Burma
19. We decided to examine DFID's assistance to internally
displaced people (IDPs) in Burma and to refugees on the Thai-Burma
border because, despite the desperate deprivation in which many
people in the country live, Burma receives the lowest level of
aid of all least-developed countries. We wished to investigate
the channels the UK was using for its funding to Burma and whether
these should change, and to assess whether the overall amount
the UK provided in aid should be increased. We decided not to
visit Burma itself because we were concerned that such a visit
would be too tightly controlled by the regime to make it worthwhile.
We did, however, visit refugee camps on the Thai-Burma border,
where around 150,000 people live in camps with thousands more
unregistered refugees living in the border areas.
20. Our report acknowledged that funding aid work
in Burma is fraught with difficulties, but that aid could be effectively
targeted and used, and constraints addressed, if there was sufficient
commitment by donors. We acknowledged that DFID had quadrupled
its budget for Burma over the last six years, from £2.3 million
to £8.8 million, and recommended that it should quadruple
its overall aid budget to Burma again by 2013. We pointed out
that, as one of only four donors with a staffed office in Burma,
DFID is in a leading position to assist Burmese IDPs and refugees.
We believed that DFID's support to community-based organisations
was particularly important in developing locally 'owned' responses
to displacement, and that this should be increased.
21. Just as we began our inquiry, DFID announced
a change of policy in relation to cross-border assistance to Burma.[13]
This entailed removing the restriction on the use of its funds
for assistance to refugees on the Thai-Burma border, so that they
could be used for either cross-border or refugee assistance, as
need and funding dictated. However, we pointed out in our report
that, as the change of policy was not accompanied by any additional
funding, it might be perceived as an empty gesture. We therefore
recommended that the UK's expansion of aid for Burma should include
specific funding for cross-border assistance. We acknowledged
that providing aid in this way was far from ideal in terms of
neutrality or safety, but believed it was the only way to reach
very vulnerable IDPs located throughout Burma's conflict border
zones, including those areas that border Thailand.
22. We were shocked to learn upon arriving in Thailand
for our visit that DFID had decided completely to relocate the
management of its Burma programme from Bangkok to Rangoon. The
DFID South-East Asia office in Bangkok was scheduled to close
and it was planned that the number of staff in Burma would increase
from three to 10 by May 2008. Although we welcomed the increase
in staffing in Burma, we believed that DFID's plans fully to relocate
management of its Burma programme from Bangkok to Rangoon would
impair its work. We recommended that, in order to work independently
of the Burmese regime, to fulfil a co-ordination role, to support
non-governmental organisations (NGOs) based in Thailand and to
engage with cross-border and refugee assistance on the Thai-Burma
border, at least two senior, full-time members of DFID staff should
be retained within the Bangkok Embassy. We regret that the Government
did not accept this recommendation:[14]
we intend to monitor the impact of this relocation on the delivery
of aid.
23. Our report received extensive press coverage
when it was published in July. We were extremely distressed, as
so many people were, to witness the further deterioration of the
situation in Burma in September following the regime's brutal
suppression of protests by monks and others. The Government responded
to our report on 15 October and, although it acknowledged that
overall aid levels to Burma should increase, no specific commitment
was given.[15] However,
on 30 October, DFID announced in a press release that aid to Burma
would be doubled from the current £9 million to £18
million by 2010.[16]
Whilst we wholeheartedly welcome this increase, we regard it as
rather dismissive on the part of the Government that no mention
was made in the announcement of our contribution to the debate
about aid to Burma and our specific recommendation on funding.
We took the opportunity of a debate on our report in Westminster
Hall on 6 December to make this point to the DFID Minister.[17]
We believe parliamentary processes would be strengthened, and
the Government's own standing enhanced, if it gave due acknowledgement
to select committees for their contribution to policy-making when
it is appropriate.
Maternal Health
24. In the autumn we began an inquiry into maternal
health. Improving maternal health is the fifth Millennium Development
Goal with the target of reducing the maternal mortality rate by
three-quarters by 2015. Half a million women die each year from
pregnancy-related causes. Most lives could be saved with simple
interventions, such as the presence of skilled birth attendants.
Progress towards meeting the MDG has been very slow and indeed
in some African countries maternal deaths are increasing due to
HIV prevalence, conflict and weak health systems. However, some
Asian countries have made rapid improvements, demonstrating the
importance of finding the right policies and conditions to make
progress. Maternal health is closely related to other key development
factors including poverty, infant mortality, population growth
and the status of women.
25. We have heard oral evidence from a wide range
of NGOs and other witnesses in the course of the inquiry. We timed
our first evidence session to coincide with a major international
conference on maternal health in London in October and were fortunate
to be able to use this opportunity to hear evidence from leading
UN officials, including the Executive Director of the UN Population
Fund, Thoraya Ahmed Obaid. Our evidence-taking concluded in December
with Baroness Vadera, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State
for International Development.
26. This year we also combined our work on HIV/AIDS
with our inquiry into maternal health. HIV and maternal health
are closely linked: HIV positive women are four times more likely
to die in pregnancy or childbirth than women without HIV; HIV
positive women face higher risk from infectious diseases including
TB and malaria; less than 10% of pregnant women with HIV are estimated
to be receiving anti-retroviral therapy; and in 2005 more than
half a million children were newly infected with HIV, mainly through
mother-to-child transmission. Integrating responses to maternal
health and HIV is therefore crucial but at the moment funding
and policy strategies for the two issues are often entirely separate.
27. We expect to report early in 2008. Without prejudging
the recommendations we will make, it is already clear to us that
there has been a failure of international advocacy and political
will regarding maternal health. We believe DFID will need to continue
to play a leading global role—despite its headcount restrictions—in
pushing this neglected Millennium Development Goal far higher
up the global agenda.
12 First Report, Session 2006-07, DFID Departmental
Report 2006, HC 71, paragraphs 35-47 Back
13
Written Ministerial Statement, HC Deb 5 March 2007, col 117WS Back
14
See Eleventh Special Report of Session 2006-07, DFID Assistance
to Burmese IDPs and Refugees on the Thai-Border Border: Responses
to the Committee's Tenth Report of Session 2006-07, HC 1070,
pp 10-11, Government response to recommendations 8, 11, 24 and
32. Back
15
HC 1070 (Session 2006-07), pp 2-3, Government response to recommendations
5 and 7 Back
16
"UK will double aid to fight poverty in Burma", DFID
Press Release, 30 October 2007 Back
17
HC Deb 6 December 2007, cols 321-352WH Back
