THE DEVELOPMENT WHITE
PAPER (continued)
THE AID AND TRADE PROVISION
AND MIXED CREDITS
33. The White Paper announced
the abolition of the Aid and Trade Provision (ATP). This was
welcomed by almost all memoranda received. The two exceptions
were memoranda from the Confederation of British Industry[66]
and the Export Group for the Constructional Industries.[67]
The Secretary of State told the Committee that ATP pulled "that
part of the development budget that was assigned to it into countries
and projects that would not otherwise have been the top priority".[68]
This was also the conclusion of the Development Assistance Committee
of the OECD.[69]
The White Paper left open, however, the possibility of using
mixed credits where appropriate within agreed country programmes
with poverty reduction as the aim and with the full procedures
for quality control.[70]
This possibility of a use of mixed credits in the future was
viewed with suspicion in many of the memoranda we received. We
are certain that DFID is merely concerned to maintain a degree
of flexibility in its financing options. We are also worried,
however, that the DTI might have other ambitions. We wish
to be informed of all use of mixed credits by DFID. It is important
that any such proposal receive independent scrutiny.
34. The Secretary of State
rejected the idea of further unilateral untying of British aid.
At present according to OECD definitions 14 per cent of United
Kingdom aid is tied. Clare Short considered that the United Kingdom's
"remaining influence should be used to get multilateral untying...It
would be much more efficient. It would remove a lot of the distortions
and questionable motives from the international system".[71]
We agree that it is in the best interests of the developing world
for the United Kingdom to push for the multilateral untying of
aid. There are important opportunities ahead to pursue such an
objective. In the first half of 1998 the United Kingdom has the
Presidency of the Development Council of the European Union.
In May 1998 the G7 meet in Birmingham. There have been previous
movements, such as that on debt relief, where the United Kingdom
has played a pivotal role. We recommend that the United Kingdom
Government make it a priority of this Parliament to initiate and
promote an international campaign for the multilateral untying
of aid. This should be combined with the multilateral
elimination of export subsidies.
THE PRIVATE
SECTOR AND THE COMMONWEALTH
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
35. Discussion of ATP and
mixed credits is found in that part of the White Paper entitled
"Working with British Business". These paragraphs also
contain positive suggestions as to how DFID can encourage the
private sector to invest in and trade with the developing countries.[72]
The White Paper takes a pragmatic line on the balance between
State and private sector activity in fostering development -
"Both States and markets make good servants and bad masters"
is its conclusion.[73]
36. We welcome the White
Paper's acknowledgment of the vital role of the private sector
in development. It appears this message has yet to reach all
parts of the development community. On the one hand, from the
business sector only the CBI and the Export Group for the Constructional
Industries provided comments on the White Paper to the Committee.
On the other, the many memoranda from NGOs had little or no comment
on how to encourage businesses to trade and invest in the developing
world.[74]
DFID can play an important role in bringing British business
and the development community together to discuss common approaches
to these countries. The White Paper promises "discussions
with British business" to support responsible investment
and trade, which are important for sustainable development.[75]
We recommend that DFID provide more information to the Committee
on the form and timetable for these further discussions and report
on their content and conclusions. At present the proposals for
the involvement of British business as found in the White Paper
appear too vague to be very useful.
37. The White Paper also
proposes to enlarge the resources at the disposal of the Commonwealth
Development Corporation (CDC) "by introducing private sector
capital and creating a dynamic Government/private sector partnership
with the Government retaining a substantial minority holding".[76]
This is an attempt to strengthen CDC's capacity to invest in
developing countries. The Secretary of State assured us that
"The CDC is enthusiastic about this; it is not a privatisation".
She was "absolutely confident that the golden share and
the considerable Government stake and the powers we will have
will ensure that it remains a development instrument".[77]
In his memorandum Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler suggested that,
whilst the introduction of private capital was welcome, the effectiveness
of the Corporation would be more significantly enhanced by the
establishment of a technical assistance and training unit within
the CDC to finance small scale projects.[78]
Oxfam wished to "flag up the importance of ensuring that
the same standards apply to future private investment through
the CDC as are applied to projects funded directly through the
development assistance programme".[79]
We retain some concerns concerning the Government's plans
for the CDC and will examine this question further when more details
are announced.
INVOLVING
CIVIL SOCIETY
38. Development thinking
has moved away from a model which concentrated solely on the government-to-government
relationship. It is as important to involve civil society in
developing countries, including voluntary organisations, trade
unions, churches, women's groups, the media and local government.
Their knowledge of the real needs of the people, of what solution
will work and what solution will not work, is essential and has
been too often ignored in the past. There are also countries
where such a civil society does not exist or exists only in the
most rudimentary form. Development policy must involve the strengthening
of such civil society. The White Paper mentions cooperation with
the civil society of developing countries in instances where government-to-government
partnership proves impossible.[80]
We would welcome further acknowledgment in the Government
response to this Report that support to and involvement of civil
society in developing countries is an essential part of effective
policy in all circumstances, not only when partnership with government
is impossible.
39. Not only must civil
society in developing countries be involved, so also must civil
society in the United Kingdom. There were a number of criticisms
in the memoranda received of the treatment of NGOs by the White
Paper. Christian Aid found the White Paper "rather statist
and `top-down' in its thinking".[81]
BOND stressed that "NGOs do not see themselves primarily
as contractors for the delivery of government objectives using
government cash, but as organisations with similar objectives
but different strengths".[82]
They explained, "NGOs are the venture capitalists of the
development world; pin us down to established methods, and a key
source of experimentation and learning is lost to the government".[83]
The Summer Institute of Linguistics wrote of the comparative
advantage of NGOs in working with the poorest groups[84]
and Christian Aid spoke of the role of the NGOs which included
"assisting people beyond the reach of the state, focusing
on marginalised or excluded people and fostering local organisations".[85]
Save The Children found the treatment of the voluntary sector
in the White Paper "surprisingly perfunctory, incomplete
and a little confusing", complaining that the strength and
importance of the sector was inadequately acknowledged.[86]
40. This is a considerable
body of concern. We agree that the discussion of the role of
NGOs in the White Paper was too brief. We recommend that the
Government response to this Report contain a detailed account
of how the Government will include the NGOs in the implementation
of its development policy, providing an analysis of those areas
where the NGOs enjoy a comparative advantage over government activity.
41. Memoranda also called
for the greater involvement of ethnic minorities and of refugee
groups in United Kingdom development thinking. The White Paper
committed the Government "to build on the skills and talents
of migrants and other members of ethnic minorities within the
UK to promote the development of their countries of origin".[87]
World University Service (UK) welcomed this commitment but hoped
"that this will be seen as a way of contributing to the UK
itself and to the wider development picture as well as promoting
the development of their countries of origin".[88]
We would draw the Government's attention to the report by the
African Foundation for Development (AFFORD), "A Survey of
African Organisations in London: An Agenda for AFFORD's Action"
and to the memorandum from the Black International Construction
Organisation.[89]
We recommend that further detail be provided in the Government
response of how ethnic minority and refugee groups in the United
Kingdom are to be involved in the development process.
42. It is vital that all
of society understand and support Government activity to help
the world's poor. Without such support Government efforts will
ultimately founder. The White Paper states that the Government
"attaches great importance to increasing development awareness
in Britain".[90]
A working group of educationalists has been established under
the chairmanship of the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State
for International Development "to ensure that global issues
are integrated into the national curriculum and that relevant
teaching materials are available".[91]
We welcome this emphasis on the integration of development issues
into a consideration of all relevant subjects.
43. In evidence the Secretary
of State stressed that increasing development awareness was not
"purely a resource question".[92]
She was not prepared simply to give more money to those currently
involved in development education. Instead she would "look
at everything that is done and can be done to make sure that we
do [development education] as effectively as possible".[93]
We accept that any consideration of greater resourcing must begin
with an analysis of how best to use resources currently available.
We do not, however, believe that there has been enough emphasis
on the importance of development education. It appears almost
as an afterthought in the White Paper. There are also few concrete
proposals on how to increase adult awareness of development issues.
We do not consider the proposed Development Policy Forum will
be adequate. The Secretary of State told us she wished first
to look at how to make the most of current activity in development
education. We recommend that the Secretary of State report
to the Committee the findings of her review of current development
education activity and give details of what the Department will
do to improve development awareness and participation among the
adult population. We have little doubt that extra resources
will be necessary to finance effective development education among
the general public.
66
Evidence p.78. Back
67
Evidence p.74. Back
68
Q.50. Back
69
See DAC United Kingdom Review 1994 pp.9-10. Back
70
White Paper para.2.35. Back
71
Q.54. Back
72
White Paper para.2.36. Back
73
White Paper para.1.16. Back
74
But see Evidence pp.83-86 from the Council on Economic Priorities
Accreditation Agency and pp.90-93 from the Black International
Construction Organisation. Back
75
White Paper para.2.36. Back
76
White Paper para.2.37. Back
77
Q.65. Back
78
Evidence p.56. Back
79
Evidence pp.31-32. Back
80
White Paper para.2.24. Back
81
Evidence p.54. Back
82
Evidence p.66. Back
83
Evidence p.67. Back
84
Evidence p.72. Back
85
Evidence p.54. Back
86
Evidence pp.75-76, see also Marie Stopes International evidence
p.82. Back
87
White Paper Panel 23, p.68. Back
88
Evidence p.51. Back
89
Evidence pp.86-87, 90-93. Back
90
White Paper para.4.3. Back
91
White Paper para.4.4. Back
92
Q.74. Back
93
Q.79 Back
| 
