House of Commons Hansard Debates for 26 Jun 1990

Column 244

coal mine has led to violence with displaced villagers, and land and forest reclamation requirements have simply been ignored. How could those things happen in the face of the ODA's environmental concerns? The National Audit Office found that the ODA was under immense pressure from the Department of Trade and Industry rapidly to complete its appraisal. It appears that the Department of Trade and Industry organised the bids first. The National Audit Office report states :

"In January 1981 the Department asked the administration to provide an aid pledge to support their proposals. The aid was used to buy the contract. The project arose apparently under the personal initiative of the Prime Minister, reportedly without competition."

Northern Engineering Industries were invited by the DTI to submit proposals which, the Financial Times reported, would almost certainly not have been accepted by India without the subsidy. Research shows that in 1981 NEI made the largest recorded donation of £40,000 to a Conservative party funding organisation, the Northern Industrialists Protection Association. In 1980 NEI gave £12,500 and in each of the years between 1982 and 1989 it gave £45,000. It is estimated that Rikhand was worth £300 million to NEI.

That is just one of the many examples of the abuse of British aid to subsidise British firms that are perceived to be friendly to the Conservative party. GEC provided turbines for Rikhand and it gave £50,000 to the Conservative party in 1980 and again in 1988. Another Conservative favourite, Babcocks, supplied the grinding mills. It gave a Tory front organisation, the City and Industrial Liaison Council, £7,500 between 1982 and 1985 and £10,000 in 1986. Other examples of the environmental damage caused by the inappropriate use of British aid are well documented in the NAO report.

Under the Government the aid-trade provision has been so discredited that the only solution is to scrap it. Instead of being the solution that it was intended to be, it has become part of the problem that the poor of the developing world have to pay for daily. There is certainly great scope for energy efficiency in developing countries, but with the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) holding the purse strings and a few British companies calling the tune, it is nonsensical to expect a genuine switch from energy generation projects to energy conservation. Saving energy by efficiency is simply not in the interests of GEC or NEI. The most disgraceful omission for an agency concerned with development is to ignore the devastating effect of poverty. As the report of the Brundtland commission says :

"poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems. It is therefore futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality." The Government are doing exactly what the Brundtland commission said was futile.

It should be self-evident that the poor cannot concern themselves with environmental destruction when their day-to-day survival is at stake. They do not have sufficient land to let it lie fallow. They have no choice but to continue using it until it is exhausted. If cutting down trees brings immediate and desperately needed cash, or if they need wood today for cooking the family food, thinking about preserving trees for their children and their children's children has to be low indeed in their list of priorities.

Column 245

Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford) : I am following carefully what the hon. Lady says, but will she concentrate a little on the relationship between cutting down trees to provide fuel for cooking and the provision of an alternative such as cheap electric power?

Mrs. Clwyd : If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall be coming to those points. Anyone who has been to Ethiopia and seen the problems that face people there in trying to find fuel for their fires will know how vital is the United Nations' development programme in trying to encourage people to use stoves which save fuel instead of using the present massive amounts.

Mr. Anthony Steen (South Hams) : Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

Mrs. Clwyd : No. This is a short debate and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak later.

As Minister of Overseas Development, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) recognised the importance of poverty when, in 1988, he said :

"Poverty is the most toxic effect on the environment."

Yet current ODA policy does not seem to recognise the environmental problems caused by poverty. On page 8 of the green glossy, the ODA lists the number of causes of environmental degradation. It does not mention poverty. Far from reaching the poor, the Government have used aid to back up IMF and World bank structural adjustment, which in many cases has made the lot of the poor worse. Too much of our aid promotes the interests of a few British companies, not the world's poor.

Given the chance, local people will care for their environment, but they need the rich to give them that chance. If they know that they can feed themselves without over-cropping, over-grazing, or over-chopping the trees, and if they know that they will benefit from environmental investments, they will, but they need that assurance. If they know that their children will survive into adulthood and will be able to support the family, they may well have fewer children, but until they can be sure, there is little chance of reducing population growth.

In many cases, it is the women who have responsibility for the trees, the crops and the water. Donors must ensure that women have sufficient power and economic security to protect those resources, but so often development planners have taken traditional land rights away from women in attempts to legalise and clarify the rights of men or of the state.

Local people may also need training in how best to manage their resources, but male experts rarely reach women. Can the Minister explain why not one of the ODA's agriculture specialists working overseas is a woman?

Mr. Steen : The key to the argument which the hon. Lady has not yet mentioned, but perhaps will, is family planning. The Government have done a great deal to try to reduce world population. Many of the international agencies have also done a great deal, and the Government have supported them in a big way. The hon. Lady has been speaking for 20 minutes but she has not mentioned family planning. Surely that is the key to the world problem.

Mrs. Clwyd : The hon. Gentleman was so busy trying to intervene that he did not hear me talk about population. Unfortunately, I do not have time to deal with it in detail,

Column 246

except to make the point again that one of the keys to family planning is tackling the root causes of poverty. We shall never reduce world populations until we reduce the root causes of poverty. I did explain that.

The hon. Gentleman talks about financing that, and that is one of the challenges for us. Are we prepared to finance programmes that organisations such as the United Nations and others are attempting to promote in developing countries?

The ODA refers to participation, but what is it doing to review the effectiveness of existing procedures for involving local people and exploring new ideas? Has it considered not only expanding joint funding for more environmental projects, but directly supporting the work of southern NGOs through national consortia of voluntary groups in developing countries?

The Government are not only failing to address the local and national causes of environmental damage--they are also ignoring the international causes. Facing increased debt service obligations and falling commodity prices, developing countries have had no choice but to increase the pressure on their natural resources to earn more foreign exchange. As Brundtland points out, natural resources are not being used for development or to raise living standards, but to meet the financial requirements of industrialised creditors. Furthermore, the impoverishment caused by debt repayments has made environmental damage worse. Reductions in Government welfare, cuts in subsidies, increasing unemployment and inflation have pushed the poor to exploit forests and waterways to make ends meet.

In effect,. for many developing countries, financial debts today are being translated into the environmental debts of tomorrow. But while financial debts can be written off by political decision makers, environmental debts are our legacy for future generations and, in many cases, are irreversible. As the Prince of Wales recently said, "We have to find a way of doing something about the burden of international debt. I do not see how developing countries can be expected to achieve sustainable development and at the same time meet huge debt repayments."

Will the Minister therefore acknowledge that the current debt management strategy is inadequate, that substantial debt reduction is a necessary precondition for the restoration of growth, that until the poorest countries stop paying the rich $52 billion per year more than they receive, the best economic reforms will not spur growth? The Government's response to the debt crisis has been pitiful. They have done little to encourage commercial banks to reduce debts, even though they have all insured themselves against the worst losses. The Brady plan and the Toronto agreement are clearly inadequate to deal with the problems of the middle and low income debtors, but, sadly, the Government have lacked the vision and commitment to pursue new ideas.

If the Government are serious about pursuing sustainable development plans, will the Minister inform the House what initiatives the Government will take significantly to reduce third world debt? Will she also explain how she expects developing countries to preserve their resources when the trading system established by the north encourages the exploitation of natural resources? With the price of primary commodities down to historic lows, developing countries either have to sell more of them to earn the same amount, or they have to sell different

Column 247

processed goods. Protectionism in the north prevents them exporting goods to us, so the only option is to increase their exports of primary commodities.

The Government have opposed measures to ensure that developing countries receive a fair price for their commodity exports and have done nothing to reduce barriers against processed goods. The Bergen ministerial declaration, to which the British Government are signatories, calls on the European Community and others to examine the links between environmental and trade policies. How do the Government intend to do that?

The Government's failure to tackle the causes of environmental destruction is reflected in their inability to deal with the problems confronting tropical forests. In 1989, 14,200 sq km of tropical forest were destroyed. The Government's main contribution has been to support and channel aid through the framework of the tropical forest action plan--a fatally flawed mechanism which has increased the rate of deforestation in some countries. The Government have been among the key supporters of that scheme and have only recently recognised the need for its reform.

I wish that the Minister would stop claiming that she called for a review of the TFAP in November 1989, when she clearly said : "We strongly support the tropical forestry action plan. We are already helping it in 20 countries."

If the aim is to help foresters, the TFAP is doing its job, but if it is environmentally sustainable development, a plan that denies people land rights and does nothing to tackle poverty must be deemed a disastrous failure.

The Minister may say that the OECD development council has just passed a resolution calling for reform of the TFAP, but it does not once mention alleviating poverty. Given the devastating criticisms of the plan not only by environmental groups but by the Food and Agriculture Organisation's own independent review, will the Minister impose an immediate moratorium on support for the TFAP until a complete overhaul of its principles and practices has been undertaken?

As on all other issues, the Government refuse to deal with the effects of international trade. Currently, only 0.2 per cent. of hardwood imports are, it is said, sustainable. When will the Government act to control that trade? Far from regulating the timber trade, the Government handed it more power by supporting the International Tropical Timber Organisation. How can a body representing timber producers and users with a mandate to expand and diversify the tropical timber trade also conserve forests? Deforestation not only threatens millions of forest dwellers by releasing stores of carbon dioxide and destroying untold millions of world species--it threatens us all. The Government's failure to confront global and environmental problems--tropical forests, global warming, and the destruction of the ozone layer--is an utter disgrace. Yet the need for international co-operation has never been greater. Negotiations on the ozone layer are under way in London under the wing of the United Nations environment programme and are designed to strengthen the three-year-old Montreal protocol, which controls chemicals which attack the ozone layer. Even if every country supported that protocol, the damage to the ozone layer will increase by as much as another 14 per cent. by

Column 248

2050. The same chemicals are partially responsible also for global warming. Countries such as India and China have yet to support the protocol. China plans to double the use of CFCs over the next five years, mainly in providing its people with more fridges, unless-- here comes the rub--rich companies provide aid to help China pay for substitute chemicals which can cost five times as much. That concept also has India's support.

Developing countries cannot and will not afford the expense of replacing CFCs but it is hoped that this week's conference will reach agreement on a special fund to help third world countries.

Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay) : Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Clwyd : No. I am trying to conclude my remarks in this very important debate. I gave way on a number of occasions earlier. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to make his own speech. What commitment will the Government make to help developing countries meet the cost of phasing out CFCs? Will the Minister give an assurance that any such provision will be additional to existing aid budgets? The example of global co-operation that I mentioned is, one hopes, the prelude to a much tougher fight later over how to combat global warming. What will be the Government's attitude to sharing the cost of controlling carbon emissions, which will be significantly higher than the $6 billion estimated as the cost of switching from CFCs? Will there be a firm commitment in the forthcoming White Paper to new and substantial funds for developing countries, to help them tackle global and environmental problems? Of all the world's citizens, the poorest are set to lose most from global warming. The arid areas of the world, particularly Africa, will suffer most from temperature rises, while the low-lying islands and deltas of Bangladesh, Vietnam and Egypt would be devastated by a rise in sea level. Those countries have least resources to help them adapt to massive changes. The majority of the world's poor still depend on agriculture, and they will be hardest hit. The timing and quantity of rainfall is vitally important in their lives but is likely to become less dependable. Rice, which is the staple diet of 60 per cent. of the world's population, is particularly vulnerable to high temperatures, droughts and floods. Changes in weeds and pests will also present problems.

Farmers in developing countries do not have the resources to experiment or to adapt to global warming, yet there is no sign that international agricultural research is focusing on the staple crops that those countries grow. If production falls, the poor will be in no position to import the food that they need. That is particularly true of Africa, where food production per head fell by 15 per cent. between 1970 and 1985. Nor can those farmers move elsewhere or switch to different livelihoods.

What will the ODA do to help developing countries take precautionary measures? The top priority is to commission and publish a report on the effects of global warming on developing countries and on strategies for adapting to it. The ODA must ensure that international agricultural research focuses on adapting the staple crops of the third world to hotter and dryer climates.

The United Kingdom is dragging its feet in tackling the cause of global warming, which is carbon emissions. We

Column 249

cannot lecture developing countries about changing their policies if we do not demonstrate a commitment to tackling our own policies. How can the leaders of developing countries persuade their people to forsake their hopes for electricity or cars because we say so when at the same time the United Kingdom is spending £13.3 billion on a new road building programme? Why is the ODA not speaking up about the enormous threat that global warming poses to developing countries, emphasising both to the British public and to decision makers in Whitehall the overwhelming importance of immediate preventive action?

If we do not make sacrifices today to prevent global warming, the global costs next century will be enormous. Keeping alive 68 million people displaced by rising seas in Bangladesh, Egypt, China and Vietnam will, even on the basis of their present miserly incomes, cost more than £14 billion every year. The United Kingdom's share of that, based on its share of gross national product, would be £840 million--half the value of the British aid programme.

Given that the number who will lose their agricultural livelihood as a consequence of a warmer climate rather than a rising sea will be even greater, the cost of coping with global warming could be staggering. The choice is clear : we can pay today, or pay more tomorrow.

Why does the ODA not stand up for the third world when sanctimonious westerners--the Prime Minister not excluded--try to pin the blame for global warming on wanton destruction, deforestation, and uncontrollable population growth in developing countries? It is true that of the 90 million people born this year, 85 million will be in the third world, but the remaining 5 million born into rich consumer societies will do as much ecological damage as the 85 million new poor.

The blame for today's damage lies squarely with the west. Nevertheless, developing countries play a crucial role because, as they strive to reach similar levels of affluence, they also risk reaching similar levels of pollution. The planet simply could not sustain that, so we have to step in to help them to develop differently. That will require funds and technology.

If developing countries are to grow without the environmental devastation that our own industrialisation has caused, we must enable them to jump over the technological hurdles, such as cleaning air and rivers, which took us decades to overcome. That means supplying the relevant technology, because they do not have it--for example, the technology to produce substitutes and to conserve and recycle existing CFCs. Modifying equipment will be almost entirely the monopoly of a few companies. If we leave it to the free market, multinationals will be able to exploit a small market overseas, but a major shift away from CFCs is needed.

What are the Government doing to examine the options for transferring technology to developing countries? Do they realise that refining our own cleaning technology is pointless unless developing countries change theirs? If China succeeds in providing fridges to every household by the end of the century, the CFC output will wipe out all the benefits of reductions under the Montreal protocol. Clearly, the Government do not have the will to play a leading international role in protecting the world's environment. Last November, the Prime Minister's speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations was full of rhetoric about the United Kingdom's role in tackling global warming. The previous day, the Government had

Column 250

opposed proposals supported by a number of other Governments at the Netherlands conference to limit and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The United Kingdom refused to participate in the Hague conference--the world's first environmental summit--organised by France, Norway and the Netherlands in March last year. At Bergen, the Government failed to flesh out their words with clear policies, and failed to demonstrate to developing countries a serious commitment to dealing with our own environmental problems.

The United Kingdom should have been at the forefront, pressing for reforms. Instead, it is seeking to water down European goals to meet the United States' objectives. So long as the Prime Minister continues to give the fig leaf of respectability to the delaying tactics of the United States--the world's largest polluter--significant international progress to control carbon emissions will be stalled. The Government say that the United Kingdom played a constructive role, which was recognised by the conference as a whole, but where is the evidence of that recognition? How could we have played a leading role when we sent a junior Minister to work with senior Ministers and former Prime Ministers?

When Britain and other industrialised countries were developing their economies in the 19th and early 20th centuries, circumstances were easier than they are for third world countries today. No one told us, or the other industrialised countries, that we should not chop down forests or pollute the air. There was no talk of the ozone layer or the greenhouse effect. No one worried that industrialising Britain might damage people elsewhere.

As James Robertson, in his book "Future wealth--a new economics for the 21st century", points out :

"We should also remember that most of the industrialised countries drew capital for their own development from exploiting other countries, including the slave trade. This is a historical debt which remains to be repaid by the industrialised to the less developed countries."

As the cold war ends, the interdependence of all nations and peoples becomes even more apparent. We see the huge environmental problems facing eastern Europe and the absolute necessity for global action to meet the growing threats of world poverty and environmental degradation.

In "The Plague", Albert Camus suggests that in the face of what seems to be overwhelming, one must simply be guided by a sense that one does what one can. It is clear that the Government can do much more. With the end of the cold war there are surely resources which can be diverted from military spending--the peace dividend of £17 billion that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) is said to have proposed so enthusiastically in a secret memorandum. Estimates show that it would cost £3 billion per year to stop the deserts spreading. The worldwide cost of converting to ozone-friendly substitutes would be £6 billion. What better investment could there be than saving not just ourselves but the world? The Government have the means, but do they have the will?

7.55 pm

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker) : I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof :

"notes the high quality of the Government's substantial and growing aid programme ; commends the Government for its efforts to integrate environment concerns into all aspects of its assistance to developing countries to achieve sustainable

Column 251

development ; and applauds its actions and proposals to help developing countries tackle both local and global environmental concerns."

Listening to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) I begin to understand why some Australians refer to the British as whingeing Poms. If she were to be believed, we do little, too late and in the wrong way. Yet, the truth is the exact opposite. Government aid policy is to evaluate the need, identify how best to help and then to deliver what is appropriate.

The Opposition motion is a glowing example of what the Labour party is so good at : posturing. That is the last thing that the developing world wants or needs, if it and we are to tackle the degradation of our environment effectively. I do not doubt that that has to be done, but it has to be done with thought, care and with the co-operation of the recipient countries.

To talk of the Government's lack of commitment to solving the problems shows information blindness--or mix-up--which came through in the hon. Lady's speech and which was certainly unsurpassed by any of her prodecessors. The hon. Lady had only to read the recent booklet, "Environment and the British Aid Programme", to recognise the practical activity that is going on, which started so well under my predecessor. I noticed that she wished to be derisive about the booklet by calling it a "glossy green booklet".

Mr. Greorge Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) : I have read it.

Mrs. Chalker : I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman read further than the hon. Lady. Nevertheless, we believe that it is important to tell people what is going on. Although it may not be as extensive as the hon. Lady would like, it is certainly a great deal more than many other countries have been doing, it is more than this country was doing in years gone by, and it will increase.

That booklet is not the first on aid and the environment--it is the second. Through our careful and planned work we are beginning to tackle some of the enormous problems that we face. Whether it is in our thorough, careful approach to development aid, to ensure that full account is taken of environmental issues, or in the specific programmes of work in forestry and biodiversity, there is no lack of commitment on the part of the Government. Whether it is in our detailed economic appraisal of energy efficiency projects, or in the carefully targeted health and population planning projects, there is no lack of commitment. Wherever one looks at ODA's work among scientists, engineers, economists, doctors, agronomists, marine biologists, and every other group, there is commitment and concern with which I am proud to be associated.

The hon. Lady was whingeing that there were no ODA women in agriculture. That simply is not true. We have a woman specialist in Dakar, there are many women at the Natural Resources Institute in Chatham, we are working with Jill Shepherd of the Overseas Development Institute in our forestry projects in India and Kenya, and both our senior social development advisers--who are closely connected with agricultural development, in which women play such a major part in the third world--are women.

Mrs. Clwyd : Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Column 252

Mrs. Chalker : No, the hon. Lady spoke for more than 40 minutes and I wish to make progress.

The Government are totally committed to finding solutions to environmental problems, whether in the developed or in the developing world. Let us be in no doubt that the part of the Labour party's motion that refers to our policies is wrong.

At every opportunity, Labour Members call for more development aid. I do not believe for one moment that they would deliver it in practice. They would not deliver it because they could not afford it : they still have not learnt how to create the real prosperity at home with which to pay for it.

I understand that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley wants the Government to devote more resources to the aid programme. I understand her disappointment that we spent 0.31 per cent. of GNP on aid last year. Incidentally, the figure was 0.32 per cent. in 1988 and 0.28 per cent. in 1987 ; the figure is bound to vary because of the way in which aid money is spent. The point is, however, that since 1986, GNP has grown by 11 per cent. in real terms, which means that we are actually spending more. Of the countries that have the 0.7 per cent. target, only France among the 18 western donors has a larger aid programme than the United Kingdom. We remain committed to that 0.7 per cent. target, although I note that such a commitment is missing from the Labour party's most recent policy document. I wonder why.

Mrs. Clwyd : On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. That information is not correct and it is right that we should--

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Order. I regret that that is not a point of order for me ; it is a question for debate. The Minister may give way if she wishes to debate the matter but it cannot be the subject of a point of order.

Mrs. Chalker : May I say--

Mrs. Clwyd : Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker : The hon. Lady's point of order must not relate to the subject of her original point of order, which was a matter for debate.

Mrs. Clwyd : The Minister is possibly misleading the House--

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. Mrs. Chalker.

Mrs. Chalker : I went through the Labour party's latest policy document carefully and I could not find a reference to the figure, but if I am in error I shall gladly withdraw my remark. The proof of the pudding must be in the eating.

What matters to aid recipients is that our aid programme is substantial and growing and that it provides really high-quality aid. Time and again, the United Kingdom's record of quality aid delivery is rightly recognised in the OECD, the World bank and the European Commission. That is a tribute to the effective programme designed and carried out by my Department.

In her long speech, the hon. Lady failed seriously to examine the quality of aid for which the United Kingdom is so well recognised. I am surprised at that, because it means that she is not giving credit to those who deserve it

Column 253

--those who work on the aid programme both at home and overseas, to whom I pay the most generous tribute that I can.

Mr. Foulkes : I know that the Minister would not want to mislead the House. She will know that our policy remains the same as that outlined in our first document, "For the Good of All". The recently published document is an additional document. On page 9 of "For the Good of All", we state :

"We will more that double the aid budget to reach the UN target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP within five years."

I hope that the right hon. Lady will accept that and apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd).

Mrs. Chalker : I accept that the commitment appeared in the document to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but that is not the latest document in which those responsible for the Labour party's economic policy have been involved. I said only that I had noticed that the figure was missing from the Labour party's latest document. Every Development Minister wants to help more developing countries to overcome their poverty, to reform their economies and to create their own prosperity. It is clear, however, that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley will have to learn a great deal more about the application of aid, the recipient country's absorptive abilities and the co-ordination of programmes if she is to make sense of her claim that the British taxpayer should pay a further £2 billion a year towards the overseas aid programme to which the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has just referred. One does not solve the development problems of recipient countries by throwing money at their Governments. One helps to meet the needs of those nations by the careful targeting of appropriate aid, by helping them to make the best use of resources and by technical co-operation to implement the best modern systems for their benefit. We have a very substantial aid programme. Last year we spent £1,500 million. We have budgeted for £1,750 million in 1992-93. Our plans for aid have provided for a 22 per cent. increase in cash terms over the three years to 1992-93--a real terms increase of 6 per cent. The planned budget for this year has already been increased from £1,587 million to £1,617 million.

Unlike Opposition Members, we know that one cannot solve the highly complex problems of development by throwing money at them. Aid quality and effectiveness are equally vital. That was the message of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in his speech to the all-party group on overseas development on 6 June. Unless we ensure that our aid is used effectively, we are wasting precious resources for the developing countries and squandering British taxpayers' money in the process. Such action is neither sensible nor defensible. That is why we concentrate on using our aid where it is most needed and why we have rigorous systems in place to ensure project effectiveness and value for money.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : The right hon. Lady will recollect that, at the Royal Geographical Society conference, she was asked by one of the delegates about the decision on the Fevord-Karnataka forestry project in India. I admit that the issue is delicately balanced, but has any policy decision yet been made on it?

Column 254

Mrs. Chalker : As I think I said on that occasion, the matter is still under review and I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that I put it under review because of my concern for that very project. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley made another charge, which was that we cannot make an adequate contribution to tackling the immense environmental problems of the developing countries. We could argue for a thousand years about what an adequate contribution might be, but we should not agree. Nevertheless, I am sure that the House will agree that the Government are helping th developing countries to face their immense environmental problems honestly, systematically and thoroughly.

Before I explain the details of our local and global commitments, I want to outline our philosophy of using aid to assist the environment of the developing--and thus the developed--world.

There is no doubt that environmental questions are the most important facing the world today. The process of industrialisation that began in Europe more than 200 years ago has left no part of the globe untouched. The rapid depletion of the world's natural resources has been the dominant means of economic growth this century. In the past 30 years we have learnt, as the Prime Minister put it, that "Ours is a tenancy of this planet with a full repairing lease". We were strengthened in that view by the sight on television of those first pictures of our world taken from space. We saw that the earth had a thin protective atmosphere and was very vulnerable ; indeed, we now know that the ozone layer has holes in it. People are the stewards of the earth and it is our responsibility to manage and run it for the benefit of all mankind--without ruining it. Our cardinal principle must be that human well-being depends upon ecological processes whose options decrease as they become less diverse.

Already, we have a most difficult task to manage and the daily increase in human population makes matters more difficult. In the richer countries, we are fortunate enough to have reasonable incomes, temperate climates and diverse economies. That makes it easier to be green. But in the poorer countries, poverty, burgeoning populations and environmental degradation are so interlinked that the goal of sustainable development is the goal that we are determined to achieve. Our guiding principles are the freedom of the individual in a framework of good government and the need to maintain ecological diversity. We aim to ensure that a sense of stewardship and positive environmental action are present in all our work in the British aid programme.

My Department recently produced a booklet entitled "Environment and the British Aid Programme", which covers more than I could or should cover tonight. Above all, it is a question of attitudes. Everyone working in the Overseas Development Administration must operate with high awareness of environmental matters. Our aid investments are subject to rigorous environment scrutiny and all project managers attend our environmental training course and use our environmental appraisal manual, which has been highly praised in many quarters. Every project is subject to environmental scrutiny. Our economists continue to work to refine cost-benefit analysis, building on the work of David Pearce--financed by the ODA--and others. That ensures that the taxpayer

Column 255

is given value for money, and we need to take account of the longer-term horizon demanded by environmental perspectives. The green booklet is also concerned about human resources. I am extremely fortunate to lead a Department in which staff skills and commitments are of the highest order. We have 370 expert scientists at the Natural Resources Institute at Chatham and many more people working with them. Their work is devoted to a better scientific understanding of ecological processes in the poorer countries. Staff in the ODA have extensive and valuable links with environmental groups and many institutions in this country. The World Wide Fund for Nature, the International Institute for Environment and Development and the Royal Geographical Society are just three of the groups with which we are in almost daily contact.

Mr. Dalyell : Will the right hon. Lady's Department use its influence in regard to the present position in the natural history museum, where taxonomic and palaeontological research is of great relevance?

Mrs. Chalker : Indeed, and the hon. Gentleman is aware that I have taken up that point with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say that my right hon. Friend the Minister gave him a full reply to a late-night Adjournment debate last Wednesday, which he initiated. I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the points in that debate will continue to be followed up, because the good work done in that museum is valued by us all and we rely upon it.

With the bodies to which I referred and others, we continually update our knowledge and techniques. We take our knowledge wider than the ODA.

Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West) : Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Next Section

Home Page