---

2 Feb 2005 : Column 913W—continued

Angola

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment his Department has made of the impact on (a) the amount of food donated by international donors and (b) the amount
 
2 Feb 2005 : Column 914W
 
of food available to the population of Angola of the law which came into effect in December 2004 in Angola prohibiting the import and use of genetically modified crops; and if he will make a statement. [212160]

Hilary Benn: Over the past year the international community in Angola has steadily reduced food aid contributions in line with the country's decreasing humanitarian needs and increasing crop production. As most donors provide cash funding to the World Food Programme (WFP), there has been no direct link between the reduction of food aid and the new law banning the introduction of genetically modified (GM) foods. When the new law was announced in March 2004, the USA replaced a food aid shipment of 19,000 tonnes of GM maize with 14,000 tonnes of non-GM sorghum. WFP uses donor funds to buy non-GM maize, beans and other food items in the southern Africa region. WFP has sufficient food in its warehouses to help Angola's 900,000 most vulnerable people until the end of March.

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment his Department has made of the tendering process under the law implemented in December 2004 for contracts to mill food aid entering Angola; and if he will make a statement. [212163]

Hilary Benn: No tendering processes have yet been established by the Government of Angola as there are no plans to introduce genetically modified (GM) foods for milling into Angola. Angola has limited capacity to mill any cereals and is unable to do so on an industrial scale. The World Food Programme (WFP) runs two small mills, one in Luanda and another in Lobito, which it uses to mill maize. Until now, WFP has not received any genetically modified (GM) products for milling, although they do have restricted capacity to do so.

Commission for Africa

Mrs. Brooke: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how the findings of the Commission for Africa will be presented to Parliament. [211167]

Hilary Benn: The members of the Commission for Africa are still working on their report and have not yet set a date for publication. Subject to discussion at the next full meeting of the Commission on 24 February, a decision would be made on the presentation of the report due to be published around the middle of March.

Consultants

Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the total expenditure by his Department on external consultants was in (a) 1996–97 and (b) 2003–04; and what the estimated cost of employing external consultants will be in (i)2004–05, (ii) 2005–06, (iii) 2006–07 and (iv)2007–08. [211659]

 
2 Feb 2005 : Column 915W
 

Hilary Benn: DFID Expenditure on external consultants was as follows:

	£ million	Percentage of aid programme
1996–97	161	8
2003–04	213	5

We do not forecast future spending on this item but all costs will be contained within agreed contractual limits.

Darfur

Mr. Sarwar : To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of UK aid to Darfur during recent months. [212236]

Hilary Benn: UK aid is delivered to Darfur through UN agencies, NGOs, and international organisations, the effectiveness of which is monitored through regular field visits by the British Embassy in Khartoum and the Sudan Unit, and UN reports and evaluations. I am satisfied that we are doing all that we can under difficult circumstances. For example, the joint DFID-UNICEF (United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund) evaluation of December 2004, said the response by UN agencies, NGOs and donors was inadequate through to early 2004, but that humanitarian assistance is now getting through. It described the situation since October 2004 as stabilising".

Departmental Contracts

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many contracts in his Department have been granted to (a) EDS, (b) Fujitsu and (c) EDS and Fujitsu jointly in each of the last two years; whether they were open to competition; for what they were granted; for how much, and over what period of time; and if he will make a statement. [211613]

Hilary Benn: No contracts have been awarded to EDS in the last two years. Fujitsu were awarded one contract to maintain Video Conference facilities for one year from 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004, at a cost of £152,098. The contract was awarded under a competitive Office of Government Commerce (OGC) Framework Agreement.

DFID has also purchased equipment from Fujitsu using the OGC Framework Agreement.

Free Trade (Agriculture)

Mr. John Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the economic effects on developing countries of allowing free trade in agricultural products. [212132]

Hilary Benn: DFID has supported a range of research examining the economic effects on developing countries of allowing free trade in agricultural products.

This includes work on the impact of EU Dairy reform on developing countries and on Food Security, Trade and Livelihoods Links. DFID also funds the World Bank Trade Policy Development Project (TPDP) that
 
2 Feb 2005 : Column 916W
 
includes analysis of agricultural liberalisation, as well as work at the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation on impacts of the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) agricultural policies on developing countries.

The general results of such research are that in the short term, costs and benefits are estimated to vary across producers and consumers and net exporters and importers. However, in the long term, developing countries will gain from freer world trade in agricultural products.

In the short term it is estimated that developing countries that are net importers of food may see price rises when export subsidies are removed. Countries that benefit from the current distortions in global agricultural trade would also lose out (for example those that export products to the EU, receiving the same distorted higher price that EU producers receive).

However, in the long term producers should benefit from higher prices and take advantage of lower tariffs to increase their exports. Studies have shown that liberalisation of all OECD farm policies would boost global agricultural trade volume by over 50 per cent. Also, following liberalisation, higher exports have boosted the agricultural component of economic growth in countries like Vietnam and Uganda at 4.6 per cent. and 4.4 per cent. per year respectively. This has also led to an increase in agricultural incomes and significant reductions in rural poverty.

Global Alliance for Vaccination and Immunisation

Clare Short: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much funding his Department has provided to the Global Alliance for Vaccination and Immunisation (GAVI) in each of the last five years. [213079]

Hilary Benn: DFID has supported the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisations (GAVI) since its inception in 2000. We provided an initial grant of £3 million in 2000 and from 2001 to date we have pledged some £35 million of which £28 million has already been disbursed. A further £7 million will be contributed in 2005–06. DFID's total contribution represents 5 per cent. of the total grants to GAVI.

The figures are broken down as follows:
£ million

	Amount
2000–01	3
2001–02	10.5
2002–03	3.5
2003–04	7
2004–05	7

Heavily Indebted Poor Countries

Mr. Alan Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of EU aid in each of the last five years was spent in heavily indebted poor countries. [210308]

 
2 Feb 2005 : Column 917W
 

Mr. Gareth Thomas: The proportion of European Union aid going to countries eligible to receive relief through the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative is listed in the following tables. The tables show the percentage of Official Development Assistance (ODA) going to HIPC eligible countries, and also the percentage of both ODA and Official Assistance (OA) ¹ combined. Table 1 contains data on EU member states aid only, while Table 2 provides the same information for European Commission aid. In 2003, 56 per cent. of allocated EC ODA went to low-income countries, an increase on 51 per cent. in 2002.
Table 1

EU Members, Total	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003
HIPC percentage ODA	31	35	37	38	45
HIPC percentage total aid (ODA + OA)	29	31	33	34	41

Table 2

European Commission	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003
HIPC percentage ODA	25	22	28	31	35
HIPC percentage total aid (ODA + OA)	16	13	19	23	23

Source:
Development Assistance Committee (DAC)

¹ As defined by the DAC, ODA is donor assistance to developing countries, while OA is donor assistance to countries in transition.

---