Welcome to the world of Irish overseas aid, a billion-euro private and public sector business in which Ireland is already a leading world player. But it's about to get a massive cash injection, writes Paul Cullen
Think of an industry that doubles in size every five years. A sector in which Ireland is a world leader with an established international reputation and a growing pot of money at its disposal. A business that offers employees the chance to travel to low-cost, exotic destinations.
If that sounds a bit like the Celtic Tiger, what about an industry with no threat of recession and guaranteed massive expansion over the next decade and beyond? One in which the means by which you raise money and the ways you spend it are unregulated beyond the normal restrictions of the law? And one where staff can bask in that warm glow that comes from doing good for others? Computers? Hardly. Beef? Not any more. Pharmaceuticals? Forget it.
No, welcome to the world of Irish overseas aid, a billion-euro private and public sector business which employs thousands of staff at home and in the developing world. An industry in which Ireland is a leading world player, punching well above its weight in both its private and public sectors.
From tiny beginnings in the 1970s, the Government's aid programme, now known as Development Co-operation Ireland (DCI), has grown by leaps and bounds in recent years, and now boasts an annual budget of more than €530 million. That's more than we spend on the courts and prison services combined and only slightly less than the budget for the Army.
In addition to this, individual Irish aid agencies, born out of the determination of missionary and lay people to better the lot of the developing world, have grown in tandem. The largest, Concern, now ranks as one of the world's biggest aid agencies, while Trócaire, Goal and several other outfits also have multimillion annual turnovers. In addition, large overseas agencies, anxious to share in the growing amount of money available in Ireland, have set up local branches, many of them thriving.
The irony is that the general public is largely unaware of the success of this sleeping giant. Out of sight, out of mind: except when disasters occur, the business of development assistance goes on quietly in many parts of the developing world. Even the political establishment seems indifferent; the aid budget is run by a junior minister in the Department of Foreign Affairs, while the senior minister in the department, whose budget is a fraction of DCI's, sits at the Cabinet table.
Yet by the markers available, Irish aid is a success story, lauded internationally for its development assistance in Africa and its work in humanitarian emergencies. Where other countries give aid with strings attached - "support our government or buy our products and we'll help you" - Ireland's aid mostly goes to the poorest countries with no conditions.
While there are doubts internationally about the efficacy of development assistance, we can be sure at least that if any aid works, Irish aid probably does.
Now, with the Government's decision to increase aid spending further to the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product by 2012, the aid business faces a period of tremendous change and even turmoil.
By this target date, at least another €1 billion a year will flow from the State into DCI and out again to the developing world, either directly, through the agencies and missionaries, or via international bodies such as the UN.
Money can be a double-edged sword, however. With increased funding comes increased scrutiny. Up to now, many in the aid business have treated State funding as the elephant in the room, something not to be mentioned for fear of drawing the attention of a wider audience.
In a few years, however, this €1.5 billion aid leviathan will find it hard to hide from even the most obtuse politician, a few of whom may be moved to wonder how many hospitals or schools that sort of money might build in their constituencies.
New money from the State also threatens to break the link with the public that comes from direct fundraising. Surveys have found that people think of aid agencies first when it comes to overseas assistance, even though the collective turnover of the agencies is much smaller than that of DCI and much of their income comes from DCI or other governments anyway.
"We have our independence to hold on to. We don't want to be seen as mere contractors for the Government," says Eamon Meehan, Trócaire's director of communications. As a result, Trócaire and some other agencies have pegged the proportion of aid they will accept from the State, usually at 50 per cent of overall income.
New and more sophisticated forms of getting people to part with their money have kept the money rolling in, but the cost of fundraising is greater. Arguably, with their accounts awash with State money, the agencies may start to look at fundraising as something quaint but not strictly necessary in a financial sense.
At the same time, the pressure is on from the developing world for agencies to use more local staff in their operations. The days of callow young Irish people being sent off to "muddle through" for a few years in the bush are long gone, and rightly so. The trouble is that as the direct involvement of Irish people as donors or volunteers declines, so too does our sense of ownership of and involvement in aid. The decline of the missionary tradition is also hastening the end of this sense of connection with aid work in developing countries.
More money must also mean more regulation. At present, anyone can set up an aid agency - dozens of people do it every year - and behave in a virtually unregulated manner. Agencies frequently point to their status as a "registered charity" but this is a tax exemption matter with the Revenue Commissioners and does not involve any regulation or accountability.
While a succession of reports has called for reform, the matter has been kicked around various Government departments to no effect.
Although the present Programme for Government is also promising reform, nothing has happened so far. Meanwhile, a small but steady stream of fraud cases turn up in charities each year, threatening to tarnish the image of the entire sector.
Questions also arise over where the extra money should be spent. At the moment, DCI concentrates on six priority countries in Africa and East Timor in Asia. All seven countries are among the most impoverished in the world, and are generally found at or near the bottom of every index of human wellbeing.
So should the extra money be spent on these countries, where the need is greatest? Or should we cast our net wider, by adding more priority countries and generally spreading our largesse more widely? Already, it has been decided that Vietnam is to be added to the list of priority countries, even though this southeast Asia nation is far wealthier and more developed than the likes of Tanzania or Ethiopia.
It makes sense for Ireland to be opening an embassy in Vietnam, and it also makes sense for us to be developing our links with that country. But should this be done through the overseas aid programme? And if we go down this road, are we not starting to make aid dependent on trade objectives?
It's a slippery slope that most other donor countries have already slid down. China, for example, is the third largest recipient of funding from Germany's aid programme, not because it's especially needy but because Germany desperately needs to maintain and develop trade links with the world's fastest growing economy.
On the other hand, aid donors could be forgiven a little impatience with the poorest countries. Decades after they started receiving aid in large amounts, countries such as Zambia and Tanzania are just as poor as they were. Whatever the reasons, the needs remain great; the visible effects of aid meagre.
Spending money isn't as easy as it sounds. Hans Zomer of Dochas, the umbrella body for non-governmental organisations (NGOs), says the Government will have to make a "serious investment" in managing the extra funding. For a start, he says, the "crazy idea" of decentralising to Limerick should be abandoned, and the Department of Finance should lift the embargo on public service recruitment to allow for the appointment of more administrative staff.
"You can't triple the size of the budget without increasing staff. Up to now, the alternative has been the employment of external consultants at three times the price. You also have to tell people what you're doing so there's greater public awareness."
Creating that sense of connection with its work is perhaps the biggest challenge domestically for the aid sector.
Surveys in Britain have shown that coverage of the developing world in the media is falling even as the number of television stations and publications continues to increase; there is no reason to believe we have bucked this trend of "dumbing down".