| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
23 Oct 2007 : Column 37WH—continued
The budget for 2007-08 is £110 million, £67 million of which will fund humanitarian work and £40 million of which will in turn be channelled through the UN-administered common humanitarian fund. The remaining £27 million will be used to support NGO programmes, mostly in Darfur. With that in mind, I ask the Minister to outline the priorities for the common humanitarian fund and the measures in place to ensure
that the UK taxpayer is receiving value for money. Can he also offer a breakdown of which NGO projects are being funded and where?
Although we can see that the input of financial support is considerable, my concern is exactly how we are measuring the success of that support. If I were to be critical, I would argue that the Department, rather like the Government as a whole, continues to judge its success on inputs rather than outputs. Unfortunately, when we begin to look at the outputs, we see that the picture is slightly less rosy.
At macro level, we could take progress towards achieving the millennium development goals, for example. The United Nations Development Programme’s Sudan millennium development goals interim unified report concluded that achievement of the 10 millennium goals, broken down into their 20 subsections, was unlikely in 12 of the 20 sections and only potentially achievable in the eight others. Only the MDGs on the under-five mortality rate, the maternal mortality ratio and the proportion of population with access to an improved water source were assessed as probably being achievable. Those statistics paint a grim picture, but it is a picture for the country as a whole. In areas such as Darfur, South Kordofan, Abyei and Gereida, the situation is, unfortunately, much worse.
The report suggests that, although education enrolment is increasing, 75 per cent. of children still have no access to education—worst off are girls—and the problem has become so bad that southern Sudan is in danger of producing a generation of illiterate citizens. That obviously has huge implications for Sudan’s future development.
Health standards are also very low. One in four children dies before the age of five. One in nine women giving birth in Sudan dies in labour. Hospitals are badly under-stocked with drugs, and a number of sources suggest that there are only enough doctors for a ratio of one doctor per 100,000 people—assuming, of course, that they can get to the doctor in the first place.
Shortly before the hon. Member for Stroud and I met the Vice-President of the Government of South Sudan, we travelled a short distance out of Juba to one of the villages where many of the recently returned former internally displaced persons from the north were staying. Accompanied by some immaculately dressed, armed and fed soldiers—that is hardly surprising, as some 40 per cent. of the budget from the oil revenue for the Government of South Sudan is spent on defence—we talked to villagers who were almost at their wits’ end because, despite being little more than three miles from the capital, the village lacked any basic infrastructure, whether a kindergarten, junior school or even the most basic medical clinic. I recall causing our excellent ambassador some concern less than an hour later by asking the Vice-President why his Government were spending so much on defence and so little on the most basic facilities for his people.
In 2005, the comprehensive peace agreement created two multi-donor trust funds: one to provide financial aid to the Government of national unity in Khartoum for war-affected areas in the north and for the three transitional zones of Abyei, Blue Nile and South Kordofan; and one for the Government of South Sudan. The amount of money currently committed to the two funds is estimated at $508 million. Of the £47 million originally committed by the UK, £30 million has been committed
to date, with a further £17 million due in 2007-08. Regrettably, however, during the trip the common view from those whom we met appeared to be that the MDTFs are failing.
It appears that not only did the international community force unrealistic start-up programmes on the two MDTFs, but their inability to support quick impact aid delivery went unrecognised. To be fair, the MDTFs were not designed to meet immediate recovery needs. Instead, the funds focus on Government capacity building and centrally decided programmes, with an over-reliance on outside consultants. Having met representatives of several NGOs, we heard how their experiences of the MDTFs had been very negative, with recipients experiencing severe delays, confusion and frustration.
In the light of those problems, the UN has suggested that the MDTFs implement a new quick delivery strategy. Although the Government of national unity were supportive in the north, the Government of South Sudan appear less supportive, and recent events seem to have underlined that fact.
If development is to progress in Sudan, the big international players, the UN and, most importantly, the African Union need to put pressure on the Government of South Sudan as soon as possible. With that in mind, can the Minister confirm whether all the budgeted £47 million will be given to the two funds by the end of the financial year? Will he explain what progress has been made in setting up a quick delivery mechanism to address the slow delivery problem? Will he also outline some of the outputs that have been delivered by the MDTFs to date? Is he confident that they represent value for money?
I realise that I am asking a lot of questions, but I hope that they do not come as a surprise to the Minister. Finally, can he confirm when the donor-commissioned review of the MDTFs is due to report and why the Sudan consortium meeting scheduled for this month has been delayed at least until January and possibly even March?
The hon. Member for Stroud suggested that Sudan has become something of a laboratory for experimentation in funding mechanisms. I have to agree. Donors have set up a number of pooled funding mechanisms. In addition to the multi-donor trust funds and the common humanitarian fund, which have been discussed, is the basic services fund. As has been said, however, even now, we are simply failing to address the immediate funding crisis. That was repeated to us again and again during our visit, perhaps most noticeably by the head of the UN mission in southern Sudan. What plans has the Minister to give a greater percentage of UK aid to the basic services fund to help to plug that gap?
It is clear that funding shortfalls and delays carry a very considerable cost for the intended beneficiaries, outweighing any efficiency savings gained from pooling resources. The lack of a clear peace dividend in terms of high-impact additional funding represents a serious threat to the comprehensive peace agreement.
While we were in Juba, in the south, we also visited the new joint donor team that was first set up back in May 2006. That joint project involves the UK, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Canada.
It is commendable in that, through working together in that innovative way of joint funding and joint policy making, the delivery of aid should be more effective. However, the same problems seem to exist where the multinational nature of the team seems simply to add to an already slow delivery time. Can the Minister confirm whether it remains DFID’s intention ultimately to deliver all expenditure, except humanitarian aid in the south, through the joint donor team? Will he also outline what outputs the joint donor team has delivered since its creation in May 2006?
Time is marching on, so I intend to deal briefly with just one area, which is Abyei. The Abyei oilfield is estimated to be raising $529 million in 2007. Boundary disputes continue, although it is hardly a surprise, given the oil interests, that both the north and the south claim the region as their own. DFID and other key international players have an opportunity to bring both sides back to the negotiating table and use the region as a springboard for greater success across the whole country.
Since Dr Garang’s untimely death, trust between the National Congress party and the Government of South Sudan has ebbed away. When we visited southern politicians who were part of the Government of national unity, they certainly said the right things, but the events of the past two weeks have shown that there was really a lack of trust. However, if a demilitarised zone can be created, it could set a precedent for the rest of the country. Of the four possible methods of resolving the deadlock drawn up by the joint NCP and Government of South Sudan group, only political mediation has been attempted so far. The Government of South Sudan have shown a willingness to involve international mediation. However, the NCP continues to rule out that option. Perhaps most seriously, the recommendations made by the boundary commission have still to be recognised, and with that stumbling block still in place, progress probably remains a pipe dream.
Will the Minister outline what actions the Government have taken to hold talks with our Chinese counterparts, whose considerable influence could be used to bring about peace in the Abyei region? Also, what does the Minister propose to kick-start the talks about the boundary commission report?
12.8 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Shahid Malik): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) on securing this important debate. He is someone who uniquely commands respect in the House for his work on international development, and it is a privilege to respond to his debate.
My right hon. Friend’s eloquent and powerful description of the reality of life in Sudan was, frankly, depressing, but it is important that we are depressed. That depression should act as a catalyst for us to do even more, but we will all recognise that while we are depressed here, we are not living that reality—the people of Sudan are. I know that right hon. and hon. Members are clear about the fact that the cruel, prolonged and unnecessary suffering of the people of Sudan must come to a swift end. Their impatience for peace is shared by people on these shores and beyond.
Sudan faces significant development challenges. The war between north and south Sudan left more than 6 million people displaced. Large swathes of the population endured some of the worst development indicators possible, and the recent conflict in Darfur has added to that suffering. Current projections suggest that Sudan will not meet any of the millennium development goals by 2015. Each year, 100,000 children die from preventable diseases. The UK has more than 25,000 qualified midwives; we are told that southern Sudan has only eight. It should not be a surprise that Sudan has perhaps the worst maternal mortality rate in the world, at 2,000 deaths for every 100,000 deliveries.
The UK is responding to those challenges. As has been mentioned, we are the second largest donor to Sudan. In 2005, we pledged £317 million in aid over three years. To date, we have spent £290 million and stand to exceed our pledge. This year alone, we have committed £110 million, £67 million of which will go to humanitarian assistance.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill was kind enough to share with us a letter from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights about funding shortfalls. We are pleased that the UK’s role and commitment has been acknowledged. Our response is that we cannot meet the needs of the people of Sudan alone. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) has said, other donors must meet their commitments and play their parts, if we are to have the impact so desperately required now and for many years in Sudan.
Work in Sudan is becoming increasingly complex. The comprehensive peace agreement in 2005 ended decades of civil war between the north and the south. It is the essential foundation for long-term peace and stability for all parts of Sudan. We remain fundamentally committed to supporting its implementation.
My right hon. Friend spoke about the bombings and condemned them. I know that he is aware that the UK sponsored the UN resolution in March 2005 referring Darfur to the International Criminal Court. Two arrest warrants for atrocities in Darfur have been issued so far. I concur with his comments and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and other hon. Members that the announcement on 11 October by the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement to suspend its participation in the Government of national unity underlines the agreement’s fragility. Political leaders in the north and the south need to muster the political will and demonstrate the leadership necessary to resolve the more sensitive issues at the heart of the agreement—border demarcation, elections and Abyei. The current political deadlock has the potential to derail the relative peace that is, at the moment, mercifully allowing recovery and development work to continue in the south. We must do all we can to restore faith in the agreement and demonstrate to the people of Sudan the tangible benefits that peace will bring.
The UK provided £60 million in development assistance last year to support CPA implementation. We have also put £47 million into the multi-donor trust fund over three years, to be split evenly between the north and the south—a vital contribution to funding the introduction of a new currency for Sudan required by the CPA. Through a DFID programme, we have also provided
£17 million for basic services such as primary schools, boreholes, latrines and health services, which are having a major impact on people’s lives.
We will provide support to help ensure that the 2009 elections are a success, as they are crucial, and will continue to support the transformation of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army into a disciplined professional army operating under democratic civil control with respect for human rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud focused on that issue. The Government believe that it is crucial to consider it, as well as the disproportionate sums of money that seem to be targeted at the military, including many former military operatives who are still being paid salaries.
We are also working with partners to reinvigorate the assessment and evaluation commission, which oversees CPA implementation, and to ensure that the CPA remains high on the international agenda and is not forgotten. I think that we all accept that it is crucial to get close to the kind of situation that we want. The CPA is the bedrock of stability for the whole of Sudan, and it is indivisible from the peace process in Darfur.
The humanitarian situation there remains a major source of concern. Since the start of the conflict, many thousands have been killed and wounded, and more than 2 million people are internally displaced in camps throughout the region, while more than 4 million depend on international aid for their basic needs. Malnutrition levels exceed emergency thresholds in many parts of Darfur. We have spent £145 million on humanitarian funding to Darfur since the start of that tragic crisis in 2003. The majority of this year’s aid, some £40 million, is being channelled through the common humanitarian fund, a pioneering multi-donor mechanism allowing the UN humanitarian co-ordinator to allocate resources where the need is greatest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud mentioned the need for efficient and effective funding mechanisms that would have an impact on the ground, and we are very conscious of that. The multi-donor trust fund is being reviewed, and we rely on the Governments of Sudan and southern Sudan to take part in that process. They have asked the World Bank for more time to prepare, but we hope that the review will take place in early 2008, so we can be more confident that the systems in place are delivering the maximum possible.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the 2:1 ratio. The ratio has been proposed to ensure that the Sudanese Government make a long-term commitment to poverty reduction. The UK will continue to fulfil its obligation to help alleviate the suffering, but sustainable peace and security in Darfur will be achieved only through a political process involving all parties to the conflict.
The Prime Minister is leading international efforts to build a consensus on Darfur. On 20 July, he and President Sarkozy announced a joint initiative for Darfur. It focused on four areas—rapid deployment of an effective peacekeeping force; movement towards political negotiations; preparing for economic recovery to show the people of Darfur that there are dividends of peace; and regional stability.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill and the hon. Members for Edinburgh, West and for North-East Milton Keynes (Mr. Lancaster) have discussed China’s role. We are
certainly encouraging China and India to play a more prominent and positive role. Hon. Members should be aware that, like us, China has urged and pressed the SPLM and President Bashir to end the political crisis and fully to implement the CPA.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has mentioned east Sudan. The peace agreement there was announced on 14 October last year, although we accept that progress has been slower than we would have liked. Unfortunately, that is a common theme in Sudan, but we are sure that the multi-donor trust is playing an important role. I assure my hon. Friend that the embassy in Khartoum monitors progress regularly. It is appropriate now to pay tribute to our British personnel, who do a magnificent job under what must be extremely challenging circumstances. I have not had the opportunity to go to Sudan to see them in action, but most hon. Members here today have, and I know that they would wish to join me in paying tribute. It is always useful to remind ourselves of their efforts.
Recently, we have seen progress. UN Security Council resolution 1769, which was sponsored by the United Kingdom with unanimous agreement, mandates a hybrid African Union and UN peacekeeping force. My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill spoke of a no-fly zone. That is obviously a possibility, but our initial focus and priority must clearly be to ensure that the hybrid force is up and in action. We hope and pray that it will create the secure environment that is so desperately needed for us to deliver vital humanitarian assistance to the people of Darfur. In September, the UN Secretary-General announced that peace talks would be held in Libya later this month, which is an encouraging sign.
Despite those positive developments, we are all aware that problems remain. The violence has increased, including a heinous attack on AMIS peacekeepers in Haskanita and fighting around the town of Muhajiria. That has added to an already challenging humanitarian situation, with a quarter of a million people being displaced this year alone.
My right hon. Friend referred to the Central African Republic. We support the deployment of an interim European Union force for the Central African Republic and for Chad, and we have given some £6.5 million of humanitarian assistance for Darfurian refugees in Chad.
Since the start of the year, more than 100 humanitarian aid vehicles have been hijacked and five aid workers have been killed. That seriously undermines the ability of humanitarian agencies to deliver vital aid to those in desperate need. I pay tribute to the brave efforts of those humanitarian workers who continue to provide essential assistance to the people of Darfur. Their tireless contributions in the most dangerous of circumstances deserve not only recognition but praise. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, too, rightly gave praise to those brave front-line workers.
We call on all sides to commit themselves to an immediate cessation of hostilities, so that humanitarian workers can do their job and so that the peacekeeping forces can be rapidly deployed. They must engage fully in the political talks being led by the African Union and the United Nations.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |