|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Paul Rowen: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the relief operation for the victims of the earthquake in Kashmir and Northern Pakistan. 
The Government of Pakistan (GoP) has been leading the response to the earthquake, working with a wide range of international partners, including DFID and other donors, the United Nations, and NGOs. The humanitarian relief phase, which came to an end last year, was successful in ensuring adequate provision of food, shelter and basic services to people affected by the earthquake. DFID committed £58 million to immediate relief. A DFID team
conducted a follow-up mission early this January to review the humanitarian situation now, particularly to assess the effectiveness of GoPs and the United Nations winter preparations. Our assessment concluded that winter planning was adequate. Basic services have functioned and the coping ability of most people has been restored.
GoP is now finalising its planning for the major reconstruction season that lies ahead. Some reconstruction of individual health and education facilities, particularly through NGOs and donor agencies, is already being undertaken. However, the bulk of the work will be undertaken by GoP through its Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority. This will include large programmes of new and replacement schools, health facilities, roads, water and sanitation services, telecommunications, and Government facilities.
DFID has committed to providing £70 million for reconstruction. Of this, some £5 million has already been spent on reconstructing critical bridges, training teachers and educational administrators and on essential support to maintain TB and mental health services. A further £9 million is currently being spent on improving GoPs capacity to deal with the reconstruction. The £56 million remaining is being allocated to the Government of Pakistan in three parts for reconstruction and rehabilitation against their own annual priorities. We have just released the first allocation, of £17.5 million. This money will be used for housing and for reconstructing critical health, education and other facilities.
Ms Keeble: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment has been made of the impact of the first two years' expenditure of the funding allocated for orphans and vulnerable children. 
Mr. Thomas: We are currently undertaking the interim evaluation of Taking Action, the UK's strategy for tackling HIV and AIDS in the developing world, which we expect to be published later this spring and which will help us assess the impact of our spending allocated for orphans and vulnerable children.
Mr. Thomas: From February 2006 to date, the Aid Works DVD campaign cost £76,870.81, which includes the production, marketing and distribution of the DVD. The DVD aims to explain to the public, through two films 'Aid Works' and 'Making Aid Work' why it is important to give aid to poor countries and how UK taxpayers' money gets to those in most need.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much his Department
contributed to the funding of the Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility on water in each of the last three years; what allocation has been made to the 2007-08 budget; and if he will make a statement. 
Hilary Benn: DFID has supported Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF) over three phases since 1999. Our total commitment to PPIAF from 1999 to 2008 is £53 million. Over the last three years, we have disbursed £16.8 million to PPIAF. We do not earmark our funding for specific sectors, allowing PPIAF to respond flexibly to the requests for help it receives from developing country governments.
2004US$ 2.7 million (£1.47 million), which is 19 per cent. of total PPIAF expenditure.
2005US$ 3.17 million (£1.6 million), which is 18 per cent. of total PPIAF expenditure.
2006US$ 3.23 million (£1.6 million), which is 18 per cent. of total PPIAF expenditure.
The majority of developing country governments do not have the capacity to provide good quality infrastructure and services for their people; PPIAF helps them to develop sound policies, regulations and institutions. PPIAF does this by providing developing country governments with technical assistance which they can use to tap the full potential of public-private partnerships in infrastructure. PPIAF also identifies, communicates and promotes best practice on matters relating to public-private partnerships in infrastructure. It is also recognised as a leading resource for training and best practice in the role of public-private partnerships in infrastructure service delivery.
There are many examples of PPIAFs success. For example in Kenya, PPIAF provided technical assistance and training to enable micro-credit banks to lend to small water providers to provide clean water to rural and semi-urban communities. This has led to 21 micro-credit investments and an output based grant which will result in 60,000 people gaining access to clean water.
Also in Ghana, PPIAF supported the Ghana Community Water and Sanitation Agency with regulatory and legal reform to improve small town water services. This has allowed local water operators to provide clean water to communities for the first time. Communities themselves were involved in the selection of the water providers. This has been successfully implemented in three towns and will be rolled out to 300 small towns across the country.
Further information about PPIAF and its successes are available in a fact sheet Department for International Development (DFID) Factsheet for the Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF), which has been placed in the Library of the House.
To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of the
Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility budget has been spent on (a) private and (b) public schemes for water supply; and if he will make a statement. 
Hilary Benn: The Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF) does not separate its activities purely between public and private schemes for water supply. The realities of water services provision in developing countries are more complicated.
24 activities that support developing country governments with advice on better laws, regulations and institutional structures for the improved provision of water services. These activities help build the capacity of developing country governments to improve their provision of infrastructure and other services for their citizens. Such activities include the establishment of a water regulator, the benchmarking of utilities, workshops and consultations on water sector reform. These activities amount to approximately 15 per cent. of PPIAF funding for water sector activities.
31 activities which supported developing country governments with policy studies, which eventually led to some form of private sector participation in water services. These included small scale, local providers of water services. This amounts to approximately 33 per cent. of PPIAF funding for water sector activities.
29 activities which supported developing country governments with policy studies, which resulted in the continuation of a public sector option for water service provision. This includes public sector performance contracts using private sector principles. This amounts to approximately 40 per cent. of PPIAF funding for water sector activities.
Finally, 13 activities that are ongoing and where the policy option to provide water services has not been decided upon yet by the developing country governments concerned. This amounts to approximately 12 per cent. of the PPIAF funding for water sector activities.
PPIAF is a fund supported by a number of donors including DFID. It provides advice to developing countries to ensure that their citizens get the most out of private sector involvement in infrastructure services. PPIAF achieves this by supporting governments to develop sound policies, regulations and institutions which can tap the full potential of public-private partnerships in infrastructure. It is also a leading resource for training and best practices in the role of public-private partnerships in infrastructure service delivery.
PPIAF only provides advice to developing countries when requested to do so by their governments. For example, in Vietnam, a PPIAF supported grant assisted two small towns with the development of community-based water projects that bring affordable water to poor communities using local private operators. These projects used extensive community outreach to get 90 per cent. of the population to agree on technical, financial and cost recovery options, including tariff design. This demand driven approach is now being replicated through other donor programs and also in the Philippines and Thailand with many other prospects for replication.
Further information on PPIAFs work can be found on their website at www.ppiaf.org
Mr. Moore: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 19 February 2007, Official Report, column 287W, on Serbia: overseas, how much funding the Government provided to Serbia through international institutions in each of the last five years, broken down by (a) the total sum provided by each institution and (b) the UKs percentage contribution. 
Mr. Thomas: Estimates of multilateral funding provided to Serbia and Montenegro (including Kosovo) and the UKs imputed share and percentage share of this funding are provided in the following three tables. Table 1 contains estimates of funding provided by multilateral institutions to Serbia and Montenegro (including) Kosovo) for each calendar year 2000 to 2004. Table 2 contains estimates of the UKs imputed share of this funding and Table 3 contains estimates of the UKs percentage share of this funding on which Table 2 imputed figures are based. The following points should be borne in mind when interpreting the tables:
(1) UK funding to multilateral institutions cannot be directly attributed to any country; the estimates below are imputed shares based on the UKs total funding for each multilateral and that multilaterals distribution of Official Development Assistance (ODA) to Serbia and Montenegro (including Kosovo).
(2) ODA is defined as flows administered with the promotion of economic development and welfare of developing countries as their main objective, that are concessional in character and convey a grant element of at least 25 per cent. Aid to countries on Part 1 of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) List of Aid Recipients is eligible to be recorded as ODA. Official Aid (OA) has the same concessional and qualitative features as ODA but covers aid to countries on Part 2 of the DAC List of Recipients. (Note: From 2005 Part 2 of the DAC List of Recipients will cease to exist and aid to countries on a new combined list of DAC List of Recipients of Official Development Assistance will be eligible to be recorded as ODA)
(3) The list of multilateral organisations in the tables is not exhaustive; the multilaterals listed are those that provide the DAC with detailed information about their distribution of funds to Serbia and Montenegro (including Kosovo) and to whom DFID provided funds over the period.
(4) Negatives represent accounting adjustments, not a net flow to the UK; Zero figures are indicated with a dash.
(5) The total UK share of multilateral ODA/OA to Serbia and Montenegro (including Kosovo) has been revised slightly from the figure given in the answer of 19 February 2007, Official Report, column 287W, as a result of revisions made by the DAC to the underlying data.
(6) Figures for 2005 will be available following publication of the DFID Departmental Report in May.
|Table 1: Multilateral ODA/OA to Serbia and Montenegro (including Kosovo) for 2000 to 2004|
|Table 2: Imputed UK Share of Multilateral ODA/OA to Serbia and Montenegro (including Kosovo) for 2000 to 2004|
|(1) In 2004, the UK share of the World Food Programme funds that went to Serbia and Montenegro was small and rounded to 0.|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|