Previous Section Index Home Page

24 May 2006 : Column 1783W—continued

State Failures

John Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the extent of state failure in (a) Sudan, (b) Democratic Republic of the Congo, (c) Cote d'Ivoire, (d) Zimbabwe, (e) Chad, (f) Somalia, (g) Haiti, (h) Pakistan, (i) Guinea and (j) Liberia; and what steps are being taken by his Department to reduce the incidence of state failure. [69966]

Hilary Benn: There is no international agreement on what constitutes state fragility: the World Bank's Country Policy and Institutional Assessments (CPIA) can be used to measure fragility. The CPIA measures countries performance and divides low-income countries into five categories. There is one "unranked" group of countries not scored in any given year. The lowest two categories plus the unranked group are used by DFID and other donors as a list of fragile countries. Of the countries listed, all except Pakistan fall into this proxy list.

Poverty is widespread and particularly severe in fragile states. Aid that has been given has often been volatile, fragmented and poorly co-ordinated. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) cannot be achieved without more progress in fragile states.

Following the publication of our policy paper ‘Why we need to work more effectively in fragile states’ in January last year, DFID has made a commitment to increase engagement in fragile states. We have, with our partners, been developing more appropriate ways of working together to improve the way the international system organises itself to respond and deliver aid. DFID has led work in the OECD's Development Assistance Committee including on agreeing ‘Principles for good international engagement in fragile
24 May 2006 : Column 1784W
states’. These were endorsed in 2005 and are currently being piloted in nine countries. DFID is leading three of the nine pilots.

Copies of the 2005 policy paper are available in the Library of the House.

Our engagement in the fragile states listed is as follows:


The UK share of EC and multilateral assistance was £9 million in 2004. Total DFID Bilateral Aid in 2004-05 was £84 million (of which £77.7 million was humanitarian assistance). The Comprehensive Peace Agreement to the North- South conflict and the recently signed ‘Darfur Peace Agreement’ offer the people of Sudan genuine opportunities for political representation and security. DFID will spend £109.8 million in 2006-07 helping to meet the humanitarian, developmental and conflict resolution needs inSudan, split roughly humanitarian: £67 millionand development/conflict resolution: £42 million. Furthermore, we are working closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to support the Abuja peace process and the African Union peacekeepers in Darfur.

Democratic Republic of Congo

The UK share of EC and multilateral assistance was £31.3 million in 2004. In the last five years, DFID bilateral assistance to the DRC has risen rapidly, from £5.6 million in 2001-2 to £29.2 million (of which £22.2 million was humanitarian assistance) in 2004-05. A fully devolved DFID programme was established in the country in late 2005. Expenditure of £132 million is planned over the next two years. The increase in DFID's assistance reflects the UK's determination to support the people and the Government of the DRC to complete successfully the transition process, including the elections, and find a sustainable path to peace, prosperity and poverty reduction.

Cote d'Ivoire

DFID has no bilateral development programme with Cote d'Ivoire, but since the start of hostilities in 2002 we have provided £900,000 in humanitarian assistance including displaced people and refugees of many nationalities. We are working closely with the international community to help bring about a swift and peaceful resolution. Our share of EC and multilateral assistance totalled about £13.2 millionin 2004.


Since the crisis in Zimbabwe began in 2000 until 2004-05 (most recently published figures), DFID Zimbabwe has provided £117.1 million to support poor people in Zimbabwe through our bilateral programme. Our share of EC and multilateral assistance was£5.6 million in 2004. DFID has focused on humanitarian assistance, tackling HIV and AIDS and providing support to orphans and vulnerable children. DFID channels resources through the UN agencies and civil society: none of our funding goes through the Government of Zimbabwe. We work closely with other donors and international organisations in identifying and responding to the immediate needs of Zimbabwe's poorest people.

24 May 2006 : Column 1785W


There is no bilateral development programme, but humanitarian assistance was £2 million in 2004-05. Our share of EC and multilateral assistance totalled£7.6 million in 2004. DFID continually monitors the humanitarian situation and undertakes periodic assessments in the east of the country. Humanitarian funding totalling £4.million is planned this year.


The UK share of EC and multilateral assistance was £4.2 million in 2004. DFID's programme has increased from £1.7 million in 2001-02 to £5.3 million in 2004-05 (of which £3.5 million was spent on humanitarian activities) and is set to reach £21 million in the financial year 2007-08. The majority of last year's spend was focused on emergency humanitarian activities due to the drought in early 2006. We work with a range of Somali partners, UN system and NGOS. The overall goal of the programme is a peaceful, politically stable, and economically viable Somalia.


DFID assists Haiti through multilateral contributions to the amount of £15.3 million over the period 1999-2004 through the UK imputed share to the European Commission, United Nations, World Bank and others. We made bilateral contributions to humanitarian needs in 2004-05 of £1.9 million. We are hoping to put a DFID placement in the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) in Port au Prince to assist in donor harmonisation/aid effectiveness and humanitarian assessments.


DFID has no bilateral development programme with Guinea, but our share of EC and multilateral assistance totalled £6.4 million in 2004. DFID undertakes regular assessments of humanitarian need and has provided assistance totalling £2.3 million over the period 2000-01 to 2004-05. Last year's programme (figures not yet available) included assisting people affected by conflict, and supporting an emergency immunisation programme. We are also planning support for conflict prevention activities to help minimise the risks of political transition.


DFID is working closely with the new government of Liberia to strengthen its capacity, particularly in anti-corruption and civil service reform. DFID has provided over £17.4 million of bilateral aid from 2002-03 — 2004-05 (including £12.5 million humanitarian assistance), and is also supporting the resettlement of refugees and reintegration of ex-combatants (£3 million this year). The UK share of EC and multilateral support was£3.5 million in 2004.

DFID also has a significant engagement in:


Which we would not class as a fragile state, where we spent £31.4 million in 2004-05. UK share of EC and multilateral assistance was £18.9 million in 2004. Last year DFID's bilateral expenditure increased considerably and £236 million expenditure is planned over the next three years. In addition to all this, last year's earthquake relief is being followed up with£70 million towards reconstruction over the next
24 May 2006 : Column 1786W
3 to 5 years. DFID works closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in country to alleviate the causes of state fragility.

Traditional Knowledge

Alan Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what research his Department has carried out to assess what systems are best for protecting traditional knowledge; [71453]

(2) what steps he has taken to ensure that the holders of traditional knowledge from developing countries are protected when patent applications are made; [71454]

(3) what studies his Department has carried out to assess the effectiveness of the Food and Agriculture Organisation Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources, in countries where it has been ratified, in (a) protecting traditional knowledge, (b) ensuring the equitable sharing of benefits from utilisation of genetic resources, (c) securing the right to be consulted about the sustainable use and conservation of genetic resources and (d) protecting other rights of farmers; [71458]

(4) what fora (a) he and (b) his officials participate in to consider the protection of traditional knowledge. [71464]

Mr. Thomas: DFID recognises the importance of traditional knowledge to communities, and especially poor farmers, in developing countries and to ensure their rights to, and benefits from this knowledge are protected. DFID has taken a number of steps to help achieve this.

In relation to DFID funded research, all our contracts specify that the retention of intellectual property rights (IPR) should be freely available for non-commercial use by any organisation or individual. This ensures DFID research outputs cannot be captured in patents, and that traditional knowledge is protected.

DFID has directly commissioned work on traditional knowledge. This included a survey on IPR and sustainable human development in 2000. This review investigated the suitability of IPR regimes for protecting traditional knowledge and concluded that patents are generally unsuitable, but that other IPR regimes required further investigation.

In 2003, DFID produced a briefing on TRIPS (the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement) and development. This investigated how IPR regimes could take greater account of developing country interests, and raised the concern that TRIPS does not cover traditional knowledge. We are working with the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) on this. This issue was again recognised by the Commission for Africa which my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for International Development was a member. The Commission’s Report stated that developed countries should increase technical support to Africa for the extension of IPR to indigenous innovation and knowledge.

We also support the Centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research to conduct work on traditional knowledge and genetic
24 May 2006 : Column 1787W
resources. For example, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) is conducting ethnobotanical research to identify where and how genetic diversity in crops is found and valued. The International Plant Genetic Research Institute (IPGRI) has developed an Indigenous Knowledge Journal to help empower knowledge holders. Under this farmers document their knowledge on a topic on audio tape, or any media, in their own language which can then be listed in scientific journals.

At the national level DFID has supported a range of initiatives on traditional knowledge. For example, in Indonesia we are supporting local NGOs in partnership with the Government to explore opportunities for supporting traditional forest management systems where communities directly benefit from their traditional knowledge.

We supported the IPGRI in advising the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) on development of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. DFID has not yet carried out any studies to assess the effectiveness of the Treaty as it only recently came into force in June 2004.

Alongside the Treaty the Global Crop Diversity Trust was established and this will set up gene banks to preserve existing plant material. The issue of the diversity in animal genetic resources is under discussion including the possibility of a new Treaty. DFID is financing studies on this to help inform discussion in the FAO.

We have funded dialogues on traditional knowledge, for example through a joint project with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD). This project contributed to enhancing developing countries’ engagement in World Trade Organisation (WTO) and WIPO discussions.

DFID has supported the work of the 2002 Commission on Intellectual Property Rights (CIPR). The Commission reported that traditional knowledge was an important area where intellectual property protection needed to be developed. The UK Government broadly endorsed the analysis of the CIPR.

DFID officials participate in the intergovernmental discussions that take place under article 8j of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. There is a Working Group on Article 8j, which DFID officials participate in, this has worked on (a) improving participation of indigenous communities in decision making processes (b) mechanisms for maintaining traditional knowledge relevant to the conservation and sustainable use (c) promoting the wider application of this traditional knowledge, subject to the consent of communities concerned and (d) encouraging the equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of traditional knowledge.


Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much his Department has allocated to aid for the Ugandan Government for the purposes of conducting public prosecutions, with
24 May 2006 : Column 1788W
particular reference to the trial of Dr. Kizza Besigye; and if he will make a statement. [73124]

Mr. McCartney: I have been asked to reply.

The UK has not allocated any aid to Uganda for the specific purpose of conducting public prosecutions. The trial of Dr. Kizza Besigye is funded from the Government of Uganda’s budget for justice, law and order. A number of development partners, including the UK, provide budget support to Uganda. This form of aid is the best way to support the Government’s programmes in education, health and in other areas essential to reduce poverty. A recent evaluation of budget support in Uganda concluded that budget support had led to a major increase in the Government's spending to reduce poverty and improved the efficiency of public expenditure and financial management systems.

Culture, Media and Sport

2012 Olympics

Mr. Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what the estimated budget is for security at the London 2012 Olympics; [72526]

(2) what recent revision she has made of the£220 million figure for security costs at the London 2012 Olympics; and what the total security costs were at (a) the Sydney 2000 Olympics and (b) the Athens 2004 Olympics. [72324]

Tessa Jowell [holding answer 22 May 2006]: The overall responsibility for security for the Olympic and Paralympic Games rests with the Home Secretary. He has appointed a senior Metropolitan officer as the security director with day-to-day responsibility for all security related matters.

The security director is currently reviewing the requirement for providing a safe games for all concerned, and will report to Ministers shortly. We will, with the security director, keep the developing security situation under constant review until the Games are complete so as to be able to respond to changing threats and circumstances.

Security costs at the Sydney Olympic Games quoted in their post Games report totalled A$170 million (approximately £70 million at today’s exchange rate). The approximate cost of security at Athens was €900 million.

However, as the international security situation continues to change we do not believe that valid cost comparisons can be made with previous games.The Metropolitan police and other agencies are nevertheless in contact with their counterparts in other countries to learn from their operational experiences.

Hugh Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent revision she has made of the estimate of 3 per cent. building cost inflation for the London 2012 Olympics; and how the estimated figure compares with market data. [72325]

24 May 2006 : Column 1789W

Tessa Jowell [holding answer 22 May 2006]: Cost work conducted in support of the Olympic bid suggested building cost inflation of 3.5 per cent. in the period 2003-06 and 6.5 per cent. from 2006 onwards.

Building costs are among those being looked at by the review of Olympic costs, which is ongoing. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) on 10 May 2006, Official Report, column 311W.

Hugh Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games announced that its budget had risen from £1.5 billion to £2 billion; what the reason is for the increase; and on what basis the extra £500 million has been calculated. [72329]

Tessa Jowell [holding answer 22 May 2006]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Minister for Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) on 12 May 2006, Official Report, column 634W.

There has been no increase in the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG) budget. LOCOG always anticipated that the budget would be around £2 billion. However, the International Olympic Committee asked bidding cities to submit budgets at 2004 prices, which is why the bid files show a budget of £1.5 billion.

On 24 January 2006, LOCOG published a press notice stating their budget at out-turn prices. In arriving at the figure of £2 billion, LOCOG has applied the relevant compound inflation rates to the appropriate elements of their budget

Hugh Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent assessment she has made of whether the funding package of £2.375 billion for the London 2012 Olympic Games is sufficient to cover the capital costs. [72333]

Tessa Jowell [holding answer 22 May 2006]: This is under consideration as a part of the Olympic cost review, which is ongoing. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer) on 10 May 2006, Official Report, column 311W.

Hugh Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the most recent Government estimate is of the funding necessary for infrastructure improvements required for the London 2012 Olympics in addition to the £2.375 billion agreed funding package. [72339]

Tessa Jowell [holding answer 22 May 2006]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on2 February 2006, Official Report, column 640W.

Andrew Gwynne: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with organisations with a view to extending the benefits of the 2012 Olympic Games into the north-west of England and Greater Manchester. [72649]

Next Section Index Home Page