OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: Ireland 2020

4. Ireland’s structure and systems

Abstract

This chapter considers whether Ireland’s institutional arrangements support its development co-operation objectives. It focuses on the system as a whole and assesses whether Ireland has the necessary capabilities in place to deliver its development co-operation effectively and to contribute to sustainable development.

The chapter looks at authority, mandate and co-ordination to assess whether responsibility for development co-operation is clearly defined. It further explores whether the system is well co-ordinated and led with clear, complementary mandates as part of a whole-of-government approach at headquarters and in partner countries. Focusing on systems the chapter further evaluates whether Ireland has clear and relevant processes and mechanisms in place. Finally, it looks at capacity across Ireland’s development co-operation system – in particular whether Ireland has the necessary skills and knowledge where needed, to manage and deliver its development co-operation – and at the effectiveness of its human resources management system.

In brief

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) leads Ireland’s development co-operation and intends to further strengthen a whole-of-government approach. Numerous good practices of collaboration are already in place, and a revamped interdepartmental committee on development co‑operation will discuss priorities, share experiences and monitor progress towards delivery of A Better World. Co‑ordination within DFAT works well but in many ways relies on informal contacts, a practice that may not be sustainable if ODA is scaled up.

A new Standard Approach to Grant Management has clarified decision making by establishing a clear delegation of authority and improved risk management. Risk management responsibilities and processes are clear, and internal and external controls are effective. Ireland focuses on financial risk, with less of a focus on strategic and operational risks. It is taking steps to respond to the new DAC recommendation on preventing sexual exploitation and abuse. There is also potential to further step up anti-corruption work beyond programme management. Ireland is willing to take risks, operating mostly in challenging contexts, and promotes innovation on the ground.

Growth in the ODA budget will require further reflection on effective quality assurance and investment in information technology (IT) and e-based processes. Human resources challenges put Ireland’s development co-operation system under strain. Low levels of staffing and high levels of turnover affect the level and quality of engagement. Ireland does not yet have clarity on how to match skills and jobs; it has three different staff categories but uses them interchangeably. Delivery against the objectives of A Better World will require more expertise under the relevant priorities, and access to training is not systematic. Implementation of the DFAT human resources strategic action plan and the planned management review are opportunities to address these important challenges. DFAT has made good progress on gender equality in staffing. Local staff are highly valued as a critical element of Irish development co-operation and enjoy good working conditions.

Authority, mandate and co-ordination

DFAT leads Ireland’s development co-operation and intends to further strengthen a whole-of-government approach

Ireland is committed to a whole-of-government approach to development co-operation under the clear leadership of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). The national Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) implementation plan assigns lead Government Departments for each of the 169 SDG targets (Government of Ireland, 2018[1]). DFAT is the lead for virtually all development co‑operation‑related activities, but the plan also makes clear that other departments have a role to play. A Better World uses the same approach, identifying the departments DFAT will co-operate with in the pursuit of Ireland’s objectives (Government of Ireland, 2019[2]). In practice, DFAT directly manages 65% of the total official development assistance (ODA) and oversees engagement with the European Union, which accounts for an additional 26% of Ireland’s ODA (in 2018). Other departments mainly oversee the multilateral engagement with development banks (Department of Finance) and special mandate institutions, notably of the United Nations system.

There are numerous good practices involving collaboration across the government. DFAT works closely with the Department of Finance through secondments, regular consultation and the new initiative on domestic resource mobilisation (Chapter 3). With the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, DFAT has long-standing co-operation under the Africa Agri-food Development Programme (AADP) and regarding Rome-based multilateral agencies. A memorandum of understanding with the Health Service Executive (HSE) guides the HSE’s technical assistance in partner countries. Together with the Departments of Defence and of Justice and Equality, DFAT implements the National Plan on Women, Peace and Security (Chapter 1). Regular co-ordination meetings are held across the government on issues such as trade, peacekeeping and human rights. DFAT also plays an active role in the Inter-Departmental Working Group on the SDGs. The move towards action by the government of Ireland is increasingly visible in policies and publications.

Ireland is determined to take advantage of the full potential for cross-government co-operation. In A Better World, Ireland commits to “develop strategies for deepening co-ordination across Government to deliver on our policy priorities”. As a first, important step, the government will expand the role of the inter-departmental committee (IDC) on development co-operation. The IDC will thus cover the Irish ODA budget and not only the ODA through DFAT, and would meet more frequently to discuss each department’s priorities, monitor progress towards delivery of A Better World and share experiences (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ireland, 2019[3]). This could help to share quality standards and approaches developed by DFAT and allow line departments to integrate their technical expertise. The planned multilateral framework (Chapter 2) is an opportunity to guide a whole-of-government approach, in particular where multiple departments engage, notably on food, environment and climate, health and finance.

Bilateral actions of other departments are not part of the whole-of-mission country strategy approach. This is understandable, considering their very limited engagement. At the same time, ad hoc interventions are less likely to make a sustainable contribution to development in the partner country. There is thus a need to reflect if Ireland should bring in the expertise of line departments as part of its co-operation at country level and if so, how.

Co-ordination within DFAT works well but relies on informal contacts, a practice that may not be sustainable if ODA is scaled up

Co-ordination within DFAT works generally well at all levels. Ireland has successfully moved forward the integration of development co-operation into DFAT. The newly named Development Cooperation and Africa Division (DCAD) is now also responsible for political relations with Africa. Previously split administrative and support units (e.g. evaluation and audit, and communications) now service the entire department. While these units are located outside DCAD, their collaboration with DCAD is generally good. Building on clearly assigned responsibilities, the headquarters and missions collaborate well, as seen in Ethiopia (Annex C). As a good practice, DFAT also enables the exchange between missions so that technical expertise in one mission can benefit another (Annex C). Expanding co-operation beyond Africa (e.g. to small island developing states, Latin America and Caribbean, and the Middle East) will require clarifying the link between regional units and DCAD.1 The planned management review is an opportunity to identify possible friction points and solutions.

However, co-ordination relies in many ways on informal contacts, a practice that may not be sustainable if ODA is scaled up. In the Irish aid system, co-ordination relies on personal acquaintance and knowing whom to talk to (often summarised as “We all know each other”). While this works reasonably well, limits to this approach are evident now and will likely multiply as the ODA budget increases. The split between Dublin and Limerick offices adds a further challenge to exchange with Dublin-based stakeholders outside DFAT as well as within DFAT units, as not all staff are located with their managers. The still-limited use of e-based processes and IT infrastructure further impedes co-ordination, although investments are being made in these, as is discussed elsewhere. High turnover makes it more challenging to know whom to talk to. Moreover, local staff in embassies are not necessarily familiar with colleagues elsewhere. Informal contacts also rely on the good will of all involved. More structured and systematic co-ordination could help to address these challenges, especially in a growing system.

Systems

A new Standard Approach to Grant Management has clarified decision making and improved risk management

Mechanisms for decision making are clear and delegation of authority meaningful. Units are responsible for the design of strategies and policies,2 which are then reviewed and approved at management level. For individual grants, the 2017 Standard Approach to Grant Management (SAGM) clearly sets out responsibilities and processes. For programme approval, heads of embassies and heads of units have delegated authority up to EUR 3.0 million (multi-year programmes) or EUR 1.5 million (single year programmes), unless the risk warrants escalation to a higher level of authority. This provides meaningful delegation of authority by covering a large range of Ireland’s engagement. Levels could be reconsidered if the ODA budget grows substantially, also taking into consideration the relatively higher workload of many small projects.

Risk management responsibilities and processes are clear. The 2014 risk management policy established responsibilities across all hierarchical levels and identified the range of risks Ireland would need to manage.3 An internal analysis also issued in 2014 identified as a main weakness the divergent practices of formalisation and documentation (Evaluation and Audit Unit, DFAT, 2014[4]). By providing detailed guidance, the SAGM remedied this challenge. Grant managers systematically assess risks and reflect mitigating measures in appraisal, contracting, monitoring and internal reporting. Risk registers exist at all levels and are regularly discussed and updated. The obligation to document risks and actions taken ensures that line managers also engage in risk management, supported by a designated chief risk officer at senior management level.

Internal and external controls are effective. A recent external review confirmed the effectiveness of the internal audit function, ensured by the Evaluation and Audit Unit and internal auditors in embassies. The Comptroller and Auditor General regularly assess internal controls. In addition, the Audit Committee provides independent advice to the Accounting Officer (Secretary General) on the suitability and robustness of internal controls and procedures. Their findings are positive, and DFAT has ensured follow‑up to main recommendations.4

Ireland pays significant attention to the management of financial risk. The SAGM requires a detailed analysis of partner capacity and funding flows, including guidance on whether implementing partners have the capacity for onward granting. A counter-fraud policy, legislation and procedures on protected disclosure, and information on whistleblowing complement the SAGM. Importantly, zero tolerance of fraud does not mean zero risk for Ireland, but rather is meant to encourage systematic reporting and follow-up. These can include investigations and, where the situation requires, suspension of payments or cancellation of contracts. Ireland regularly publishes information with regard to incidents of suspected fraud.

There is potential to further step up anti-corruption work. Embassies develop corruption profiles as part of their country strategies. These profiles are an opportunity to look beyond mismanagement of funds and assess how Ireland can contribute to the fight against corruption in a given country context. Integrating training on anti-corruption into risk management training and developing a code of conduct could help to guide staff on problems and dilemmas in everyday work situations and strengthen awareness and understanding of risks. This could also include greater clarity on what should be considered cases of suspected fraud and which of these should be reported to headquarters and how (Annex C).

Ireland could improve guidance on strategic and some operational risks. The SAGM and standard templates use yes-or-no questions to prompt grant managers to confirm that the programme is sensitive to environmental effects, good governance requirements or conflict or that the organisation has appropriate child protection measures in place.5 Ireland does not have a specific safeguarding policy, but engages with implementing partners to assess their approach to safeguards.6 However, in the absence of (updated) guidance on relevant issues, grant managers and implementing organisations might not always be able to ascertain if they have made appropriate provision in response to such risks.

Specifically with regard to preventing sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment (PSEAH), Ireland is taking concrete steps to follow up on the new DAC recommendation. Following its co-leadership in facilitating the new DAC recommendation, it has started developing a specific safeguards policy on PSEAH7 that will codify existing practice and complement internal disciplinary standards. As Ireland operates in challenging contexts, it will be particularly important to consider which oversight mechanisms and incentives will be introduced to ensure that implementing partners and their subcontractors train their staff, self-report, investigate and respond to all cases using a survivor-centred approach. This will require raising awareness among staff and implementing partners about their obligations in relation to the DAC recommendation. Dóchas, the umbrella organisation of Irish civil society organisations (CSOs), has already developed a safeguarding code that provides guidance on key issues (Dóchas, 2019[5]).

Ireland does not shy away from taking risks. The SAGM refers to actions “with a minimum of risk”, but this does not mean risk avoidance. Ireland, in fact, is willing to take risks as it is operating mostly in challenging contexts. The 2014 risk management policy is very clear that DFAT must take risks to reach its objectives. DFAT could clarify its risk appetite using its existing tools, which could help to balance risks within and across its portfolio and in particular when considering Ireland’s objective to reach the furthest behind first.

Ireland promotes innovation on the ground. As a small donor with good influence in sector dialogue, Ireland strategically supports pilots to generate evidence for discussions with the partner government and other donors (Annex C). As a first mover, Ireland is able to rapidly react to changes in context and thereby create momentum for other donors to follow suit. Through its strategic partnerships, Ireland provides great flexibility to civil society partners to enable innovation and includes innovation as one of its funding criteria. Ireland does not have centralised mechanisms for innovation.8 Investments in horizontal learning could spur replication of successful innovation within the Irish development co-operation system.

Growth in the ODA budget will require further reflection on effective quality assurance and investment in IT and e-based processes

As its development co-operation programme grows, Ireland could reconsider whether it strikes the balance on quality assurance well. In the development of mission strategies, Ireland mobilises extensive expertise and has a compulsory internal and external quality assurance in place. For individual project proposals, responsibility for quality assurance lies with the grant manager. While technical experts are often involved in practice, the SAGM does not require grant managers to draw on their expertise for the specific sector, region or cross-cutting issues. This contrasts with compulsory controls for financial matters and with strategic funding to CSOs, which involves two appraisers reviewing submissions independently from one another in addition to expert review. At the same time and given its staffing constraints, Ireland would not have the capacity to backstop every programme.9 When arbitrating this trade-off, Ireland could consider flexible approaches such as making spot checks, imposing greater scrutiny for flagship or pilot programmes, and drawing on evaluation findings to identify issues that require greater attention. This could be complemented by a more complete body of guidance (Chapter 2) to inform grant managers of more recent international good practice and learning in their sector.

DFAT has recognised the need for more e-based processes and investment in IT infrastructure. However, it will take some years to see significant change, as an e-based system to manage grants is currently being piloted outside DCAD,10 and upgrades to the IT system can only be effected for the entire department. For the moment, staff are required to maintain the paper file on grants as evidence. Well‑managed investments11 are likely to increase efficiency, improve data management, facilitate knowledge exchange between missions and headquarters, and promote institutional learning. Table 4.1 presents an assessment of Ireland’s development co-operation systems, based on documentation and information provided to OECD by the government of Ireland.

Table 4.1. Assessment of Ireland’s development co-operation systems

	Yes	Progress	No	Comment
Clear and transparent processes and procedures are in place to make decisions on:
Programming	●			▲ Clear responsibilities and meaningful delegation of authority to units and embassies
Policies (Chapter 2)	●
Partnerships (Chapters 2 and 5)	●			▲Clear criteria for programmes ● Requiring information on considered alternatives for direct awards and guidance for selection between different types of partners could be useful
Systems are in place to assure the quality of development co-operation, including:
Audit	●			▲Satisfactory internal audit function and external controls.
Mainstreaming cross-cutting issues (Chapter 2)		●		● Strong involvement for country strategies, (outdated) guidance for gender equality and environment in place, and SAGM not clear on involvement of experts.
Systems support the member to implement its policies and commitments in a fair and efficient way:
Procurement, contracting, agreement-making	●			▲ Clear guidance and templates: implementing partners must respect transparency and fairness in procurement, and Ireland assesses their capacity. ● Direct awards in country can lead to inefficiencies. No reporting on awarded contracts.
Adequate and relevant systems and processes to assess and adapt to risks, including:
Strategic, reputational, programming, security	●			▲Strong systems and guidance in place, regular risk monitoring and mitigation measures. ● Absence of broader safeguards policies with regard to social or environmental aspects.
Corruption	●			▲ Strong attention on financial risk in grant management. ●The corruption risk assessment could go beyond financials risks; country profiles are an opportunity to understand corruption in a wider country context.
Sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment		●		▲ PSEAH covered by disciplinary standards and DFAT’s child safeguarding policy and explicitly included in codes of conduct ● No specific guidance beyond child protection in place yet, but a safeguarding policy currently being developed.
Innovation and adaptation:
The leadership and internal system promote a culture of experimentation and adaptability to changes in the development landscape	●			▲Culture of engaging in challenging contexts and reacting rapidly to changes in context.
Capabilities exist to introduce, encourage, measure and scale up innovation in development co-operation.		●		▲Pilots to engage donors; encouragement of CSOs through programme grants. ● No systematic approach to measure and scale up innovation.

Note: The green triangles refer to good practice; orange circles point to areas where progress is being made but more could be done.

Source: Developed by the OECD Secretariat following the structure of the DAC Peer Review Reference Guide and based on documentation and information provided by the Irish government.

Capabilities throughout the system

Insufficient staffing and human resources challenges put the development co-operation system under strain

Low levels of staffing create significant challenges for Ireland. Through a 2018 internal study, DCAD identified that HQ staff numbers declined 25% over the previous ten years (DFAT Evaluation and Audit Unit, 2018[6]). Recent hires have restored staffing to 2012 levels, but the level of funding in constant terms is already significantly higher in 2018 than it was 2012.12 In A Better World, Ireland explicitly acknowledges that growing the ODA budget requires investment in capacity. Indeed, low staffing is a risk for partner engagement and grant management. Moreover, relying on the very high intrinsic motivation of staff increases risks for their well-being. DCAD also continues to depend on junior professional interns as temporary replacements for core staff. Despite the challenges, Ireland has not yet developed a medium‑term staff plan as the 2014 peer review recommended.

Staff and partners alike express concern at high levels of turnover, which affect the level and quality of engagement. The percentage of staff who are in their current position less than two years is 82%, whereas a three to four-year rotation cycle should lead to a ratio of between 50% and 67%. One-day inductions are systematic, but only for new hires and limited to providing information on administrative matters and introducing colleagues. Staff are required to complete a handover note, and the SAGM makes settling in easier, but further investment may be required in on-boarding of staff who are assuming new positions. This would be particularly important in the case of staff without a development background who start working in DCAD.

Ireland does not yet have clarity on how to match skills and jobs. Three types of staff are recruited to DFAT in Ireland: diplomats (who must rotate), generalists (who may rotate) and development specialists (who must rotate among development positions). While this division suggests that development specialists fill all posts that are related to development co-operation, the practice at headquarters is quite different. Diplomats, generalists and development specialists all work in DCAD, including in identical functions. At higher levels, development specialists have also successfully been promoted into diplomatic positions outside DCAD or become ambassadors. As staff have a strong sense of the difference between categories, greater clarity on each category’s purpose could contribute to greater staff cohesion. The forthcoming management review offers an opportunity for this to be addressed. DFAT management, which seeks to broaden skillsets through greater mobility across functions, has aligned the pay scales of development specialists and civil service grades, facilitating mobility and enhancing opportunities. This could significantly enhance skillsets that are relevant for development on issues such as diplomacy, conflict prevention, trade and collaboration with line ministries. However, DFAT has not yet clarified how it intends to take advantage of a specific background in development, or whether it requires deep technical expertise in house on particular issues.

If Ireland wants to deliver against the objectives of A Better World, it will require more dedicated expertise for its priorities. At present, only one person at DFAT headquarters leads on each of the areas of gender, climate, food, governance and the private sector. While humanitarian assistance is covered by a distinct unit, its staff mostly focus on programme management. Dedicated staff for its priorities would allow Ireland to deepen its expertise, learn across the system, provide targeted advice to staff and engage partners more effectively.

Access to training is not systematic. Ireland regularly provides training on administrative topics. It also reached some staff through a specific training on gender equality but has not invested in systematic training on other issues. Moreover, staff do not always take advantage of training due to time constraints, leading to significant unmet training needs13 (Government of Ireland, 2019[7]).

DFAT has made good progress on gender equality in leadership. Across development specialist grades, there are slightly more women than men, including in senior management and postings abroad. In the entire department, many more positions are filled by women than men. However, fewer women than men in total are posted abroad. Through its gender and diversity committee DFAT is looking at the reasons for this disparity. There are clear incentives such as subsequent cross-postings for taking on posts in challenging locations. However, support for expatriate spouses is still limited.14 DFAT has recognised it can do more to promote diversity in staffing and adopted a specific action plan to support diversity and equality in 2018.

Local staff are highly valued as a critical element of Irish development co-operation. Local staff make up 25% of the total co-operation workforce and manage grants, inform political dialogue, bring technical expertise and local knowledge, and hold institutional memory. As seen in Ethiopia, they are empowered to represent Ireland, and partners value their quality engagement (Annex C).

Working conditions for local staff are good, with potential for better consultation at headquarters level. As seen in Ethiopia, satisfaction with working conditions, integration and a sense of being appreciated are strong factors supporting retention. Contracts apply the more beneficial clauses of either Irish or local law, overtime work is compensated, and salaries are increased regularly in line with agreed pay scales and procedures. Ireland also invests in the skills development of local staff, enabling training opportunities (including abroad) identified through the annual performance management process. Nevertheless, opportunities for career progression are limited15 and Ireland has limited flexibility on salary for particularly competitive posts (e.g. regional experts). Some staff therefore take up opportunities to grow elsewhere. As a good practice, the Irish Embassy in Ethiopia solicited and reflected comments from local staff on staff administration. DFAT headquarters set up a local staff helpdesk in 2018 and holds an annual meeting of local heads of administration. It could reflect how it gives local staff an opportunity to be heard on human resources policies that affect them, for instance by consulting local staff representatives.

Implementing the DFAT human resources strategic action plan and the management review present an opportunity to address challenges. DFAT would greatly benefit from identifying the skills, expertise and staffing levels needed to implement A Better World and establishing a timeline for staff to be hired, integrated and systematically trained. The Human Resources Strategic Action Plan 2019-2022 sets out all the important issues: workforce planning, skills needs assessments, enhancing retention in areas of turnover, gender and diversity, and better training for all staff. The forthcoming management review is an ideal opportunity to address constraints, engage with staff and ultimately ensure a structure that is fit for purpose to deliver on A Better World.

References

[3] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ireland (2019), Inter-Departmental Committee on Development Co-operation: Terms of Reference (draft), Government of Ireland, Dublin, http://unpublished.

[6] DFAT Evaluation and Audit Unit (2018), Assessment of Staff Resourcing for Partner Management in the Development Cooperation Division: Executive Summary.

[5] Dóchas (2019), Dóchas Safeguarding Code, Irish Association of Non-Government Organisations (Dóchas), Dublin, https://dochas.ie/sites/default/files/Dochas_Safeguarding_Code.pdf.

[4] Evaluation and Audit Unit, DFAT (2014), Assessment of Internal Control and Risk Management Systems in Key Partner Countries: Synthesis Report.

[8] Government of Australia (2019), Preventing Sexual Exploitation, Abuse and Harassment Policy, Department of Trade and Foreign Affairs, Canberra, https://dfat.gov.au/international-relations/themes/preventing-sexual-exploitation-abuse-and-harassment/Documents/pseah-policy.pdf.

[2] Government of Ireland (2019), A Better World: Ireland’s Policy for International Development, https://www.irishaid.ie/media/irishaid/aboutus/abetterworldirelandspolicyforinternationaldevelopment/A-Better-World-Irelands-Policy-for-International-Development.pdf.

[7] Government of Ireland (2019), DAC Peer Review 2020: Memorandum of Ireland.

[1] Government of Ireland (2018), The Sustainable Development Goals National Implementation Plan 2018-2020, https://www.dccae.gov.ie/documents/DCCAE-National-Implement-Plan.pdf.

[9] USAID (2018), USAID’s Policy Against Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (webpage), https://www.usaid.gov/PreventingSexualMisconduct/fact-sheets/usaid-policy-against-sexual-exploitation-and-abuse.

Notes

← 1.  For instance, the Civil Society Unit manages Ireland’s development co-operation with the West Bank and Gaza Strip and Viet Nam, while partnerships with other partner countries are covered by the Africa Unit and other divisions cover relations with the Middle East and Asia.

← 2.  The Standard Approach & Process Guide to Mission Strategy Planning clearly sets out the process for embassies (Chapter 2).

← 3.  These include strategic, operational, financial and reputational risks.

← 4.  The Audit Committee suggested to include audit report recommendations that were not followed-up upon in the risk register (started in 2017) and to provide a timeline for follow-up as well as to enhance the fraud register to identify trends or systemic issues (increased capacity of the Evaluation and Audit Unit will enable better follow-up). The Comptroller and Auditor General recommended including mitigating measures in grant agreements (leading to an update of the SAGM) and publishing the fraud register (started in 2018).

← 5.  The sample Memorandum of Understanding attached to the SAGM includes provisions on contributing towards the promotion and protection of the environment (although it does not mention environmental impact assessments), on promoting gender equality, and on carrying out a gender analysis as part of the project preparation.

← 6.  This includes explicit safeguards requirements in DFAT headquarters funding lines for civil society organisations (CSOs); specific contractual requirements for child protection; engagement with Irish CSOs on their approach to safeguarding (a Dóchas Working Group currently works on safeguarding); and engagement with multilateral organisations.

← 7.  Australia recently published a Preventing Sexual Exploitation, Abuse and Harassment Policy (Government of Australia, 2019[8]). The United States Agency for International Development also has a specific policy against sexual exploitation and abuse (USAID, 2018[9]).

← 8.  The Africa Strategy and Innovation Fund is not a specific innovation tool, but rather serves as a budget line for Ireland’s engagement with regional organisations and countries of secondary accreditation (Chapter 2). It is explicitly not designed for activities that could be part of any embassy budget and thus scaled up by Ireland itself.

← 9.  This is also why the SAGM prompts grant managers to indicate the estimated workload for colleagues who would support grant implementation, as was recommended in the 2014 peer review.

← 10.  The reason the system is piloted outside DCAD is to test it first in a context of fewer and less complex grants.

← 11.  Lessons from other donors’ experience suggests a need for close management to avoid significant delays and cost increases.

← 12.  The 2018 funding level is USD 891 million compared to USD 767 million in 2012.

← 13.  Ireland estimates that 60-70% of training needs are met (Government of Ireland, 2019[7]).

← 14.  This support could include pre-departure training that covers particular challenges faced by expatriate spouses, support for activities where paid employment is not feasible, and the conclusion of agreements with host states or co-operation with other sending states.

← 15.  As some DAC members, Ireland could explore offering short-term or longer-term opportunities for local staff in DFAT headquarters or other embassies.