House of Commons - International Development

Select Committee on International Development Third Report

V. FROM CRISIS RESPONSE TO FOOD SECURITY AND SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS

Opportunity ladders

125. If poor rural communities are to climb out of poverty they need "opportunity ladders" as well as safety nets and social protection. Professor Kydd, Dr. Dorward and Professor Vaughan suggested in their memorandum that the key conditions necessary for the rural economy to escape from the poverty trap are: "crops, technology development and input and output prices and interest rates that make investments in farming and in marketing profitable; systems that provide farmers and traders with reliable and coordinated demand and supply, free from excessive risks of opportunism; improved roads and other communications, including mobile phones; and a momentum of growth and increasing trust in rural markets and services."[229] Had such conditions been met in the past, agricultural liberalisation might have contributed to food security, rather than as seems to be the case, undermined it (see paragraphs 39-41). As Christian Aid argued, investment in rural transport, accessible market information, the ability of producers to come together in associations to increase their bargaining capacity, and effective institutions to manage the process of change were all lacking.[230]

126. The priority now is to put in place the essential preconditions for the development of sustainable rural livelihoods and a healthy rural economy, phasing in measures to kick-start markets (see figure 15). DFID wrote that:

At country level the priority for rural development is to create a policy and institutional environment that provides opportunities for poor people to derive a better livelihood from agriculture and non-farm enterprises. This will include strengthening or creating a sound institutional framework to improve poor people's access to land, markets and services. It means creating an enabling environment that encourages private sector investment, particularly in agriculture and agricultural services. It also means supporting the agricultural sector by giving particular emphasis to agricultural technology and marketing institutions.[231]

Figure 15: Kick-starting the rural economy

Source: Dorward et al (2002) - See footnote 182

AGRICULTURAL INPUTS: SEEDS, FERTILISER, WATER, LAND AND CREDIT

127. As regards technological improvements, there are a range of ways in which progress might be made. World Vision suggested that the crisis has been created by "decades of policies" that have encouraged dependence on white maize and on technologies (such as chemical fertilisers and hybrid seeds) that are economically unfeasible and environmentally damaging.[232] In terms of seeds, there may be some potential in the use of particular drought-resistant varieties of maize and other crops. Such possibilities should be explored, but we believe that the open-pollinated varieties (OPVs) which require few inputs, and which farmers can store and re-use, are more appropriate for poor smallholder farmers than hybrid and genetically-engineered varieties which require annual repurchase and could tie poor farmers into costly relationships with powerful transnational seed companies. As a recent report by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre on the development, maintenance, and seed-multiplication of open-pollinated maize varieties notes: "Improved OPVs are easier to develop than hybrids, their seed production is simpler and relatively inexpensive, and subsistence farmers who grow them can save their own seed for planting the following season, reducing dependence on external sources."[233]

128. Fertiliser presents a similar problem, with many smallholders in southern Africa unable to afford expensive fertilisers marketed by transnational fertiliser firms. We agree that more progress is needed in the development of practical organic methods of providing soil nitrogen for maize production, to complement, and reduce, the application of inorganic fertilizers needed to support sustained higher yields.[234] The delivery of free or subsidised seeds and fertilizer—for instance through the DFID-supported Targeted Inputs Programme in Malawi—has provided some seeds and fertiliser to some farmers. But, useful as this programme undoubtedly is, it does not allow people to choose how much fertiliser or seeds they acquire, or when. What is needed in the longer-term is well-functioning markets which make seeds and fertiliser available to smallholder farmers at affordable prices.[235] An additional way of making fertiliser more widely available would be to encourage livestock husbandry. Livestock numbers have been drastically reduced as households have sold assets in response to the crisis, and have also fallen because of concerns about security. But livestock can and should provide an important source both of protein and of fertiliser. We would like DFID to explain its plans for making affordable fertiliser available to smallholders in southern Africa, in both the short and longer-term.

129. Irrigation technologies provide another way of improving the availability of inputs, in this case water. Whilst in Malawi, we received a presentation about the Government's long-term irrigation plans. But we were dismayed that such plans had not been initiated already. We also heard about DFID's plans to encourage smallholders to join together to purchase treadle-pumps to increase their productivity. The treadle-pumps would pay for themselves in one year of increased productivity, and could play an important role in enabling and encouraging smallholders to move beyond subsistence, and to work cooperatively. Climatic uncertainty, drought or erratic rainfall, is an increasingly important source of vulnerability in southern Africa, and one which should be addressed by developments in irrigation. Just as price-smoothing in maize markets can reduce one form of vulnerability, making maize prices less erratic, more predictable and more affordable, so too can irrigation and "rainfall-smoothing" or "rainwater-harvesting" reduce vulnerability. This is particularly important given the sensitivity of food-crops to the timing of rain, and the likelihood that global climate change will lead to more erratic weather in southern Africa.[236] Investment in irrigation and rainfall-smoothing would also remove the disincentive that farmers face to adopting higher-yielding varieties of maize which are more sensitive to climatic conditions.

130. Land reform and redistribution is not a panacea for rural development in southern Africa. As Professor Kydd pointed out to us, in Malawi, productivity enhancements from land reform would be eaten up by only a few years of population growth. On the other hand, in Zimbabwe for instance, improved access to land has significant potential, and is clearly a very important issue, both politically and in terms of increasing agricultural production. DFID told us in their supplementary memorandum that land and agrarian reform pose significant challenges to the countries of southern Africa. If these challenges are not tackled, they have the potential to deter economic growth and promote instability. Historical imbalances in land ownership do need to be corrected, but land reform programmes must be planned and implemented carefully, legally, with adequate consultation, and as part of poverty reduction strategies. We strongly endorse DFID's support for a regional technical facility to take forward land policy issues at a regional level within SADC.[237]

131. Credit too can help move people on to opportunity ladders. Without access to credit, few smallholders can even contemplate making investments in their future well-being. In their memorandum, Christian Aid reported that in Malawi private credit companies charge around 45 to 50% interest on loans.[238] At this rate, and lacking the assets needed for collateral on loans, poor households are unable to contemplate taking the risks associated with investing in their future livelihoods. We agree with Christian Aid, that support should be provided to enable commercial and government credit institutions to provide rural credit, and urge DFID to increase the support it offers to this sector in southern Africa. There is a role too for farmers' associations such as NASFAM in improving smallholders' access to agricultural inputs and credit, provided they have the ability to reach and serve the very poorest farmers.

THE ROLE OF THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANISATION

132. The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) might be expected to play an important role in improving the provision of inputs and encouraging the adoption of new technologies. But as we heard both in Malawi and in oral evidence, the FAO—in part because of constraints beyond its control—is limited in what it does. Not for the first time, Clare Short criticised the FAO for its approach to agricultural development, sustainable livelihoods and hunger. The Secretary of State suggested that the FAO is less effective than it might be, and argued that its emphasis on food security is "hopeless because you can have a country self-sufficient in food with lots of hungry people or you can have a country not self-sufficient in food and everybody fed."[239] Indeed, there is a mistaken lingering tendency in the countries of southern Africa to assume that food security and national food self-sufficiency are one and the same.

133. We share the sentiments expressed by Clare Short, but acknowledge the constraints within which the FAO works. Unlike the World Bank, or even DFID, the FAO does not have the resources to provide a great deal of advice on agricultural policy to developing countries.[240] We appreciate too the role of the FAO as an important repository of specialist expertise which developing countries can use, and the normative role it plays in backing up the negotiation of international norms and standards. We support strongly Clare Short's efforts to reform the FAO, and in particular its approach to food security, but encourage the FAO's critics to be realistic in their expectations of what the FAO can do within its resource constraints. They should not undermine the important work which the FAO does in promoting and developing international standards, and in providing agricultural advice for hard-pressed developing countries. Nevertheless, if the FAO is not—in the absence of sufficient governmental capacity—the right organisation to be involved in agricultural extension, improving agricultural productivity and encouraging diversification, we wonder which organisation is.

AGRICULTURAL OUTPUTS: PRICES, MARKETS, DIVERSIFICATION AND EXPORTS

134. Relatively stable and predictable prices are good for both consumers and producers, and for rural development. Consumers want prices to be stable at a level which enables them to buy sufficient food to eat. Producers want prices to be stable at a level which provides them with a reasonable return on investment. Rural development, as discussed earlier (paragraph 125), requires a momentum of growth and increasing trust, a momentum which requires price stability. States and parastatal marketing agencies such as ADMARC in Malawi have in the past attempted to provide some price stability, balancing the needs of consumers and producers. But there is no enthusiasm in the donor community for a return to the use of state or state-related institutions for price-smoothing; and, as donor financial support would be crucial, a return to such practices is unlikely. As Christian Aid explained: "Some members of the donor community (including the World Bank and DFID) have on occasion shown reluctance to acknowledge, promote or support the role of the state or state-related institutions in creating, supporting, and regulating staple food markets."[241] The fear—based in part on past experience—is that such institutions are likely to be expensive, suffer from poor governance (mismanagement, corruption, elite capture, lack of transparency), and, in distorting the market, may crowd out the emergence of small- and medium- private processing and trading entrepreneurs.

135. We share the above-mentioned concerns, and would not wish to see a return to the inefficiencies of the past. Nonetheless, we have some sympathy with the view of Christian Aid that "some form of government intervention is clearly needed in crisis-affected countries to regulate and create markets in order to ensure stable food supplies and distribution, to align demand more closely to supply, to regulate the activities of private market actors, and to protect and promote the production capacity of households with few assets and low resilience to external shocks."[242] John Seaman of SCF-UK told us in oral evidence that: "if you had stabilised the price of maize in 2001 in Malawi no crisis would have occurred."[243] In the 1960s and 1970s, many African countries subsidised food prices and applied counter-seasonal price-smoothing policies, supported by parastatal interventions in the grain market (buying up surpluses post-harvest and releasing these stocks onto the market at cost price during the hungry season). The aim of these policies was to maintain constant consumer food prices and supplies all year round. In the 1980s, these interventions were heavily criticised by the World Bank and IMF as inefficient, unaffordable and market-distorting, and by the mid-1990s price subsidies and price-smoothing interventions were phased out. In India, on the other hand, thousands of ration shops continue to provide access to food for the poor at affordable prices.

136. Price stability and food security—enabling better management of the risks associated with crises—is fundamental to efforts to develop a sustainable market economy. Food- insecure households are risk-averse households; risk-averse households do not make the investments needed to move beyond subsistence. John Winter of DFID said: "We would, of course, like to see an open market in maize within the region."[244] If the appropriate institutions were in place to ensure that sufficient maize was provided at prices which the poor could afford, we would agree. Currently, they are not. Without advocating any particular form of intervention, we believe that the principle of guaranteeing access to affordable food for the poor at all times is one that should be re-instituted and followed.

137. There is clearly a need for institutional innovation and experimentation, freed from ideological straitjackets. Kato Lambrechts of Christian Aid argued that: "The challenge is to sit down and think through what is the most appropriate response and not necessarily go down an ideological road, i.e. liberalisation for the sake of liberalisation, but to look at what would be a response that would be pro-poor that would actually serve and help to sustainably grow the livelihoods of the most vulnerable."[245] We agree. The potential of using targeted food subsidies as an alternative to the unsustainable and inefficient consumer price subsidies of the past should be explored. DFID has recent experience with a pilot scheme of targeted "flexi-vouchers" in Malawi. Under this scheme, beneficiaries were given vouchers to a certain monetary value which they exchanged for commodities at local stores. Many acquired food for their families, but interestingly, many acquired blocks of soap which they stored and bartered or sold for food some months later, when food prices rose. Perhaps the lessons learned from this initiative could be expanded and incorporated into larger safety net programmes at the national or even regional level.

138. In addition, DFID should support southern African governments and SADC in their efforts to encourage the emergence of new and more effective "hybrid institutions", which involve the state and the private sector in the regulation of staple food markets. It is not clear what sorts of systems might be able to deliver both price stability at appropriate levels, and the coordination and protection needed to nurture fragile market development. But it may be worth exploring the idea of private companies tendering for franchises to deliver specific services—including food supplies—at predetermined, and if necessary supported, prices.[246]

139. Limited progress has been made in southern Africa with diversifying agricultural production, firstly as regards staples, from maize to cassava and sweet potatoes, and secondly into the production of cash crops, such as cashew nuts, oilseeds, pigeon peas, and paprika, alongside the more established commodities of tobacco, tea, sugar and coffee. In terms of staples, the preference for eating maize in much of southern Africa is a constraint to diversification, and one which donors should, sensitively, seek to reduce. In terms of cash crops, there is considerable potential. As DFID wrote in their supplementary memorandum: "Currently, exporting out of Africa is the only promising avenue for growth, given that intra-African trade is likely to remain constrained, due to low local demand and poor integration of African markets. African trade represents a tiny fraction of world trade and its exports are in many cases below their level of three decades ago, so there is great potential for expansion."[247] We believe that some diversification into production of cash crops for export is desirable and were pleased to hear in Malawi of DFID's support for efforts to develop export capacity and know-how through the Integrated Framework. There are however important limitations and obstacles. Cash crop production is not a panacea, particularly for land-locked countries such as Malawi. In addition, a shift to cash crops will not in itself guarantee food security —the fundamental basis for development beyond subsistence levels—for rural communities. As Andrew Dorward explained:

If maize goes from two kwacha a kilo to 30 kwacha a kilo, you cannot rely on tobacco income to buy maize, so you have to carry on producing your own maize to insure yourself against that eventuality. That means that, if you are going to get cash crops actually having a more generic effect throughout the poorer parts of the rural economy where the majority of people live and operate, then you have to get food crop markets going and food crop production going as well, so that there is a lot more stability and people can rely on those markets.[248]

140. The major obstacle to export-led growth is of course that of limited market access and the highly hypocritical maintenance of export subsidy regimes in the EU and US.[249] This is an issue we are exploring in our current inquiry into "Trade and development: Aspects of the Doha agenda", but it is clear already that perhaps the best thing that developed countries could do to improve the prospects of developing countries such as those in southern Africa would be to practice what they preach, improving market access and eliminating export subsidies, at the same time as helping to build developing countries' export capacity. We urge DFID and the UK Government as a whole to step up its efforts to persuade our European partners that fundamental reform of the Common Agricultural Policy must to be a priority. In addition, consideration should be given to the role of a "development box" in allowing developing countries to maintain subsidies for essential food security reasons.

The challenge of HIV/AIDS

141. HIV/AIDS is central to the humanitarian crisis in southern Africa. HIV/AIDS is creating new groups of vulnerable people, and will kill many more people in southern Africa than hunger. As the UN Inter-Agency Standing Committee stated: "Unless prompt and decisive action is taken now, it is estimated that, just due to HIV/AIDS, 20% of the adult population will die prematurely."[250] Hunger may be alleviated, at least temporarily, by a good harvest; HIV/AIDS will remain a problem for decades. As we discussed in section 3.2.3, HIV/AIDS and food insecurity are linked together in a cycle of malnutrition, HIV/AIDS, poverty and food insecurity. If communities in southern Africa are to emerge from the current humanitarian crisis, and to move towards sustainable livelihoods, the challenge of HIV/AIDS must be addressed, and integrated into all stages and aspects of relief, recovery and development. As DFID noted in its strategy paper on eliminating hunger: "Policies for food security, agriculture and rural development must all take into account the consequences of HIV/AIDS, such as the loss of labour, the changes in livelihood strategies and the reduction of capacity in local organisations."[251] We were disappointed therefore to hear Clare Short report that: "everybody is talking about it but there is very little change in the way that things are done."[252]

HIV/AIDS and humanitarian assistance

IMPROVING NUTRITION

142. In their joint paper on HIV/AIDS and food security, Oxfam and SCF-UK argued that: "Successful efforts to improve the food security and livelihoods of families should reduce the probability of HIV infection, slow the progression of HIV to AIDS and increase the resilience of households trying to recover from HIV-related illness and death […] Efforts to reduce the rate of HIV infection in adults and children should—if successful—have a positive impact on people's food security."[253] HIV-infected individuals have 50% higher protein needs, and 15% higher energy requirement than do uninfected individuals. A good diet helps HIV-infected individuals to avoid opportunistic infections, and prolongs their survival.[254]

143. One of the best ways to help to address the HIV pandemic in terms of those who are affected is to improve nutrition. Unfortunately, as Judith Lewis of WFP explained to us: "We have not been able to do that with the pipeline. Basically our pipeline has centred around cereals and, of course, that has an adverse affect on health. When you have too much dependence on cereals, you have pellagra and all of the things that go with that. We have not been able to [improve the nutrition of food aid] but we are convinced that this is one of the best ways to help at giving people a little longer and a more productive life."[255] Clare Short told us why it has not as yet been possible to improve the nutritional content of food aid, explaining that: "we have been struggling to get enough money to get food of any kind through to people."[256] We appreciate that the priority has been to get enough food of any type through to the hungry, but trust that DFID and the international community will—now that the food pipeline is more secure—seek to improve the nutritional content of food aid, to maximise its effectiveness in addressing the needs of those infected with HIV.

IMPROVING TARGETING

144. In addition to improving the nutritional content of food aid, special efforts must be made to target assistance, to ensure that orphans are not left out. Clare Short acknowledged the importance of targeting orphans for food aid, but told us that in many cases, for instance in Zimbabwe, it is not even known where the hungry, including hungry orphans, are.[257] As the Secretary of State put it: "We would love to be in a position where we knew where all the orphans were and we were capable of making special support and provision for them, but we are not there yet."[258] Efforts must be made to improve this situation. Targeting of assistance is crucial. Targeting is impossible if agencies do not even know where the hungry, and particularly the most vulnerable groups of people, including orphans, are. We would like to know what steps DFID is taking, in partnership with other agencies, to improve the mapping of need.

HIV/AIDS and long-term development

MAINTAINING AGRICULTURAL CAPACITY

145. HIV/AIDS has major implications for food security and the longer-term development prospects of southern Africa. Death and physical weakness devastate the agricultural capacity of rural communities and households, making survival near-impossible. DFID officials posed the question: "how do we help them where they are depending upon family labour, where you may have sold your assets which include draught oxen and you are down to family members hoeing the land, and the family members consist of a grandmother and a grandfather and ten orphan children?"[259] The international community needs to make a special effort to answer this question. In particular, efforts must be made to assist HIV-affected households through the provision of appropriate labour-saving technologies, by encouraging diversification into less labour-intensive crops, and by working out how to ensure that agricultural know-how is passed down through the generations despite the early death of HIV-infected parents.[260]

146. In parallel to developing less labour-intensive technologies, donors, governments and agricultural specialists need to think creatively about how labour-scarce households can be assisted at times of the agricultural year when labour is especially important, for ploughing for instance. In Ethiopia households with oxen and labour plough and weed the fields of households who lack oxen and labour (e.g. elderly widows) in exchange for a share (one-quarter or one-third) of the harvest from that field. A public works programme could pay labour-surplus households to work the fields of labour-constrained households, and might work well in contexts such as southern Malawi where there are growing numbers of landless and near landless households who might be encouraged to participate in this kind of programme. We encourage DFID to consider the possibility of designing a public works programme to provide extra labour for child and grandparent-headed households at critical times, in return for food, cash, or agricultural inputs.

MAINTAINING GOVERNMENTAL CAPACITY

147. HIV/AIDS also has a major impact on the capacity of governments and civil services in southern Africa to respond to the current crisis, and to put in place the foundations for long-term sustainable development. To put it starkly, a government Minister, or a senior official, who is HIV-positive may be more concerned with their own health and their family's well-being over the next few months or years, than with a ten or twenty year time-horizon for their country's sustainable development. There are some frightening anecdotal accounts of the percentage of government ministers in certain countries who are HIV-positive. Whatever the true figures there is no doubt that HIV/AIDS is removing the capacity at a senior level of decision-makers in many southern African governments.

148. As more and more people die from AIDS-related illnesses and opportunistic infections, the pool of talent and leadership—which countries need to address their development needs —shrinks. We discussed this issue with DFID and government officials whilst in Malawi, considering what DFID and other donors might do to help governments to maintain their capacity. In particular, we considered whether or not it would be sensible and sustainable for DFID and other donors to increase the provision of technical assistance in the form of personnel. Such a step should not be taken lightly. DFID officials suggested us in evidence that a first approach to improving capacity ought to be through enticing emigrants from the countries of southern Africa—perhaps emigrants who have studied and stayed in North America or Western Europe—back to southern Africa. Increasing technical assistance to enable countries to hire expatriate expertise, whether from other parts of Africa, other parts of the developing world, or elsewhere, should be a secondary step.[261] Putting more "white faces" in developing countries' governments would be something of a last resort. As Clare Short told us: "Nothing is ruled out given the scale of damage and loss that the HIV/AIDS pandemic will mean for some countries, but generally the development of local talent and capacity is always the best."[262]

ANTI-RETROVIRALS

149. Anti-retroviral drug therapies are a further way in which HIV/AIDS might be addressed. They offer, in particular, the prospect of prolonging the lives of "essential workers" such as teachers and health-workers, and maintaining the capacity of developing countries' governments and civil services. Oxfam and SCF-UK pointed to the inaccessibility of essential medicines including anti-retroviral drugs (ARVs) due to high prices and the lack of health infrastructure as a major problem. We welcome the fact that the cost of ARVs has fallen to around $300 per patient per year and look forward to seeing prices fall still further.[263] Access to essential medicines must be improved, and provision must be made within the World Trade Organisation's agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights for the production of more affordable drugs for public health purposes. Part of the international response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic must be a more flexible application of patent rules in developing countries.[264] The USA and its pharmaceutical industry must not be allowed to obstruct unilaterally such important and sensible initiatives.

150. Nevertheless, we do not regard the widespread provision of ARVs as a realistic solution to the problems of HIV/AIDS. As Clare Short told us: "The whole Western, European obsession with anti-retroviral drugs is not where Africa is, except in the cities."[265] A good diet is essential to successful ARV therapy; effective health-care systems are essential to the delivery of ARVs. Neither of these prerequisites are in place in southern Africa. In our view, whilst efforts should be made to improve the affordability of ARVs, this must not distract donors and governments from the need to focus on basic health-care systems. ARVs must not be seen as a magic bullet; the crisis in southern Africa is primarily one caused by poverty and vulnerability, rather than by lack of access to medicines. As Clare Short put it: "We need to think through what kind of care and support we need for the poor, and what is the first priority for the orphans. I am sure we should be willing to try and put anti-retrovirals into that, but I do not think we should start with the question of anti-retrovirals, we should start with people and their health and how to protect them and if they are going to be sick, give them some care and treatment, and then look at where anti-retrovirals fit into that."[266]

ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOURS

151. HIV/AIDS still carries with it a stigma and sufferers continue to face discrimination. Individuals, communities and countries need to address the issue openly. Behavioural change—more use of condoms, less promiscuity and prostitution, and a later start to people's sexually active lives—rests on attitudinal change, including changing attitudes about gender and the place of women in society. Clare Short explained to us that a reduction in HIV-infection rates amongst young people in Uganda from around 30% to 5% had been achieved mainly through behaviour change which had come about by "energising the whole country to understand the cause of the pandemic."[267] Poverty plays its role in the spread of HIV/AIDS; prostitution, for example, tends to be economically-motivated rather than culturally-determined. Nonetheless, we urge donors, NGOs and governments to do their utmost to promote improved understanding of HIV/AIDS, and to lay the foundations on which attitudinal and behavioural changes are built.

THE GLOBAL FUND TO FIGHT AIDS, TUBERCULOSIS AND MALARIA

152. The UN Secretary-General's Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa reported that the HIV/AIDS pandemic could be defeated through "joint and Herculean efforts by the African countries and the international community." He noted signs of strength and hope in every country, but described the lack of funding for the fight against HIV/AIDS—in particular for the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria—as "mass murder by complacency."[268] In January 2003, the USA announced that it will treble its spending on HIV/AIDS to $15 billion over the next five years.[269] We applaud the USA for taking this step, and for demonstrating the priority which they attach to the fight against HIV/AIDS. We hope that other donors will be encouraged to do the same. We are concerned however that only $1 billion of the new money will be channelled through the Global Fund. The rest is to be distributed bilaterally, and will therefore be more subject to pressures from domestic interest groups which object to the linking of HIV/AIDS and reproductive health issues. It is of course vital that money is spent effectively, and every effort should be made to ensure that the Global Fund is effective, but marginalising multilateral initiatives is surely counter-productive.

153. Clare Short told us that "there is a lot of muddle around the Global Fund", and argued that its weaknesses were more about a lack of leadership in some countries than a lack of funds. As she stressed "a lump of money" is rarely the answer to development questions; in the case of HIV/AIDS what is most needed is effective health care systems.[270] We agree with this sentiment—the focus should be on healthcare systems—but we urge donors, including the UK, to not marginalise the Global Fund, but to work to make it more effective. The Special Envoy's language may have been extreme, but the sense of urgency which he injected is welcome. If southern Africa is to move from crisis to food security and sustainable livelihoods, responding effectively to the threat of HIV/AIDS must be integrated into all stages and aspects of relief, recovery and development now. We therefore support the requests made by Oxfam and SCF-UK to the international community to ensure that all programming and funding activities respond to the impact of HIV/AIDS; to increase funding for food aid and food aid that meets the needs of people infected with HIV; and to increase funding for non-food needs including health, nutrition, water and sanitation.[271] We look forward to hearing how DFID is taking account of HIV/AIDS in its continuing response to the immediate crisis, and in its work with partner governments to lay the foundations for longer-term development.

229 Ibid. Back

230 Ev 56 [Christian Aid memorandum] Back

231 Ev 21, answer 10 [DFID supplementary memorandum] Back

232 Ev 130 [WorldVision memorandum] Back

233 CIMMYT (1999), Development, maintenance, and seed multiplication of open-pollinated maize varieties. Available at www.cimmyt.cgiar.org/ Back

234 Ev 78 [Jonathan Kydd, Andrew Dorward and Megan Vaughan memorandum] Back

235 Q 106 [Stephen Devereux, Institute of Development Studies] Back

236 Third Report from the International Development Committee, Session 2001-02, Global climate change and sustainable development, HC519. See www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmintdev/519/519.pdf Back

237 Ev 22, answer 11 [DFID supplementary memorandum] Back

238 Ev 60 [Christian Aid memorandum] Back

239 Q 193 [Clare Short] Back

240 Q 147 [Jonathan Kydd, Imperial College at Wye] Back