|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Gordon Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills what progress has been made on the UK/India intellectual property rights programme since its signing in 2004. 
Ian Pearson: The Joint Statement of Intent was signed in June 2006. Under the JETCO (Joint Economic Trade Committee) agreement between India and the UK, we are currently developing a bilateral action plan with the Indian IPR authorities in order to put in place a technical assistance programme for Indian government officials dealing with IP.
Mr. Iain Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps his Department is taking to discourage farmers in Afghanistan from growing opium for use in illegal drugs. 
Mr. Douglas Alexander:
The UK Government support the Afghan National Drug Control Strategy (NDCS) whose goal is to secure a sustainable decrease in cultivation, production, trafficking and consumption of illicit drugs, with a view to complete and sustainable elimination. The NDCS sets out four national priorities: disrupting the drugs trade by targeting traffickers and their backers; reducing the demand for illicit drugs and treatment of problem drug users; developing state institutions at the central and provincial level vital to the delivery of the overall
counter-narcotics strategy; and strengthening and diversifying legal rural livelihoods that free farmers and other rural workers from dependence on poppy cultivation.
DFID has lead responsibility within HMG for delivering the fourth NDCS priority, providing £77 million from 2005-07 to support the development of legal rural livelihoods. The majority of these resources have been channelled through the Government of Afghanistans own National Priority Programmes. This helps to ensure that other measures designed to discourage poppy growing are effective.
There is no one single crop which will replace poppy, and therefore DFID has provided £3 million to support research into a range of alternatives including high value crops such as mint and saffron. Traditional alternatives include crops such as wheat and
But alternatives to poppy come not only in the form of different crops. They can often be non-farm activities such as clothes-making and shopkeeping. The Government of Afghanistans Microfinance Investment Support Facility of Afghanistan (MISFA) have provided over £133 million worth of small loans to 364,786 Afghan families to help them invest in their own licit businesses. MISFA operates in 23 provinces, including Helmand. DFID has provided £15 million to MISFA since March 2004. Nearly 75 per cent. of those receiving loans are women.
DFID also provided £18 million in 2005-06 to the Government of Afghanistans National Rural Access Programme (NRAP), which has so far built or repaired over 9,000 km of roadsessential for rural farmers to access markets. So far the programme has generated over 13 million days of labour for Afghans. NRAP operates in all 34 provinces.
DFID has also provided £42.6 million in total for the National Solidarity Programme (NSP) and is providing £10.6 million to roll out NSP in Helmand province (2006-09). NSP is helping elected Community Development Councils (CDCs), representing over 17,000 communities across Afghanistan, identify development priorities in their areas and then receive grants to undertake the work. This broader social development can help instil essential trust in the Government of Afghanistan among poppy farmers. NSP has funded over 28,000 projects in agriculture, education, health, irrigation, power supply, transport, and water supply. NSP currently operates in all 34 provinces.
DFID is making a contribution of £22.7 million over three years (as part of an overall UK Government contribution of £30 million) to the Government of Afghanistans Counter Narcotics Trust Fund. The fund is designed to bring funding for counter narcotics into the national budget, and give Afghans greater responsibility for managing the drugs problem.
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much his Department paid to Common Purpose in each of the last five years; for what purpose; and what the outcome of the expenditure was. 
have unsustainable debts (debt-to-export levels above 150 per cent. or debt-to-government revenues above 250 per cent.) after the application of traditional debt relief measures, such as those offered by the Paris Club group of government creditors;
only be eligible for assistance on highly concessional terms from the International Development Association (IDA) at the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility;
establish a track record of reform and implement a Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, using the savings from debt relief to reduce poverty;
and have cleared any outstanding arrears to the International Financial Institutions.
Each heavily indebted poor country has to decide whether or not to seek debt cancellation under the HIPC initiative. Those that complete the HIPC process are granted complete cancellation of their debts to the IMF, IDA and African Development Fund under HIPC and the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative.
Mr. Willetts: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money from the public purse has been provided to the Gambian Government for education programmes (a) by the Government directly and (b) through other institutions in each year since 1997. 
Mr. Thomas: DFID did not provide any aid directly to the Gambian Government for education over the period 1997-98 to 2006-07. Most aid for the education sector in Gambia is delivered in the form of technical co-operation.
Mr. Willetts: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment his Department has made of the Gambian education system's adoption of the Applied Scholastics programme. 
Mr. Thomas: We have not undertaken such an assessment in the absence of a Gambian Government request for DFID to consider. We understand that the current Department of Education is much less enthusiastic about developing this approach throughout the Gambia than its predecessors.
Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when the most recent visit took place by a Minister in his Department to Nepal; and what the outcomes were of the visit. 
Mr. Malik: My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) Under-Secretary of State for International Development visited Nepal from 2 to 4 April 2007, a day after the formation of the eight-party interim government in Nepal. During the visit he met politicians from all parties, including the Maoists, representatives from excluded groups and visited DFID-funded programmes. He also had discussions with the UN Mission in Nepal.
The visit focused on the need for credible, free and fair elections, the importance of a well targeted peace dividend and improved government basic service delivery in the post conflict environment and the need for an inclusive political process. My hon. Friend also announced significant increases in UK development support including £13 million for the government-managed Peace Trust Fund and £23.5 million in multilateral debt relief for the period up to 2015.
Helen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid was provided to Nepal in each of the last five years, broken down by sector; and if he will make a statement. 
|Table 1: total DFID bilateral aid to Nepal by broad sector|
|Broad sector||2002-03||2003-04||2004-05||2005-06||2006-07( 1)|
|(1) Provisional data.|
(2) Unallocated to sector and comprises expenditure on administration costs in-country and other projects not easily classified to an aid sector.
UK funding to multilateral institutions cannot be directly attributed to any country or broken down by sector. However, table 2 contains estimates of the UKs imputed shares of multilateral aid to Nepal, based on the UKs total funding to multilateral institutions and the percentage share of aid from the multilateral pool that went to Nepal. These estimates are only available on a calendar year basis.
|Table 2: imputed UK share of multilateral aid to Nepal, 2001-05|
|Imputed multilateral aid|
1. Data for 2006 are not yet available.
2. The list of multilateral organisations used in the production of these data is not exhaustive; the multilateral analysed are those that provide the Development Assistance Committee with detailed information about their distribution of funds to Nepal and to whom the UK provided funds over the period.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|