The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chairman:
Mr.
Mike
Hancock
Armstrong,
Hilary
(North-West Durham)
(Lab)
Burns,
Mr. Simon
(West Chelmsford)
(Con)
Clifton-Brown,
Mr. Geoffrey
(Cotswold)
(Con)
Cunningham,
Tony
(Workington)
(Lab)
Hamilton,
Mr. Fabian
(Leeds, North-East)
(Lab)
Hunter,
Mark
(Cheadle)
(LD)
McCarthy,
Kerry
(Bristol, East)
(Lab)
Moore,
Mr. Michael
(Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk)
(LD)
Naysmith,
Dr. Doug
(Bristol, North-West)
(Lab/Co-op)
Robinson,
Mr. Geoffrey
(Coventry, North-West)
(Lab)
Thomas,
Mr. Gareth
(Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
International
Development)
Walter,
Mr. Robert
(North Dorset)
(Con)
Yeo,
Mr. Tim
(South Suffolk)
(Con)
Celia
Blacklock, Committee
Clerk
attended the Committee
European
Standing
Committee
Tuesday 23
October
2007
[Mr.
Mike Hancock
in the
Chair]
EU-Africa Strategic Partnership
The
Chairman:
I invite those Members who have not already
taken their jackets off to do so if they want
to.
4.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development
(Mr. Gareth Thomas):
I welcome the opportunity
to discuss progress on the development of the strategic partnership
between the European Union and Africa. As hon. Members will be aware,
the strategy has not been finalised, but we expect African and EU
ministerial negotiators to discuss and approve the next version of the
strategy next week. The final discussion by member states and African
partners will be at the Lisbon summit in
December.
Discussions
between the EU and African partners have been supplemented by a range
of civil society discussions via the web and by meetings in Europe and
Africa. Many comments made by our partners in civil society
organisations have already been taken on board in the strategy, and we
expect further
improvements.
The
EU is the largest donor of aid to Africa, and Africa will receive the
majority of European development fund moneys. Some €22.7 billion
will be in that fund over the next six years, and Africa will receive
the bulk of it.
The key
objective of the strategy is to change the relationship between
our two continents from a donor-recipient one to one based much more on
partnership. In my letter to the Committee, I attempted to identify
areas of change in the latest draft of the strategy, which included a
renewed focus on the millennium development goals, the addition of
sections on UN support for African peacekeeping and water and
sanitation, and the suggestion that progress might be monitored
annually.
The strategy
breaks down into four sections: peace and security,
regional integration and trade, governance and human rights, and key
development issues. First, stability is, of course, crucial to
Africas future prosperity and development. As I am sure the
whole House is, we are pleased that the number of conflicts in Africa
is declining, with Africa collectively taking much greater
responsibility for trying to resolve the conflicts that remain. The EU
Africa peace facility has been critical in supporting African Union
missions to Sudan and Somalia, for example. The strategy recognises
that a longer-term solution for that support needs to be found. I
welcome the fact that the strategy considers not only peacekeeping but
longer-term peace-building, peace-making and post-conflict
reconstruction.
The
second section is regional integration and trade. It is well recognised
in all parts of the House that Africas ability to trade is
vital to maintaining its
economic growth. That is why we want an ambitious pro-development deal
for the Doha negotiations, and why aid for trade will be an important
complement to any trade deal, including the economic partnership
agreements currently being negotiated. The second section of the
strategy reflects those issues and how any such deals might be
implemented.
The
third section of the strategy relates to governance. Again, I am sure
that the whole House recognises that governance is a critical factor in
determining whether development can take place. The EU has a special
role to play in this respect, not least through its substantial support
for electoral monitoring. We welcome the focus that the strategy gives
to fighting corruption, as well as supporting African-owned initiatives
on improving governance, such as the Africa peer review
mechanism.
The last
section relates to key development issues. It is perhaps worth
reflecting on the fact that the EUs commitments to an average
0.56 per cent. ODA/GNIofficial development
assistance/gross national income ratio by 2010 allowed
the G8, back in 2005, to make its commitment to Africa of some $25
billion in available aid by
2010.
I am sure that
the whole House will be pleased that, given the recent outcome of the
comprehensive spending review, the UK is on target to meet its
commitment to that 0.56 per cent. figure by 2010-11. Our constituents
will clearly expect us to use those extra resources in Africa to help
accelerate the efforts to reach the millennium development goals, and
to work throughout the EU with our partners on that. The last section
of the strategy reflects that priority, emphasising the need, too, to
work in partnership on a range of issues such as climate change,
agriculture, energy, migration, health, education, employment, water
and sanitation, and gender equality.
Taking the
strategy forward to implementation, action plans have been suggested to
underpin it, focusing attention on the implementation arrangements for
the next two to three years in specific areas. The original four
governance partnerships that the European Union suggestedon
energy, climate change, migration and employmenthave been
extended to eight. The additional ones are on peace and security, at
the UKs request, on trade, on the MDGsagain,
specifically at our requestand on science, information society
and space. There is still some work to be done on the detail of those
action plans, and my officials and I are engaging heavily in that
work.
Following the
meeting of negotiators, we understand that the Egyptians propose to
hold an EU-Africa Foreign Ministers meeting in December, prior
to the summit in Lisbon. Final amendments to the summits
political declaration are likely to be made at that point.
With that short explanation, I commend the documents
to the House.
The
Chairman:
We now have until 5.30 pm for questions to the
Minister. I remind Members who seek to ask questions that they should
be brief, and I also ask the Minister to respond in that spirit.
Questions should be asked one at a time. My practice is normally to
give a Member who has a series of questions the opportunity to ask two
or three in each go, and then to move around and come back for a second
tranche when we have exhausted the first.
Mr.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con): Mr.
Hancock, it is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, and
I welcome the Minister to the Committee. This is the first time that I
have served on one of these Committees in 15 years as a Member, so I am
very much learning how to do it.
I listened carefully to what the
Minister said, but in all sincerity, I ask him whether the huge raft of
aspirations that he has outlined, and to which the new partnership
agreement will aspire, is not far too big. The original millennium
development goals, which were set up seven years ago and are halfway
through their process, are nowhere near being met. Would it not be
better to concentrate on the original MDGs, rather than on a raft of
new goals?
Mr.
Thomas:
I have been most remiss in not welcoming you to
the Chair, Mr. Hancock. The comments of the hon. Member for
Cotswold reminded me of that, and I echo his observation that it is a
privilege to serve under your chairmanship.
I do not share the hon.
Gentlemans view that we should focus only on the MDGs. The
European Union-Africa strategy deals with a range of issues, and
without making progress on them, we could not make progress on the
MDGs. For example, if the EU does not do more collectively to support
our partners in Africa in making progress on delivering effective
peacekeeping and security arrangements, the
conditions will not be stable enough for development or for progress on
all the MDGs to take place. We must continue to bear the MDGs in mind,
but we must recognise that other elements are also key factors in
making progress on the MDGs.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown:
Many of the smaller countries often tell me
that there is considerable confusion due to the multiplicity of donors.
How will this process chime with, and what discussions have taken place
with, other international donors such as the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund?
Mr.
Thomas:
The hon. Gentleman makes an entirely appropriate
point about the plethora of initiatives and donors and the considerable
demands that that places on the often limited capacity of
developing-country Governments. One advantage of a cross-European Union
strategy for Africa is that it seeks to encourage all European member
states that have separate bilateral programmes in Africa to work
together to achieve common purposes.
The resources that are available
from member states budgets, which are allocated through the
European Commission for aid, help to ensure that the resources
are not diffused and, through the European
Commission, help concentration on areas where member states perhaps do
not have particular expertise. For example, the UK does not have
particular expertise in helping developing countries to build roads,
but the European Union does, so we can help that crucial area of
infrastructure to develop through the
Commission.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown:
I think that the Minister will share the
Oppositions view, which is that we are
intensely disappointed that the World Trade
Organisation
has not yet yielded any success. What progress has the WTO has made to
date? He may or may not share our view that the European Union has not
been particularly proactive in pursuing an agreement. Let us contrast
that with what it is trying to achieve in respect of the European
partnership agreements. I am sure that the Minister has received, as we
have, considerable lobbying from some of the smallest and poorer
African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, which say that the European
partnership agreements now have too tight a time schedule to be
concluded by the end of December. If he shares that view, will he agree
with us that we should press the EU to continue with the present
agreements and offer a postponement of a new deadline, until they are
negotiated in a way that is in the interests of those smaller
countries, as well as of the
EU?
Mr.
Thomas:
I share the hon. Gentlemans sense of
frustration that we have not yet seen the deal that we want to seek,
not only because Doha is a key round of world trade talks and matters
enormously for British and European business, but because it could
genuinely deliver serious development benefits for developing
countries.
In
recent weeks, I have been encouraged by the increasing intensity of
discussions in Geneva, where the negotiations are taking place, and by
the growing number of conversations taking place between heads of state
to try to move the negotiations forward. We are not there yet on a
dealsubstantial work needs to be done. We are obviously at a
critical point if we want a deal to be done and to be implemented
before the American presidential elections. That is a key time
scale.
On economic
partnership agreements, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the
deadline of the end of this year was imposed not by the European Union
but by the WTO. That was brought about by other developing countries,
which do not get the benefit of the preferential arrangements that the
ACP countries have, complaining to the WTO. It gave them three
yearsuntil the end of this yearto sort out a new
relationship.
We are
working closely with many of the developing countries that the hon.
Gentleman mentioned to help find a solution, given that it would
clearly be a disaster for development and for the developing countries
if worse market access were to be on offer from 1 January because deals
had not been completed. I am sure that he will understand that things
are moving fast in the negotiations. We are still optimistic that
genuinely development-friendly economic partnership
agreements can be concluded by the end of the year in the vast majority
of
regions.
Mark
Hunter (Cheadle) (LD): May I say what a special pleasure
it is for me to have this opportunity to serve under your chairmanship,
Mr. Hancock, and to contribute to todays
debate.
I should like
to take the Minister to the important issue of civil society
involvement in progress. The documents talk at some length about the
Africa-centred approach, which to me should mean not only involving the
African Union and, of course, African Governments, but ensuring that
there is a key role for African civil society: the
non-government organisations,
other ethnic groups and communities. I understand that a people-centred
approach is one of the key aims of the joint strategy, but the Minister
will know that there has been criticism of the lack of political will
to ensure that civil society representing the diversity of the African
continent is really involved
meaningfully.
Will
the Minister respond specifically to the concerns of
BONDBritish Overseas NGOs for Developmentwhich
contacted me, and probably other hon. Members, to raise its concerns
that the consultation process was not clear enough, and that not enough
was being done to encourage civil society to get involved? It notes in
particular that invitations to the consultation sessions were sent out
less than a week in advance. I am sure that the Minister will accept
that those are important considerations, and I would be grateful for
his
answer.
Mr.
Thomas:
I am grateful for this opportunity to place on
record our view of the excellent work that BOND does to engage civil
society across the UK in the relationship with the European Union, and
with a range of African civil society organisations. There have been
substantial efforts to involve both African and EU civil society, but I
accept that elements of the consultation have not been perfect. One
reason why we have sought to ensure an annual review of the EU-Africa
strategy is to provide an opportunity for civil society in Africa and
the European Union to engage on the extent to which progress is being
made and, in a sense, an opportunity to lobby member states and their
own Governments to exert pressure for more
change.
Mark
Hunter:
I accept that the Government want the process of
civil involvement to be improved and intensifiedI think that
was the phrase in the Ministers letterin the run-up to
the Lisbon summit, but will he give us an update on what progress there
has been? Is he satisfied, on behalf of the Government, that civil
societies from all walks of life in Africa are going to be heard? Will
they have a voice at the summit? Will there be civil society
representatives at the summit? If so, which
ones?
Mr.
Thomas:
The hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me; I
cannot give a list of every civil society organisation that is likely
to attend at Lisbon. However, I have no doubt that a substantial number
will be there, seeking to influence the discussions. He mentioned the
letter from BOND, capturing a number of points that UK civil society,
and African civil society lobbying UK civil society, have made
regarding the further improvements in the document that they want.
Several of those points have been taken on board, including in the
revised strategy, which we expect to be produced in the next couple of
weeks.
Mr.
Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con): It is a delight to
serve under your Chairmanship, Mr. Hancock. The documents
are rather Commission-centric, but that is probably inevitable because
the money flows with development assistance tend to come through the
mechanisms of the Commission. However, the Minister mentioned peace and
security, which
sometimes involves dealing with a slightly different
architecture. I was recently in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
where there are two military EUFOR missions. There is currently a
police mission and a EUSECEU security sector
reformmission, which is responsible for rebuilding the
Congolese armed forces, so some officers from the UK are there. We are
also putting together a EUFOR mission to Chad, but all that comes under
the architecture of the Council and the high representative. How might
we get more joined-up government, so to speak, between what the Council
is doing through its special representatives and what the Commission is
doing on the ground with development
assistance?
Mr.
Thomas:
The effort to continue that joined-up process is
precisely the reason why we originally wanted the EU-Africa strategy
and summit. The document focuses specifically on the contribution that
the European Commission can make and, as I mentioned in my opening
remarks, the substantial increase in moneys available for Africa
through the European development fund will be targeted in line with the
strategy. The European Union member states, in engaging with the
preparation of the EU-Africa strategy, are by definition committing to
be active participants in the implementation of the strategy.
One of the specific reasons for
saying that we want the strategy to mark a change in the relationship
between Africa and Europe is that the African Union, in the five years
that it has existed, has taken an increasing responsibility for peace
and security operations in, for example, Sudan and Somalia. We want to
ensure that the European Union helps the African Union to expand its
capacity to put in place effective peacekeeping operations on the
ground. That is only one example of the hon. Gentlemans point
about the continuing need for more joined-up work across member states
and the Commission. It is pretty good, but we can never say that it is
perfect. The EU-Africa strategy will help to continue the
improvements.
Mr.
Walter:
I want to deal with a slightly different point
about the EU-Africa summit in Lisbon, which the documents look forward
to. There seems to be some concern about the presence of Zimbabwe
at that summit, some ambivalence on the part of our European
partners and almost a policy of turning a blind eye on the part of the
African Union. Will the Minister update us on the British
Governments position on that?
Mr.
Thomas:
The Prime Minister has made it clear that if
Robert Mugabe is invited, he will not attend and no senior Minister
will attend either. Invitations have not yet been issued by the
presidency. We are in discussions with the presidency and with other
member states on the invite list.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown:
I refer the Minister to page 9 of the
document that we were given for this Committee and to paragraph 2.27 of
his own conclusions. I quote:
The overall
relationship must now move to the level of agreement by all concerned
on a sustained programme of bench-marked outcomes. So, while the Summit
itself will be of great significance, it will be the Action Plans that
will be of most significance.
Kurt Hoffman, director
of the Shell Foundation, claimed
recently:
Since
the 1980s, the development community has presided over a $600 billion
spending spree that has left its principal clientsthe
worlds poorest countriesconsiderably worse
off.
We have a history of
producing grand declarations at such summits that turn out to achieve
little. Can the Minister give some concrete examples of what the
British Government have in mind about the benchmark
outcomes?
Mr.
Thomas:
I do not agree with Kurt Hoffmans
conclusion. We have seen considerable amounts of progress in helping
the worlds poorest, certainly over the past 10 years and over
the past 20 years, too. I agree with the implicit point that there is
an awful lot more that we can do.
One of the reasons why the Prime
Minister has sought to refocus attention on the halfway point, which is
where we are, of progress towards the millennium development goals is
to rebuild political momentum and interest in doing more for the
worlds poor. That is one of the reasons why the comprehensive
spending review settlement for spending on development is so important
in continuing to show that the UK intends to lead on that issue. He has
rightly focused on grand strategies, but we need to deliver results on
the ground too. That is why the action plans that will underpin the
implementation of the strategy are so important. We are still working
on the detail of the action plans. One reason why we sought an increase
in the number of action plans that the EU intended to bring forward was
precisely to ensure that there was much greater and continuing
attention on the millennium development goals, which was one of the
hon. Gentlemans key concerns in his opening question.
For example, 77 million children
worldwide do not have a primary school place. Clearly, in the
21st century, that is an outrage. The Government will work with the EU
through the action plan to continue to secure more resources to get
those remaining children, specifically in Africa, into primary school.
That is one of the things that we can push on with, using the
strategy.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown:
Will the Minister let the Committee know
when he has concluded his thoughts on the action plans and place a note
in the Library? At that time, he could let us know what the Government
think about the action plans in their
totality.
Mr.
Thomas:
I am happy to confirm that once we
have made further progress, I shall update the
Committee. Given that things continue to move quickly, it may be
appropriate for me to give an update after the Lisbon summit, which is
the point at which things will be concluded. I will reflect on the
exact timing, but I shall give an update.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown:
That is very helpful. My I add something
about the impertinent question concerning peacekeeping asked by my hon.
Friend the Member for North Dorset? One of the problems of, and
limitations to, progress in Africa, apart from the dreadful examples of
peacekeeping that we can think ofhe cited Zimbabwe; I might
cite Darfur or the Democratic Republic of the Congois the big
issue of good
governance. Will the Minister say something about what he hopes the
concordat will achieve in terms of good
governance?
Mr.
Thomas:
I hope that it will allow us to take forward
implementation of the extractive industries transparency initiative.
That is based on the relatively simple concept of asking the extractive
industry companies in a country such as the DRC, to publish details
about what they give to Governments by way of taxation revenues, and
for Governments to publish the amounts that they receive from the
companies.
We have
worked with a series of African countries and we hope that the
EU-Africa strategy will enable us to do more specifically on
governance. More generally, we hope to make a tranche of additional
funding available from European development fund resources to reward
good governance. We are working with the Commission on an analysis of
what constitutes good governance, which the Commission will use to
inform its spending decisions on particular countries. The action plan
on governance will help with that process.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown:
I was at a conference in Uganda this
weekend, the delegates to which came from a range of African countries.
We got on to the subject of whether aid should be delivered through
Governments or through NGOs, and the argument about building capacity.
The reason why the British Government, supported by the Opposition,
tend to deliver aid through Governments is to build their capacity.
There was a plethora of complaints that money was creamed off in
corruption and in substitution by bad Governments who spent it on the
military, private planes for the president and that sort of thing. Will
the Minister say what the conference hopes to achieve in terms of
ensuring that EU aid actually reaches the people whom it is supposed to
help and produces the projects for which it was
designed?
Mr.
Thomas:
The Committee might be surprised to hear me say
that I believe that accountants may be a force for good.
Accountants working with the Governments of, and donors to, developing
countries to improve public finance management could help to ensure not
only that the money of EU member states or the Commission is well
spent, but that taxation revenues raised in developing countries are
well accounted. Basic public financial management is
important.
There is
also the matter of helping to build parliamentary capacity in
developing countries governance to monitor spending delivery. A
number of member states, including ourselves, have worked to set up the
equivalent of a National Audit Office in developing countries, along
with anti-corruption commissions and the equivalent of our Public
Accounts Committee. All such measures help to improve good governance.
They increase the scrutiny of how money is spent and Ministers in
developing countries, and they help civil society to challenge
decisions made in those countries. It is in that wayby building
up civil society and accountabilitythat we can hope for good
governance to continue to improve in
Africa.
The
Chairman:
One more
question.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown:
Indeed, Mr.
Hancock.
Another
subject that we discussed at the conference at the weekend was China.
It produces increasing amounts of so-called aid to, and trade with,
Africa, but a lot of the projects that China gets involved with
undercut the local economy and local rates of pay and labour. That was
a strong complaint. What discussions has the Minister hadeither
unilaterally with China, or through the EUto ensure that the
EUs programme for Africa and the Chinese programme mesh to
achieve similar
goals?
Mr.
Thomas:
There has been a series of bilateral discussions.
We still have an aid programme in China, although it is declining, and
our officials there have engaged with the Chinese development
authorities on what their programme in Africa is. They are looking for
ways in which we can both help the Chinese authorities to improve their
development work and, when appropriate, work in partnership with them.
The Chinese have sent over to the UK a series of often high-ranking
officials who work on development so that they can understand what the
UK does and talk to their counterparts, both in the Department for
International Development and more
generally.
The last
point that I wish to make on China is that the European Union will have
a summit with the Chinesefrom memory, in
November. The relationship in Africa will be one of the items on which
we will seek to make
progress.
Mark
Hunter:
May I press the Minister a little further on the
significance of climate change and energy provision? The document
mentions in some detail the EU-Africa partnership on energy, but it
seems to focus rather more on energy security than on the development
and establishment of renewable energy sources. However, the explanation
of the EU-Africa partnership on climate change states that, not
surprisingly, the least developed countries will be hit hardest by
climate change.
It
seems to many of us that climate change will be the biggest challenge
to not only the developed world, but, especially, the developing world.
If we do not want all the development that we have so far achieved in
Africa to go to waste, there needs to be decisive action now. Will the
Minister confirm that the British Government will encourage the EU to
place the importance of developing renewable energy sources at the
centre of its strategy? May I also ask him what the action plan will
include? Might it include ways to encourage the private sector to
invest in renewable resources in
Africa?
Mr.
Thomas:
Let me confirm that I absolutely recognise the
importance of renewable energy sources being developed in Africa to
help to address not only the impact of climate change, but the hugely
important issue of access to energy. A vast number of people living in
Africa simply do not have access to electricity or the other energy
sources that we take for granted.
Given the huge cost of building the type of
transmission systems that we have in the UK, the relatively low cost of
renewable energy options will help to speed up access to energy for
many in Africa over
time.
The hon.
Gentleman might know that the clean energy investment framework, which
is a strategy for investment in renewable energy that is being prepared
by the World Bank and the regional development banks, including the
African Development Bank, is likely to deliver significant resources
for investment in energy infrastructure. We also expect the action plan
on energy underpinning this EU-Africa strategy to focus on more
investment in energy
infrastructure.
I hope
that the hon. Gentleman understands that as the strategy is not yet
complete, I shall have to return to the detail in the letter that I
have pledged to send to the Committee as a result of the comment from
the hon. Member for
Cotswold.
Mark
Hunter:
May I ask about trade reform of the African Union?
As a supporter of the European Union, my party is never slow to praise
when we think the EU has done something well, and it has done well in
encouraging institutional reform and development of the African Union,
as well as with AU-EU dialogue. I am pleased that that is taking such a
prominent place in the strategy. During the continuing dialogue on the
strategy, were there discussions on breaking trade barriers within the
African Union as well as on harmonising trade rules and regimes? Does
the Minister believe that the European Union is well placed to share
best practice with the AU if it wishes to travel down that
route?
Mr.
Thomas:
Probably the biggest long-term benefit from the
economic partnership agreements that are being negotiated by all six
ACP regions, including the four African regions, with the European
Union is from the regional integration in each negotiating region.
Money to help to deliver aid for the trade requirements
for the implementation of those partnership
agreements will be crucial. The European Commission has pledged
€1 billion for aid for trade, and member states have committed
themselves to match that with a further €1 billion. In that way,
I hope that the Commission and member states with experience of the
European Community will be able to offer some expertise in building the
type of single market that has delivered so many benefits for the
UK.
Mark
Hunter:
I would like to make a brief final comment about
Zimbabweit would be remiss not to do so in the context of the
debate.
The
Chairman:
Order. Is this a
question?
Mark
Hunter:
Yes, it is a
question.
Zimbabwes
participation at the EU summit has been debated elsewhere. Will the
Minister address the key question of who will represent the British
Government at that summit in the absence of the Prime Minister? He has
made clear why he will not be there, and I think that Opposition
Members support that decision, but can the Minister confirm who will
represent the British Governments interests at the
summit?
Mr.
Thomas:
I must gently tell the hon. Gentleman that I
cannot give him the clarification that he seeks. If Robert Mugabe
attends, the Prime Minister has made it clear that he will not attend
and nor will any senior Minister. Invitations have not yet been issued,
so I cannot give any clarification. We will make a decision when we see
who else has been invited and who is
attending.
The
Chairman:
I think that such matters are better left for
the debate, and we seem to have exhausted
questions.
Motion
made, and Question
proposed,
That the
Committee takes note of European Union document No.
11326/07 and Addenda 1 and 2, Commission Communication: From Cairo to
LisbonThe EU-Africa Strategic Partnership; and welcomes the
progress being made on development of the strategy in preparation for
the December EU-Africa Summit.
[Mr.
Thomas.]
5.9
pm
Mr.
Clifton-Brown:
We have had an interesting series of
questions. One of mine related to action plans, because we must avoid
the EU setting itself another series of targets so all-encompassing and
idealistic that its good intentions can be used to explain subsequent
failure. Evidence of failure of aid is not hard to findeither
in relation to the strategy or to the end product. Indeed, the Scrutiny
Committees report on the strategy states
that
consideration
earlier this year of the EUs performance in relation to its
financial commitmentsthe so-called Monterrey
consensusalso showed a similar gap between rhetoric and
reality.
I hope that our
rhetoric in this Committee and at the European summit will be met with
reality.
Mr.
Thomas:
I simply do not accept the hon. Gentlemans
contention that the European Union has been in some way laggardly in
trying to make progress on Monterrey commitments. The reason why Africa
is likely to see the $25 billion that was pledged for 2010 is precisely
that European Union member states have stepped up to meet their
commitments. I accept that we must continue to monitor whether people
follow through on those commitments, but the European
Unionmember states and, indeed, the Commissiondeserves
credit for the fact that so much in the way of additional resources
have been committed and are slowly being
delivered.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown:
Yes, but at the conference that I attended
at the weekend, it was stressed to me time and time again that the
important question is not how much money is spent or the income, but
the outputswhat is actually achieved. It will be interesting to
see what the European summit actually manages to achieve. After all and
as the Minister has said, we are half way through the millennium
development goals process, and it looks as though a substantial number
of those goals, if not all, might not be met by 2015. Good intentions
on the part of the international community are not always met by
absolute achievement. The Committee will be able to make a judgment on
that from the statisticssome of them are shockingthat I
shall give on Africa.
Currently, the rest of the world
aims too high and often achieves too little. If we set our targets
lower and focus on a clear strategy and actual achievements, we shall
create a platform that will allow continual development. Our aid needs
to be targeted and we need more bang for the buck. We should
concentrate on keeping a strict paper trail of what happens to aid
money; indeed, the Minister alluded to that in answer to one of the
questions. If we put aid projects through individual Governments, we
should make sure that invoices are paid only in relation to the work
that has actually been done, rather than what is supposed to have been
done. That way, the money might keep pace with what is
achieved.
The document
touches on many of the key issues and possible approaches in relation
to Africa. There is still a lack of clear, coherent and defined
strategy for piecing together the various strands and
acknowledging their interdependency. The areas cited for change and
improvement are highly relevant, but there does not seem to be enough
focus on the sequential nature of development, whereby spending money
on one issue makes another viable and economical. A typical example is
that a little bit of pump-priming, such as for marketing, can often
lead to greater increase in trade. However, last weekend I heard that,
for some reason that the delegates could not explain, President
Museveni has abolished all the marketing boards in Uganda, thereby
making it far more difficult for Ugandan farmers to market their goods
to the EU.
Each
priority is interwoven with others and depends on changes in the next
round of negotiations. With that in mind, we must first focus
on the triumvirate of what is necessary for Africa: a
peaceful environment, complemented by strong and corruption-free
Governments. That will facilitate trade, and it is through trade, not
aid, that the greatest opportunity for long-term sustainable growth
will become a reality. Perhaps the Minister will say something about
trade in his reply.
The recent Oxfam report
entitled, Africas missing billions makes the
conservative estimate that war costs Africa $18 billion every
yeara truly startling figure. In view of that massive financial
loss, I am sure that we can all agree that peace remains a pressing
issue and is a prerequisite for development. It must be hard for anyone
who has kept even half an eye on events in Zimbabwe, Darfur or the
Democratic Republic of the Congo to fully believe the following
statement on page 28 of the document before
us:
The EU has
been a key partner for African countries to help create the conditions
for stability and for the AU and sub-regional organisations to execute
their ambitious peace and security
agenda.
Even
once peace has been obtained, gains in other priority areas are
subsequently limited by the amount of aid wasted
through poor governance and corruption. Despite being one of the key
things that the partnership seeks to address, that remains an immediate
problem. Surely it is of some concern that the EU will be legitimising
these regimes by bringing them into the process. We have already
discussed Zimbabwe. There could be huge gains in putting a price tag of
democratisation and good governance on AU membership, for as we all
know, membership of the EU comes with conditions. That is precisely
what the EU is doing at the moment in trying to negotiate
Turkeys membership, for example.
Such a measure would further prospects for long-standing democratic
stability throughout Africa, and assist and legitimise the EUs
continuing relationship with the
continent.
There needs
to be not a broad-brush approach to the future, but a systematic
approach to the EUs relationship with Africa that targets
specific areas in order to yield maximum results in subsequent priority
areas. I welcome, of course, the mention of trade. However, I must
raise severe doubts about the concentration on economic partnership
agreements, about which widespread concerns still exist. Those
agreements potentially force low-income ACP countries
into reducing barriers to exports from the EU before they are ready to
do so. They undermine regional integration and take away significant
amounts of revenue from domestic economic and social development
programmes. I think that it was estimated in Ghana that the reduction
in tariff barriers alone would equate to the same amount as that
country spends on its entire education
programme.
At the
conference this weekend in Uganda, Paul Chow, the leader of the
Seychelles Democratic party, told of his fears for the future of a tuna
canning factory on the islands as a result of the EPAs as drafted. That
business is likely to go straight to Thailand, which has lower costs.
The loss of 100 jobs may not seem much to us, but we are talking about
an island of only 80,000 people. It is the equivalent of a business
with several million jobs in this
country.
Concern must
also exist regarding treating Africa as a whole; we are surely working
for the good of a population of 850 million individuals. We must
appreciate the difficulties faced in getting the current 27 EU members
to agree on what the 53 AU member states should be doing in partnership
with them.
I must also
raise the issue of the level of African and European civil
societys involvement in the strategy. Like the hon. Member for
Cheadle, I have been the subject of lobbying from BOND, which I agree
with the Minister does an excellent job. There is concern about the
involvement of civil societies and, indeed, of individuals in the whole
of the negotiating process, because without the individual countries
and the individual peoples of those countries buying into the process,
it is far less likely to
work.
On a similar
note, the European directorate-general for developments
invitation to European civil society to an initial brainstorming was
circulated less than a week before the meetingand then the date
of the meeting was changed. That is not a very constructive way to go
about trying to involve people in the consultative
process.
The limited
mention of health care in the papers before us appears to be a
fundamental flaw. Although I have suggested that the strategy is too
broad in its remit, this is a surprising exclusion that has been lost
under other development goals. With a reduction in
child mortality, an improvement in maternal health and the
combating of HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases being three of the
listed millennium development goals, that is somewhat of an oversight.
It remains a sad fact that every year 800,000 African children under
the age of five die from malaria. That
raises the question: why do the millennium development
goals feature under other development issues? Why are
we creating new targets and ambitions in the summit process when we are
struggling to meet the existing ones? The confusion can only be
detrimental to the efforts of all
concerned.
If we really
want this strategy to benefit ourselves and Africa, we must be
realistic about what can be achieved and where we are right now. It is
clear that huge problems remain. To summarise page 47 of the Commission
staff document, current annual growth for Africa is 4.3 per cent, which
is behind the estimated 7 to 8 per cent. needed to meet the millennium
development goals. Africa does not account for more than 2 per cent. of
world trade in manufactured goods trade flow, and 40 per cent. of all
Africans still live on less than one dollar per day. That is
staggering! Some 460 million people in Africa live on less than one
dollar a day. That is the scale of the problem and the challenge that
we face. The magnitude of the task facing Africa and ourselves is
clear. Let our policies demonstrate a simple and effective approach to
the major concerns, so that we can start to right those
wrongs.
African
environmental issues, and some of the other issues labelled vaguely as
other development goals, surely must be seen as
subsidiary concerns at this stage, compared with the plight of
individual Africans. They are the corollaries to growth and development
that need to be dealt with at the correct time. Our focus must be on
peace, good governance and trade. I have quoted Kurt Hoffman already. I
know that the Minister disagrees but these are staggering statistics
and I think that they bear repetition. Kurt Hoffman, director of the
Shell Foundation, has
declared:
Since
the 1980s, the development community has presided over a $600
billion
that is
getting towards half the expenditure of the British Government in one
year
spending
spree that has left its principal clients - the worlds poorest
countries,
many of which
are in
Africa,
considerably
worse off.
It would seem
that this strategy might not help to alleviate the
problem.
We shall be
watching with great interest to see what this Committee can prod the
Government into doing, and to see what the Government can contribute to
the EU summit. Without exception, all of us in this House want an
improvement in the conditions of the average
African.
5.22
pm
Mark
Hunter:
I broadly welcome the approach to Africa that has
been suggested in the documents before us on behalf of the European
Union. For a long time, African nations and the wider development
community have been campaigning for increased prominence for those
issues on the world political agenda. I hope that at last we will see
some success in that
regard.
For development
strategies to be successful, they need to be owned by the communities
in question. The unhelpful and perhaps patronising nature of the
donor-recipient relationship has continued for far too
long, and I am extremely pleased with the African development strategy
suggested in the document before us, because it represents what we
might call a more mature partnership. We must be careful to ensure that
a move to an African-owned approach is not just a change of language,
but that it becomes a reality through changing policies, and their
creation and
implementation.
The
document talks about the need for Africans to integrate and co-operate,
which is where the European Union has the most to offer Africa, should
it choose to take advantage of our expertise. We can assist the African
Union in its institutional reforms in order to give it a stronger voice
in the world community. A strong African Union will be good not only
for Africa but for the EU and the rest of the world. I hope that this
collaboration with the EU will allow the African Union to develop and
flourish.
We should
recognise, however, that Africa is not a single, homogenous area, and
that the strategy requires a local focus. Funds need to be channelled
at a local community and governmental level to help to tackle national
corruption and allow more speedy responses to local circumstances and
needs. I shall be grateful if the Minister says something about that in
his response. As well as encouraging democracy nationally and
regionally, the strategy should also address the issue of
strengthening local governments and local
democracies.
The
countries of the European Union have a strong tradition of local
democracy, and I hope that its importance is acknowledged in the
EU-Africa action plans when they are finally agreed. Sustainable
development cannot just be an add-on to an energy strategy; it must be
central to it. The developed world has in the past been accused of
pulling up the ladder on developing countries, by placing restrictions
on their carbon emissions. I hope that the strategy before us, however,
will allow the EU to play a vital role in encouraging and helping the
African nations to establish a strong base of renewable energy
resources, because without drastic action, Africa itself will suffer
most; drought, flood and drastic changes to weather and climate will
make it almost impossible for them to function. Climate change and the
establishment of renewable energy sources must be mainstreamed with
clearer targets and action laid out, when the action plan is finally
revealed to us.
In
conclusion, as other Members have said, it is difficult to pass overall
judgment on the documents without the action plan being finalised. I
agree with the European Scrutiny Committee that the strategy needs to
be fleshed out. Although at times the documents express laudable and
important ideas, the language is still a bit woolly. The strategy must
include concrete actions that need to be taken in each of the areas,
with timelines and targets. I hope that the final action plan will do
so. We do not want a strategy that says everything and does nothing.
Africa deserves better.
5.27
pm
Mr.
Thomas:
Let me start with Mr. Hunters
last point. The timing of the debate was not of the Governments
choosing; nevertheless, we are happy to give feedback to the Committee
on the progress to date on agreeing the strategy. I repeat the
commitment that I
gave to the hon. Member for Cotswold, who leads for the official
Opposition, that I shall send an update to the Committee as matters
progress.
I agree with
the hon. Member for Cheadle, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, and
Mr. Clifton-Brown about the importance of African ownership
being reflected in effective detailed action plans to take forward the
implementation of the strategy. One of the most encouraging things for
people who are committed to progress on the millennium development
goals in Africa has been the emergence of the African Union as
an increasingly effective force for good. The peacekeeping operations
that have been mounted under the African Unions leadership in
Burundi, Darfur and the Comoros Islands are examples of that.
We must recognise the
fragility of the African Union and the capacity challenges that it
faces, and the engagement of the European Commission in support of the
African Union will be key in taking matters forward. I hear
Mr. Clifton-Browns comment about the obvious need to
follow through on action plans, and I and officials from the Department
for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
will continue to do so.
I hear, too, the entirely
reasonable point from Mr. Clifton-Brown that we must follow
through to ensure that the resources spent under the EU-Africa strategy
lead to tangible progress. I shall give two examples
to the Committee, offering some encouragement that money is being well
spent. In Ghana, the Commission has spent some €90 million to
help reduce the numbers of poor people, from 42 per cent. of the
population in 1999 to some 35 per cent. in 2005. Some 500,000 people
have been lifted out of poverty, and there are 10,000 new teachers in
schools in Ghana.
In
Zambia, a €70 million programme is leading to a steady
improvement in the road network. In 1995, 20 per cent. of the roads
were rated as good; by 2004, up to 60 per cent. were rated as good. I
am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the crucial importance
of that for trade and a variety of other
things.
Mr.
Clifton-Brown:
I recognise what the Minister just
said and applaud those Governments for their achievements, but does he
recognise that the examples that he cites are of democratic
Governments, and that there is a clear link between
good democratic Governments, good governance and economic performance?
Therefore, it is vital that good governance is one of major aspects of
whatever conclusion is reached at the
summit.
Mr.
Thomas:
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was
about to reflect on the need for progress on governance. One of the
things that is particularly encouraging about the leadership that we
have seen in recent years in Africa is the development of the Africa
peer review mechanism, in which African leaders and Governments have
reviewed other countries performance in terms of good
governance. So far, there have been four reviews on the quality of good
governance, and a series of recommendations for the four
countries concerned. Those countries are now responding to the reviews
by developing their own individual action
plans to take forward the recommendations and continue to build good
governance.
Another point on good governance
that I can offer to increase the confidence of the House is that
although conflicts such as Darfur have been savage in their intensity,
the number of conflicts in Africa is at its lowest level for a
generation. That is something that we should celebrate, but,
obviously, we cannot relax and be complacent about it. As I said in
answer to Mr. Hunter, we must continue to build
capacity.
The
Chairman:
Two out of three I would have allowed, but you
went on to score a third one by addressing Members by their surnames
and not by their constituency. The practice in a Committee is that only
the Chairman addresses Members by their name. Ministers and others have
to address them by their constituency or ministerial title. I am sorry
to interrupt you, but the Chairman of Ways and Means would not have
forgiven me if I had not reminded
you.
Mr.
Thomas:
I stand suitably chastised, Mr.
Hancock.
There is huge
potential for developing countries if we can agree a Doha deal. It is
one of the reasons why the Prime Minister and other Ministers have been
so engaged in trying to make progress in that area.
In March 2005, we published a
document setting out the type of economic partnership agreements that
we wanted. At the time, we were isolated in the European Union, but
there has been substantial movement in our direction. Other Ministers
and I are engaging extremely closely on the detail of progress on
economic partnership
agreements.
Hon.
Members rightly made other points about the importance of progress on
environmental protection and of recognising the impact of climate
change on Africa. We will continue to take forward those issues in our
work on the detailed implementation of the strategy. With that, I
commend the document to the
House.
The
Chairman:
I thank the Minister for his courtesy, and all
members of the Committee for the way in which they
have conducted this afternoons
proceedings.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That
the Committee takes note of European Union document
No. 11326/07 and Addenda 1 and 2, Commission
Communication: From Cairo to LisbonThe EU-Africa Strategic
Partnership; and welcomes the progress being made on development of the
strategy in preparation for the December EU-Africa
Summit.
Committee
rose at twenty-six minutes to Six
oclock.