africa. Approximately 2.7 million tonnes of the overall total for 1985-86 was channelled through multilateral agencies, the remainder being provided on a bilateral basis. At present food aid donors provide approximately 22 per cent or 9,700,000 tonnes, of the total cereal import requirements of lowincome food deficit countries; the balance is purchased commercially. In addition, 839,000 tonnes of other commodities such as butteroil, vegetable oil and skin milk powder were provided as food aid during 1985.

The convention is open for signature and ratification or acceptance at the United Nations Headquarters in New York until 30 June 1986. It is proposed that the Community and all the member states will simultaneously sign the convention and deposit their instruments of ratification or declarations of provisional application. Although individual member states are required to sign and ratify the convention, the Community is represented as a single unit for the purposes of the convention.

With Spain's contribution of 20,000 tonnes incorporated into the Community's contribution, the total minimum Community contribution under the new convention is 1,670,000 tonnes, instead of the previous 1,650,000 tonnes. The Community's contribution is met partly from the Community's own resources and partly by national action. Ireland's proposed share of the total is 4,000 tonnes per annum, compared with 4,024 tonnes under the previous convention. At current market prices and including freight charges, the proposed Irish commitment will cost approximately £800,000 this year, with possible minor increases, in the region of 1 per cent, next year. As in the past, Ireland's contribution will be borne by the Vote for the Department of Agriculture and will continue to be channelled through the World Food Programme.

There have been similar motions moved in the past which have received support. I look forward to the support of the House on this occasion.

Mr. G. Collins

We support this motion.

I very much welcome the increasing interest of our people in official development aid. Having regard to the seriousness of the issue, which is helping fellow human beings to survive, we should all do very much more, we should become more involved in every possible way in order to alleviate this terrible problem obtaining in the Third World. We can see for ourselves that the more advanced and developed countries have great problems keeping their food surpluses under control while at the same time malnutrition, starvation and disease constitute the realities of life for millions of people in the Third World. I note from what the Minister of State has said that the solution to the problem of hunger lies in the attainment of food self-sufficiency by the developing countries. I accept that argument in principle, as I am sure does every other Member of this House. The main priority of international development aid must be to help the developing countries produce sufficient food to feed their populations, something to which we all subscribe. We are all familiar with the lesson: instead of giving a hungry man fish to eat, we should give him a fishing rod and teach him how to fish so that he can feed himself.

However, there is the problem obtaining that many developing countries have not sufficient food to feed their populations, nor can they afford to pay for the requisite food. People in the developed world have become much more aware of the dreadful position that has obtained in many parts of the Third World in recent years. We were all very shocked to see the television pictures of the last couple of years of the effects of starvation, malnutrition and disease on the continent of Africa, particularly in the countries of Ethiopia and the Sudan. When we saw such pictures in our sittingrooms and compared the conditions in which fellow human beings were indeavouring to survive, the reality became so real that we felt we had to do something to rectify the matter. A number of individuals and agencies gave leadership and encouragement in getting something going, to which people responded so generously on a number of occasions helping out those fellow human beings experiencing such extreme difficulty.

I was glad, as were other Members of the House, to participate in a number of debates on this issue here. The Minister will be aware we urged that, where food surpluses existed, in particular in the EC, whether of grain or other foodstuffs, we should arrange to have them transferred to needy areas in a speedier manner than was done when we first became aware of these difficulties. Because of the size of the problem it would appear that the official agencies involved in the area of operations were not prepared or ready to move in as quickly as was necessary to bring medicines, food and help to the millions who were suffering not just from hunger but also from diseases associated with the lack of good, wholesome food. It is very difficult for us, living in comfortable suroundings which we take so much for granted, to understand why in this press button era when we can send people to the moon and send them around the world at supersonic speeds, we could not send food and aid quickly to affected regions.

I do not have personal experience of the difficulties involved nor do I pretend to have the answers. I have not visited these areas and I say that with regret. I know others have visited them including the Minister of State. I congratulate him on taking the initiative and doing that. Other Members, through their dealings with the committee, have experienced the problems that exist. They have presented us with a very fine report which I hope Members will take time to read. If we are to understand the seriousness of the problem we need to be more informed.

There is need for help in the short term and I accept that fully. I thank those who are involved in ensuring that sufficient help is given in the short term. On occasion we hear disturbing comments, true or untrue I cannot say, that a certain proportion of food aid is not reaching the people for whom it is intended. In some instances food imports into countries are taken by the administrations for the benefit of the armed forces and the privileged while those in most needy areas are lucky if they come at the end of the queue. The generosity of the people, which is extremely welcome and most appreciated, could be frustrated and destroyed if there was a belief that food aid was not getting through to the people who needed it most. I am sure the Minister would agree with me on that.

Recently it was suggested that in the case of Ethiopia food was being held out as a reward to those who moved to settlement camps. I do not possess any superior knowledge of the situation there. Food should be given to the people without any conditions attached. I know there would be unanimous agreement on that in this House. I mention it for fear that anything would interfere with the generosity of the people which has been magnificent. We can understand how a percentage of food aid could be lost through wastage. Sometimes there is not a proper network of distribution in these countries. Food is a perishable commodity. Sometimes there may not be proper road networks. Food may have to be dropped from aircraft or brought in by convoys of trucks using dirt tracks. People can accept that wastage might occur in these circumstances. However, if it is true that food which is meant for starving people is being given to armies, that must not be tolerated. I do not care how the authorities do it but that practice must be wiped out.

I commended the Minister's predecessor, Deputy O'Keeffe, on the great personal interest he took in this area. The demands on his time were so great that I am not sure everyone appreciated what he did. He did well. I have heard good accounts of what he did and I congratulate him on it. I am sure his successor will do an equally good job or even go one better if that is possible. We on this side of the House will do everything to help him.

I do not intend this to be a criticism of the Minister, the Minister of State, or the Government but we should do more to get the European Commission and Parliament to respond more efficiently when disaster strikes. If people are starving, the highly developed economies in Europe should move immediately and get food through to them.

When we discussed this matter last — I am open to correction on this — the Minister promised that he would put certain views expressed by a wide number of Deputies from all parties to a meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs saying how best the EC should respond to a disaster which existed at that time. He succeeded in that and I give him credit for it. However, it should not have been necessary for the Irish people, Parliament and Minister to awaken the consciences of the leaders of the EC. Time is valuable. At that time we were told people were dying at the rate of 50,000 a day.

We should ensure at all times that food aid is given without conditions attached. It should not be given for political purposes nor should it be used as a foreign policy instrument by the donor country. That is important. I was present at discussions when the question of aid was spoken about and, although it was never said, I could immediately see the reasons why certain countries were pursuing certain interests and others were not. I found that difficult to live with. On such occasions I was anything but diplomatic. If something needs to be done, let it be done as it should be done, without playing international power politics. The Minister must be ever vigilant to ensure that food aid is not denied to those in need for any reason, political or economic.

I note that Ireland's proposed share of the total is 4,000 tonnes of grain per annum and I should like to know if that is a smaller amount than last year.

Mr. G. Birmingham

Yes, but there are minimum targets.

Mr. G. Collins

In fact, the £800,000 the Minister is looking for is in addition to what has been allocated or is it a separate amount?

Mr. G. Birmingham

What is involved is a continuation of existing practices. The figures have been marginally changed upwards and downwards to take account of the Spanish and Portuguese accession.

Mr. G. Collins

Will the Minister give us his assessment of how the problem is being dealt with? Is he satisfied that enough is being done having regard to the extent of the problem? Recently I glanced through a document which came my way, The Status Report on the Emergency Situation in Africa as of 1 February 1986, and its contents frightened me. One can see from that document how so many millions of people depend on outside help. They depend on us more than others because we have an independent voice in the fora where these matters are discussed. I was anything but satisfied — definitely not happy — with the debate that took place recently at the UN. I was not encouraged at all that we are facing up to the problem.

Will the Minister tell us what the picture looks like for the many millions throughout the world who are in dire need of food? Are we doing enough? Are our long term plans sufficient? Are we satisfied that the measures being taken in the short term are sufficient? Is the Minister satisfied that the co-operation we need from our colleagues in Europe is sufficient? What can we do to improve it other than highlighting the problem? Can we exert any gentle pressures anywhere along the line because of the extent of the problem? I am speaking for every Member when I tell the Minister of State that he is assured of unstinting and wholehearted support from us all in his efforts to ensure that Ireland plays as important a role as we should in dealing with an extremely sad and tragic problem.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs (Mr. G. Birmingham)

I should like to thank Deputy Collins for the way he has responded to the motion. In particular I should like to thank him for his extraordinarily gracious and generous remarks about my predecessor, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe. I have no doubt that they will be much appreciated by him. Deputy Collins asked me if I was satisfied and, in a sense, that is always the hardest question of all to answer. If one says that one is satisfied then it could be said that there is nothing more to be done. Satisfaction leads to complacency but, equally, if one were to say one was dissatisfied that would be to ignore the real steps that have been taken nationally and at the international level.

In his contribution Deputy Collins broadened the discussion somewhat beyond the specifics of the Convention and it is opportune that he should do so because this is a particularly crucial time for the aid agenda. In the past couple of years all of our actions, our thoughts, and the focus of our concern concentrated on the need for emergency relief, particularly for Sub-Saharan Africa. The immediacy of the threat of famine on a massive scale has abated. I will not exaggerate because it remains the case that in a number of African countries there are still very serious problems. In at least six African countries, Botswana, Chad, Angola, Mozambique and the Sudan, there are still very serious problems but Africa as a whole has enjoyed a bumper harvest. Even with the countries that are still experiencing problems in some instances, as for example in the Sudan, there is an overall surplus of food supply but it is a question of getting the food that is in surplus to the places where it is needed.

This means that there is a change in emphasis, that the debate has to move on now from simply the question of capacity to respond to an immediate problem to rehabilitation, to development, to asking ourselves how that was allowed to happen in the first place and what can we do in the future. There are encouraging signs and not the least of them has been the courage that a number of countries most affected have shown in expressing a willingness to adopt realistic policies, even painful policies, in the interests of domestic agricultural producers. Only in that way is there a prospect of food self sufficiency.

One aspect commented on by Deputy Collins — I agree with him on this — was the apparent sluggishness and slowness or awkwardness of the international community and, more explicitly, of the European Community, in responding to the crisis in Africa. The first thing to be said about that is that the Community's response was slow. The second thing that can be said is that the response when it was forthcoming — I think we can take a certain amount of pride in that when it did come it was under the leadership and following the pushing of the Irish Presidency — was effective and as a result a great number of lives were saved. If one adds those two together the conclusion one must come to is that were it not for that sluggishness, that lack of preparedness, much of that suffering could have been avoided. The question is: what can we do about improving that and seeing that at least it does not happen again? We have had examples from other areas in the recent past to establish that the European Community is not at its best when faced with a sudden crisis. Like many large bodies it moves slowly and has its own decision-making process. We had evidence of that in a very spectacular fashion recently in another regard.

One thing I have been pressing very strongly within the development council — I am glad to say that I have been receiving a substantial amount of support for this — is that there should be built into each year's Community budget an emergency aid provision. Then it will not be a question of the Community sitting down from scratch to work out how it responds, or the method of response. I will continue to push that. The overwhelming case for it is made by simply studying what happened on the last occasion and saying, now knowing that we are capable of responding effectively and alleviating the suffering on a massive scale, that the onus is all the greater on us to be in a position to move that much faster should we be ever faced with a similar problem.

With regard to some domestic aspects I join with Deputy Collins in a certain sense of pride in the achievements that we have been capable of over the past decade or so, achievements at Government level and at individual level, with people putting their money where their mouth is. Very often they put their careers on the line by travelling in huge numbers to African and other Third World countries.

There has been a long tradition of this. When I was in New York for the special UN session I met the Foreign Ministers of each of the countries with whom we have a priority relationship. When I met the Foreign Minister of Zambia I said we had a special relationship with Zambia going back a long way, and I said that under Frank Aiken as Minister for External Affairs, a relationship was established through the Institute of Public Administration. The Zambian Foreign Minister corrected me and said: "No. Our relationship goes back a great deal further. What about the role played by Irish Jesuits? I was educated by them." He pointed to his Ambassador and said "So was he." In this House we are particularly concerned about the State's role, and there we find cause for satisfaction, a word I did not want to use.

Mr. G. Collins

It is not enough.

Mr. G. Birmingham

I agree and it should not be thought of as being enough. We have to do better. However, this year we will spend £43 million. Next year, through Building on Reality, that will be increased to £50 million, or 0.275 of GNP. Even in the few months I have been in this job one thing has become very clear to me, that is, the extraordinary support that all involved were able to take from the fact that they knew how much they would get during the period of Building on Reality— how much they would get in each of the four years. That was stated in advance and they could plan and arrange their affairs accordingly. They made the point to me that this is important, given the way in which our aid packet is structured. It goes both multilaterally and bilaterally. A great deal of what is going multilaterally is pre-committed and even quite small fluctuations, of a percentage point or two, can have a disproportionate impact on the bilateral side, which is the area for discretionary spending.

All of us here might put our minds to how we can offer to those interested in the non-governmental bodies some sense of security beyond the period of Building on Reality. I put it to Deputy Collins that this might be a matter on which all parties could come together and say that during the next four or five years the rate of growth will be so and so and that there will be a consensus about it here and that no party or parties forming the Government would deviate from it. That would be welcomed enormously by everybody involved because the capacity to plan and know where we are going is very important.

I was asked about how our aid is targeted from the point of view of the groups of people who receive, and there we insist that our aid should be aimed at the poorest of the poor. Any attempt to divert our aid in the way described by Deputy Collins is something we could not tolerate in any circumstances. Deputy Collins said it is important that our aid programme should remain untied. I share that view very strongly. That is the necessary corollary of a statement that you are in the business of aiding those whose need is greatest. If you accept that as a first principle, the idea of using aid as an instrument of foreign policy or of political pressure goes out the window automatically. I thank Deputy Collins once more and I wish to express satisfaction that there has been such agreement here.

Question put and agreed to.