Select Committee on International Development Minutes of Evidence

Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20 - 39)



  20. Obviously in this case the public subsidy is through the ECGD. You have talked about country by country need to adapt and need to strengthen local adaptive capacity. You talked about finance ministries. Are you working with the local academic scientific community in the 11 countries? We were told by our advisers at the beginning of this that it was very important to encourage the bases of local expertise in developing countries, scientists who understood what was going on within their country. To what extent are we helping local capacity to forecast seasonal and longer term climate changes?
  (Mr Manning) That will certainly be a feature of the work I described in Bangladesh. Do you have any other examples, Andrew, which you would like to bring to our attention?
  (Mr Bennett) We have not done a lot specifically in this area. We have engaged through the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research where we are a member, along with 50 other countries, to try to develop programmes which will be carried out not only at the centres but working within national systems as a means of trying to help countries better understand the likely impacts and what they might do about it. There are various other activities which are involved in trying to strengthen national capacities in all fields of agricultural and natural resources research. Nothing specifically targeted at simply the climate change area. There is a feeling here that the general science base and the general academic base and the research capacity in countries, as we have described earlier, can find their way into the energy sectors, find it into the forestry sectors and natural resources sectors. It is important that the capacity exists in those areas in order to cope with these consequences.

  21. Would you see it as important that more research is done by developing country economists or scientists within those countries so they would be able to take more ownership of what is happening within their country?
  (Mr Bennett) Absolutely. I think my colleague from DEFRA has an example from India.
  (Mr Warrilow) DETR started two projects, one in India, one in China, to look at the impacts of climate change. They both started last year and will run for two to three years. The Chinese one particularly has a strong element of training because the Chinese were very keen to have links with UK institutes so a number of Chinese scientists are actually coming to work in the UK for three months or so as part of the training part of it. The Indian project is an ambitious project and covers all aspects of climate change impacts and will be executed by Indian scientists with links with some UK scientists as well. We are looking at that aspect from the wider climate change policy aspect rather than development side of things. The Hadley Centre has also been preparing a regional climate change model which can run on a personal computer, which is being designed so that it can be run in developing countries—it can be run anywhere actually but the main aim was to allow developing countries to run a sophisticated climate change model themselves. We have already been working with a few countries—DFID are aware of this and are part of the project—with Bangladesh, with South Africa—there is a South African scientist at the Hadley Centre—with China and with the Indian projects as well.

  22. As the Hadley Centre is based in Norwich, is there a cross-over —
  (Mr Warrilow) It is in Bracknell.

  23. Sorry. I thought there was a centre for developing research on climate change which was based in Norwich.
  (Mr Warrilow) That is the Tyndall Centre.

  24. How does the Tyndall Centre fit with dealing with the research base in developing countries?
  (Mr Warrilow) I am not totally familiar with what the Tyndall Centre are doing on this because it is not part of our programme. I believe they do have links with some developing countries, but I do not know the details.

  25. Perhaps you could give us a note on how the two centres work together.[9] Certainly when I visited there shortly after set-up they saw themselves as being the main research hub in the UK for dealing with climate change world-wide. You have not actually mentioned the impact of climate change on small island states. It has not been the emphasis of what you were saying. Is there a world-wide emphasis on the impact of climate change on small island states and what is your feeling in terms of the balance of research which is going on?

  (Mr Manning) It certainly is a very important issue. I mentioned the study on UK dependent territories which we certainly think is relevant to other small island states.

  (Mr Bennett) Needless to say the small island states are extremely vulnerable, particularly the low islands. A lot of work was done through the Commonwealth prior to the Rio meeting where the small island states formed a group and a very strong lobby group and they are very active in a lot of negotiations. They remain vulnerable. The fragility of low island states and their freshwater lens in the coral is such that if climate change is significant some of them will become uninhabitable. You asked a little earlier about the issues of migration. It is already happening. In West Africa the extent of migration out of the Sahel from Mali and Burkina Faso into Ivory Coast is such that they are now introducing legislation to prevent foreign nationals from owning land. They form a significant proportion of the labour force in the cocoa and other plantation industries and in the construction industries. Migration is happening and if small island states do start to dry out, there will be migration. Our Secretary of State has been fairly active in that field. Richard, are you familiar with the whole issue of migration?
  (Mr Manning) That takes it into a rather wider area. I have certainly seen press articles about some Pacific islands who are canvassing their options with Australia and New Zealand in the event that they are unable to sustain their present levels of population.


  26. Part of this is just how urgent one considers this all to be. Going back through this evidence, you quite rightly have said DFID focuses on poverty, the better you can tackle poverty the more resilient you will make the countries in tackling climate change. The evidence we had from the Hadley Centre is pretty scary. I do not know whether you have had the same presentation we had but it certainly made us all sit up and take note. What they are really saying—colleagues will correct me if I have got this wrong—is that they expect to see greater changes in the climate over the next 100 years than has taken place over the previous 400,000 years. I just wonder whether there is sufficient—this is not a criticism of DFID just generally across the scientific and international consensus—urgency in appreciating the potential scale of change which is going to occur over two or three generations.
  (Mr Manning) It is a very hard question to answer. I am sure that the advice of the Hadley Centre is very well grounded and it certainly informs the way we think about the longer term. In a way the Department is bound to think about the longer term. Our main targets are set for 2015 but 2015 is tomorrow in climate change terms. The climate is not going to be radically different in 2015 from what it is now. Naturally we do tend to focus on things which are going to do something about child mortality, about AIDS, about governments, about things we can do in the here and now but we need to do it very much against a background in which the world is going to have to cope with the biggest climate change it has ever seen in a century when the world population is going to peak. There will be more people than there have ever been. This is a major long-term challenge to all of us which certainly needs to be factored in. The question is whether we should be doing something different in the here and now from what we are already doing. I hope you have the sense from here that we are certainly concerned about the issues. We certainly recognise the need to encourage our colleagues to take more of a medium-term perspective. What I am less certain about is whether there is something radically new and different that we should be doing—you are about to go to Ghana—differently in Ghana in the here and now, given that we obviously may expect a yet drier northern Ghana in the next 30 or 40 years. Those are the kinds of issues on which the Committee's own thoughts will be very useful when you have done that. I do not want to sound complacent about this but there are many things which people need to do anyway, and my own sense is that we really have to pursue various kinds of no-regrets policies. If we do not have governments which function, if we cannot get on top of a regional conflict, if we cannot get people educated, we are not going to succeed in any of these things so we have to go on investing in that, but we should do so, in particular when one puts in place longer-term investment, hydro-electricity or whatever, taking really serious account of the fact that models based on past precipitation are going to be an increasingly unreliable guide to the future. As we are pretty well not investing in any hydro-electric development that is perhaps not a very operational question for us these days.

Hugh Bayley

  27. May I take you back to paragraphs 2 and 3 of your memorandum, which run through some of the difficulties in mainstreaming environmental policy in more general policy? You have given us some good examples of where DFID interventions have got it right and where developing countries have managed to tackle environmental problems effectively, but you list here a number of problem areas: insecure ownership of resources means that people do not safeguard them very well, you talk a little bit about taxation, low level of public awareness. Can you give us some examples of bad practice? Why do things go wrong? Where have things gone wrong? What illustrates these market failures, policy failures, institutional failures?
  (Mr Manning) I will ask my colleagues to be thinking, as I give a first response, of one or two other examples they could pick on. There are some very interesting ones in what has happened to pastoralists in Africa, what has happened to forests in many areas. The example I reflect on sometimes is the danger that people reach for technical solutions when in fact the issue is a wider one. In particular, after the very severe flooding in Bangladesh around the end of the 1980s/early 1990s there was a big international effort, led unusually by the French, to see whether there was some way of corralling the major rivers of Bangladesh and making Bangladesh less vulnerable to flood. It started off with a rather naive idea in some people's minds that you could pour a lot of concrete and you could pretty well canalise the world's largest rivers and construct something which looked hugely attractive to major construction companies. When this was looked at seriously, it became evident the more it was looked at—and I remember going to meetings with people from the Mississippi River Commission who had worked on this sort of thing for years—the more it was apparent this was completely the wrong approach and that one had to allow water to move across the face of Bangladesh, being a delta. Instead you had to help people cope with it. In fact a number of very low-tech and uninteresting-to-construction-companies things could be done which were definitely worth doing and which I understand to a large extent are being done in Bangladesh. You do have to beware of one-size-fits-all solutions to these problems. You have to look at everything very much in terms of local specifics and you have to understand—this is crucially important—the social dimensions of these problems, why people act in the way they do. As we said in our target strategy paper and elsewhere, on the whole it is not the poor who cause environmental damage and when they do cause environmental damage, it is often because of the way the local system is rigged against them: difficulties of common property access, difficulties of breakdown in traditional systems which were sustainable, of handling common property resources. May I invite Andrew to give a couple of concrete examples where the world may have got it wrong and where we could do better in future?
  (Mr Bennett) There are some examples of where it was got wrong and then got right. If you look particularly at issues of tenure and ownership and management, in Nepal they nationalised all the forests. Net result: it was open season on the forest. They denationalised the forest, communities took over and the forests are much better managed and those community groups have not only become better at managing the forest in ways different to the ways of forest departments—they are not managed for timber, they are managed for all the other goods and services, fodder and other things—they have gone on beyond that to start looking at water management and other asset management. There is an example of where there was a failure of policy, but a redemption largely because the Government of Nepal let it happen. A lot of the destruction of the world's forests is not being done by people who live within them and depend on them, they are being done by external forces often outside the laws of the land. There is considerable corruption and incompetence going on in many parts of the world. In a country like Indonesia they suddenly—as a result of a study done by EC and ourselves—realised the massive amounts of income they were losing from the fact that the forests were being exploited but the income was not coming in. There we have embarked upon a process of governance reform where increasingly responsibility and ownership and regulation of forest is being devolved back into communities. There is another example of where tenure is important; the land tenure in many parts of the world becomes an increasingly important area. You have other areas where environmental damage has been done. Take Thailand about 30 years ago when the price of cassava went rocketing up and all the land was taken out of forest and other products and simply put into cassava chip units. Fortunately the market for cassava chips collapsed and people went back into better land management. One is often seeing at a community level that when environments are being managed for the benefit of those communities they are often managed better and more sustainably. It is when external forces come to bear either through corruption or changes in tenure or weak governments that you start to see damage coming.
  (Mr Manning) One other thing relative to this is that one has to look at the perverse effects of subsidies and often our own policies. The cassava example in Thailand took place solely because of a particular quirk of the Common Agricultural Policy which created a very strange incentive to send cassava to feed the cows in Holland. Similarly the Committee might well want to reflect on the way in which the fisheries policy of the European Community is in some ways inimical to the sustainable management of fisheries in several parts of the world, particularly to the interests of poor artisenal fishermen. There are areas where we need to look quite carefully at the policies which we in the European Community adopt and make sure we are not putting in place subsidies and other distortions which lead to unsustainable exploitation.

  28. Would that be Namibia you are thinking of in respect of fishing?
  (Mr Manning) There are several countries.
  (Mr Bennett) We could send the Committee details on a programme we are involved in across the whole of West Africa on the better management of the fisheries of West Africa and strengthening governments not only to manage fisheries for themselves but also to try to resist some of the predatory habits of distant water fishing nations in those areas.

Hugh Bayley

  29. One of the things we should like to see is DFID leading or participating strongly at least in an international discussion about these issues. We are better able to do that if our own performance is good. Perhaps you could send us a note about the cassava, just a couple of paragraphs, starting from the DEFRA angle and why in agricultural terms this seemed a sensible thing for the EU to do and why there was no audit of the consequences further away.[10] This was some time ago and hopefully things will be better and you could perhaps show that a lesson was drawn from that. One of the things which you stress it is important to do is to improve public awareness of environmental issues and to encourage people to think longer term, which is extremely difficult for people throughout the world. You think about the here and now and the more marginal your existence the more immediate your concerns. I was very struck by a comment in your paper that a greater proportion of the burden of disease in developing countries is associated with environmental factors, poor air quality, poor water quality and so on than as a result of malnutrition. It did strike me that maybe health, which is something which has a more immediate impact on people, could be used as a public awareness vehicle for linking environmental problems with human consequences. Do you agree and if so how would you use it as a vehicle to make people focus on the importance of having cleaner air in urban areas, cleaner rivers and so on.

  (Mr Manning) It is certainly one of the key factors which people relate. We have done this work on what people themselves feel about the environment. The World Bank did a kind of voices of the poor study which we helped finance for their world development report last year and we did a kind of follow-up on the environment. It demonstrated how important the poor people consider their environmental factors are and certainly includes clean water and access to water along with many other things. There is controversy about the extent of some of these things. There is more than one view as to exactly how significant indoor air pollution is but there is no question that environmental factors are a very significant part of the total disease programme. We probably could do more to encourage that to be highlighted. Another thing which may help us here is the Internet and all that goes with that. Getting information is a rapidly changing field. We are looking quite seriously at better use of things like community radio linked into the Internet as a means of getting messages around. Health and environment are good examples of what might be done there. There is a UN task force on ICT and I am going to attend their next meeting to see how useful some of this is. They are certainly looking among other things at the way in which information technologies can be better used in the health field. We shall see how far that takes us. Certainly the whole question of awareness raising is very important to this. Andrew and I both having lived in Thailand at different times have seen the way in which, as you gradually develop more of a middle class that can reflect on these things, some of these issues move up the local domestic agenda in a way which was not the case. It is very difficult for poor people who are struggling from day to day to have that kind of leverage. As societies change, and societies are changing very rapidly in developing countries, you do see greater coalitions of people who are interested in environmental matters and are increasingly trying to hold their governments to account for some of the more difficult environmental issues in their countries.

  30. To what extent are mitigation policies and adaptation policies integrated? How can local livelihoods approaches both in relation to adaptation and mitigation be linked with national strategies and policies?
  (Mr Manning) This is a very important conundrum, particularly the second half of this. At local level we are becoming better at looking at how livelihoods can be improved, but feeding that back into central government policy is a big challenge. It is one where donors such as ourselves have a particular role to play in helping to highlight these things. A lot is going on. In a country like India there is a long tradition of a lot of community action and community activists who in some ways highlight these things quite effectively. That is less the case in many other countries. Well considered donor supported interventions can help inform central policy, but there is a lot of work to do in this. I would not claim that we are more than at the start of that agenda. An area where it is being tested more than most would be for example forest policy in Brazil, where it is obviously a very important national issue and where the British contribution to the whole debate about Brazil's forest has been very much about how to manage the interaction of people with the forests and that has perhaps been the area we have focused on. Andrew might want to say whether he thinks we have been in any way effective in feeding back the results of what we have learned at field level to Brazilian Government policy.
  (Mr Bennett) It is very interesting working on the livelihood side. Once you start to try to go through the cycles between what people's assets are and what their options are and where they would like to be in a few years' time how often we come back to central institutions legislation and regulation and how often the ways in which governments ise organised is not necessarily perfectly structured in order to deliver a multiple range of goods and services to people whose attitudes and aspirations are changing. In terms of Brazil, the first task was creating effective links between the central government and the governments of the individual states and putting in place the means by which those two could relate to each other and in turn then relate to local communities. Often you cannot come up with a nice grand design at the outset but you have to start doing things to identify where the gaps and where the problems are. One thing which comes out of a livelihoods analysis is how important it is for societies and communities to get into the business of asking what they want from others. If you take a country like Uganda, where the government has accepted this as important, it is actually putting money into the local communities to buy what they want in terms of research and rural services back from central government. This is a rather interesting approach to recognising how important it is that local communities are engaged in the process. To answer the first part of your question between mitigation and adaptation, when you are dealing with different communities, you actually find they are in rather different parts of that agenda. For example, in terms of mitigation there is land use and land protection and where they get their energy from and how they get it. In terms of adaptation it is how they cope with drought, temperature and various other things. In terms of getting the balance right, if you start with the communities, often in many parts of the world in which we work water is one of the limiting issues and the first thing they want is reliable water supplies, not only to drink but for their crops and their livestock. Land and water management issues become a priority. Improving land and water management actually increases the vegetative cover, which in turn helps to absorb carbon. It is funny that once you get into the realities of the day-to-day doing how many of these things are interwoven.

  31. Given that the focus of our inquiry is on climate change rather than a wider environmental agenda, measurability of many environmental factors and considerations is extremely difficult but in relation to climate change it is probably easier, is it not, in that you could select two or three measures, for instance energy use is one mentioned earlier, possibly certain agricultural practices? I was very struck by an American paper which said that in a two- or three-year period recently China had achieved 15 or 18 per cent growth but with a negative growth in energy consumption. Could you not use measures of national energy consumption simply as a measure of whether development policies are sustainable or not?
  (Mr Manning) Certainly energy intensity of GNP is a very useful indicator to track. You have to recognise that clearly countries in different parts of the world and countries' different resource environments will come up with different points on the scale but you can certainly see movement. I do not know, David, whether there is any internationally recognised set of indicators that you would particularly advise the use of.
  (Mr Warrilow) I believe there is but I am not familiar with it. One thing worth pointing out is that each country under the UN Convention on Climate Change has to report a whole range of issues to do with greenhouse gas emissions and so on. There is probably quite a lot of data now coming together which you could use to assess impacts of other activities.
  (Mr Davis) As a sub-set of the IBRD's world development indicators over the last two years they have been producing a little green book which lists environmental indicators in all the countries. We will give the latest copy to the Committee, if that would be helpful.[11] They are tracking these kinds of issues by each country.

  Hugh Bayley: My final thought to leave with you is that maybe you ought to winnow out of these various statistics some which would be appropriate measures which you should feed into your country strategy papers or your road map so that they are things with which you monitor your development spending against countries' performance on energy use or agriculture, methane production or whatever might be appropriate indicators.

Mr Robathan

  32. I want to take you back to the issue of agriculture and the impact of the developed world's agricultural policies and fisheries policies on the developing world. This was brought up by BOND when we interviewed them and they said that the one issue which really concerned the developing world was the liberalisation of agriculture. We have just had the Doha meeting. How confident are you that the issue you raised of the CAP and the common fisheries programme will be addressed? What input does your Department have into these discussions on those specific issues?
  (Mr Manning) You have seen the Doha text on this which went to the wire and was very carefully considered. It is quite clear that agriculture was one of the main subjects being discussed. It is already being discussed as part of the built-in agenda at the Uruguay round and various deadlines are built into the Doha agenda which we will need to work to. There is no question: these issues will be discussed but people still have their negotiating cards turned into their chests at this stage. On the second point, I personally regard the way in which the CAP reform does or does not take place as being one of the key issues for us as a development department and we shall certainly be working very closely with our colleagues in an effort to ensure that the development dimension is fully integrated into British Government policy.

Tony Worthington

  33. One thing puzzles me and that is that no-one is mentioning UNED at all. Is this considered a relevant body to this whole area?
  (Mr Davis) UNED UK is an NGO which has looked at WSSD in particular and has a track record there. It has both an international and a domestic dimension in raising awareness. We have given them some money to facilitate attendance by southern NGOs at international meetings but we do not have a strong relationship with them. They mainly relate to DEFRA on WSSD issues. From our point of view they are a UK NGO.

Mr Colman

  34. I do not believe we have covered the direct results of COP7 Marrakech and the Kyoto Protocol. You mentioned the clean development mechanism and how that was working in Bangladesh potentially. Within the Kyoto Protocol there is the framework for building adaptive capacity for developing countries and countries with their economies in transition. Do you believe that the frameworks which are within the Kyoto Protocol are adequate and how do you see DFID being involved in implementing the framework coming from the Kyoto Protocol?
  (Mr Davis) It is early days. There are three funds specifically set up under the Kyoto Protocol and the convention. The global environment facility has been tasked with working out rules and procedures for those. It is on the agenda for the next council meeting in May. The emphasis on what we have been saying about the need to integrate suggests to us that our response to climate change should certainly be an amalgam of both the bilateral and the international responses. In terms of adaptation, if you talk about adaptation as being looking at resilience of an economy, the need for a separate fund is perhaps less obvious that it might be. There is the opportunity to meet our commitments under these funds by increased bilateral spending as well, so there is a mixture. We would want to use those as a further encouragement for our country programmes to take account of adaptation issues. It is too early to decide how these funds will work and what they will finance—the additionality in terms of resources is clear—in terms of how they will complement the existing activities of the global environment facility, for example, and what bilateral donors are doing generally.

  35. And the clean development mechanism?
  (Mr Davis) There is a meeting today and yesterday of the executive board of the clean development mechanism to which we have agreed to contribute £20,000 to get them started. The clean development mechanism, as the DEFRA memorandum makes clear, is the only one which can start promptly and which developing countries can benefit from. The likely benefits from the CDM are lessened by the fact that the US are not participating, so that has rather reduced the attractiveness. Nevertheless it is attractive to developing countries. Various issues about equity, whether all CDM projects will go to China, India, Brazil, whether there will be a better spread, are now going to be worked out over the next four to six months.

Hugh Bayley

  36. The UK is arguing for an increase in funding in the third replenishment of the global environment facility. How are those discussions going? What do you think the outcome will be? If there is increased funding, what would DFID want to use it for?
  (Mr Davis) We argued for a significant increase in the third replenishment of GEF because we saw the global environmental trends had been deteriorating, because collectively the world had asked the GEF to do other things like deal with the effects of persistent organic pollutants and desertification and more intensive work on capacity building. We thought this needed to be backed up by a collective determination that we should give more money. There have been two replenishments: the first of $2 billion, the second $2 billion. We argued for $3 billion and we have consistently argued that. We were supposed to agree on our final figure in our meeting at the beginning of last month, December. We did not do so and there is now a further meeting at the end of February in Paris and there will probably be an additional meeting. We hope that the meeting at the end of February will agree the indicative figure. The reason we have not been able to make progress is that the two countries which together account for about 40 per cent of the GEF have not been able to make the position clear, the US and Japan. Japan is also waiting for the US, so the US is the key country. The US has not said anything about its attitude to the third replenishment but more importantly has not said anything about its position on arrears to the second replenishment. The US is two years, or $220 million, in arrears on the GEF. We are promised that something will materialise in the course of this month which will make the February meetings easier, but the key issue at the moment is what the US is going to do. At the moment Japan, I guess partly for domestic political reasons but also there is a point, is exploring and asking the GEF council and secretariat to think about issues of procurement restrictions. This is a repetition of some of the discussions which were held in a previous IDA replenishment where procurement restrictions were enacted. I do not think it will actually get to that stage but we see it as useful in keeping up the pressure on the US. So far there has been no sign that the US will make the same kind of gesture to the GEF as it has done to the UN where it paid off all its arrears in one fell swoop. Again it is an education process. It is because they probably see the GEF as a Kyoto Protocol mechanism despite the fact that that is not true. I would say charitably at the moment that we are waiting to see what will happen. If you want a personal impression of what I think the outcome will be, I do not think we will get $3 billion. I think we will get somewhere in the range between $2.5 and $2.7 billion, which is an increase but in fact if you take into account inflation, take into account extra activities, it will be seen as a sort of minimum outcome.

  37. As I understand it, GEF is used to build in environmental sensitivity to development projects, typically big infrastructure projects. How feasible will it be to build in a sustainability dimension to the poverty focus work which you are doing? In other words, how useful is it for things other than large infrastructure projects? I understand that there is a considerable gap between allocation and disbursement of GEF funding. Why is that?
  (Mr Davis) On the latter, there is no big gap. Commitments are about $3 billion, disbursements are about $1.1 billion. It started from a standing start about eight or nine years ago and they financed projects and projects have five-year cycles and there are not many comparable organisations which started eight years ago. Any development organisation has a significant time lag between commitments and disbursements and I do not think GEF is out of line, in fact disbursement is picking up. On infrastructure, the basic raison d'être for the GEF was to add a global component to a project to add on to projects which countries were doing anyway something which would deal with global issues. On climate change, it has been concentrating on the promotion of renewable energy, reducing market barriers to entry of firms to try to encourage them to get into climate change work. It is moving as it becomes more mature—and this is one of the things we and others have been pushing in the replenishment—away from infrastructure projects per se to much more programme lending and dialogue with countries like Mexico, China, India, to a kind of global programme loan, to looking at global issues and to integrating global issues. We have encouraged the GEF to look at the links between global environmental issues and poverty reduction and all the things we have been talking about today suggest that work on climate change, work on global issues, on the preservation of biodiversity will help in poverty reduction, but that is probably not its primary purpose. That is slightly recognised by the fact that not all of our contribution to the GEF is counted as aid, it is about 75 to 80 per cent. Nevertheless it is a very valuable part of the international scene and we think it should be supported.

Tony Worthington

  38. I just want to be clear. You used the term "procurement restrictions". Are you talking about the Japanese insisting on a form of tied aid?
  (Mr Manning) No, what we are talking about is that the Japanese are saying if the Americans are in arrears then American firms should not have access to the procurement.
  (Mr Davis) It is mainly consultancies.
  (Mr Manning) This has come up in the World Bank context before. When the Americans get into arrears, and the Americans famously do get into arrears, people wonder what to do and one of the few levers you can pull is to say that in that case America cannot benefit from this until they have paid up.

  39. A sort of reverse tied aid.
  (Mr Manning) Yes, that is right. It was done. It was done ten years ago in an IDA replenishment. Whether it is effective is something people debate a lot.

  Chairman: Thank you very much for all your help this morning. It may well be that when all of us have had an opportunity to look at the transcript, we may have a number of other technical questions, and Tony Colman may have one or two, which we will feed through our Clerk, so that before our meeting with the Secretary of State we can clear as much policy undergrowth as possible and when we see the Secretary of State focus on a limited number of mainstream policy issues. Thank you very much, it has been extremely helpful. Thank you for giving us so much time this morning and taking a range of rather complicated questions. Order, order.

9   Ev 35. Back

10   Ev 35. Back

11   The Little Green Data Book, published annually by IBRD/ The World Bank. Back

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2002
Prepared 23 July 2002