Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-51)
MR JIM
DRUMMOND, MS
LINDY CAMERON
AND MR
PETER HOLLAND
23 OCTOBER 2007
Q40 Richard Burden: Ms Cameron, you
spoke about the US and the ARTF. Did you say that the US put money
into that?
Ms Cameron: It is a contributor.
We do not have the number to hand but we can provide it.[16]
Q41 Chairman: In passing, we note that
President Karzai is in town today. I know that he is meeting some
parliamentarians, but he is not going to meet any members of the
Select Committee. Are these questions that can usefully be explored
with him either here or in Afghanistan? We are to meet a number
of Afghan Ministers who are directly responsible.
Mr Drummond: Yes.
Chairman: It is a slightly tangential
point. This Committee is very focused on the development of Afghanistan,
as is the President, so perhaps some exchange may be desirable.
We have not discussed in detail the longer-term strategy to deal
with poppies, livelihood development and so forth which is clearly
very important for the longer-term establishment of a functioning
economy, particularly in rural areas. I ask Ann McKechin to ask
questions.
Q42 Ann McKechin: Mr Holland, can
you indicate how the alternative livelihoods approach which is
promoted by DFID seeks to address the structural and institutional
causes of poppy cultivation in Afghanistan?
Mr Holland: Perhaps I may set
some of the context and then ask my colleagues to pick up the
specific "livelihoods" question. The Afghan Government
has a National Drug Control Strategy which is based on that which
was successful in Pakistan and Thailand. Essentially, it recognises
that there will not be one approach to tackling poppy cultivation.
That strategy has eight pillars which I will not discuss but can
be given to the Committee.[17]
Essentially, they cover the law enforcement and justice side;
livelihoods; the institutional development that is needed to build
Afghan capacity; and the eradication of poppies targeted on those
areas where farmers have the option to have alternative livelihoods.
The deliberate aim of the strategy is that it should be a balanced,
targeted approach.
Q43 Ann McKechin: In a recent article
on alternative livelihoods David Mansfield criticised the programme
as being a mismatch between the geographical focus of the NSP
programme and the location of the areas of highest poppy cultivation.
He suggested that the programme appeared to be based more on where
there was a possibility of greater alternative production rather
than on where the greatest problem existed.
Ms Cameron: The National Solidarity
Programme is not only intended to address poppy cultivation; it
is a key vehicle for the Afghan Government to extend its reach
to the people of Afghanistan and to become visible to them and
it is a source of funding for community level development projects
not just in poppy growing areas but across Afghanistan as a whole.
It has been incredibly successful. More than 17,000 communities
have been reached; more than 30,000 projects have been undertaken.
It has been the most visible sign of the Afghan Government to
most communities in Afghanistan. A number of the rural livelihood
programmes that we support are intended not only to tackle poppy
production but also to ensure that incomes in rural areas of Afghanistan
rise in general, because clearly Afghanistan is an overwhelmingly
poor rural society. The approach to legal livelihoods is really
about replicating the kind of opportunities that the drug trade
offers, that is, improving access to markets, security and credit
and ensuring that farmers have better technology, seeds and inputs.
Basically, it is a matter of making sure that farmers have all
the things they need to do something else and raise their incomes.
On average, farmers in Afghanistan do 17 different things in a
year as part of their income; it is not a choice between all poppy
and all something else.
Q44 Ann McKechin: There is a mixture
of alternatives?
Ms Cameron: Yes. For example,
DFID's Research into Alternative Livelihoods Programme is investigating
mint and saffron as high value alternatives to poppy and trying
to look at ways that those can become alternatives. The horticulture
programme is looking at horticulture more broadly as an option.
That requires looking at orchards which are quite long-term investments.
We put £20 million into a credit programme because credit
is a key constraint. Essentially, what we are looking at are binding
constraints that prevent people from having a real choice. Those
are quite similar to the kinds of constraints that poor farmers
face in Afghanistan generally.
Q45 Ann McKechin: There are multiple
schemes. Is there a uniform system by which they are monitored
so we can review the most effective interventions?
Ms Cameron: That is a really challenging
issue and is something that we are trying to work on with the
Ministry of Counter Narcotics. One of the key challenges that
we would like the Government to tackle more effectively is to
review the kinds of things that ministries—agriculture,
rural development and the other rural departments—across
the board are doing to make a better assessment of what can have
an impact on poppy cultivation specifically. As David Mansfield
highlights in his article, trying to make sure that the rural
development programmes are as focused as they possibly can be
to make maximum impact on poppy cultivation is a key challenge.
We are now at a stage where we have enough results and can begin
to do that, but for a while and until some of these programmes
had been implemented it was hard to see how the target could be
achieved.
Q46 Ann McKechin: Realistically,
they are more likely to work in the north of the country than
the more insecure areas in the south such as Helmand?
Ms Cameron: Given that security
is a key constraint for farmers in terms of what, how and when
they can get their produce to market, almost any rural development
programme is easier and cheaper to implement in more secure areas.
Q47 Ann McKechin: Is that where the
donor priority would be?
Mr Drummond: Poppy is a high value
and low volume crop which tends to be collected from farms rather
than farmers having to take the stuff to market. Therefore, in
insecure areas it is an easier crop to grow.
Q48 Ann McKechin: Can we anticipate
that poppy cultivation in the south of Afghanistan will continue
to be at very high levels for the short term at least?
Mr Holland: It is very hard to
predict what the levels will be because they fluctuate pretty
dramatically year on year depending on local economic circumstances
as well, but now the trend is that poppy cultivation decreases
in those areas that have better security and stability and the
converse is true in areas which are more insecure. I believe that
that trend will continue. One will see more provinces which have
low poppy cultivation or are poppy free, but cultivation will
be concentrated in those provinces where it is now high. Whether
it will be as high next year is difficult to say. There is some
evidence that prices at the farm gate are dropping which may persuade
farmers not to cultivate as much next year.
Q49 Chairman: To raise a broader
topic, the Government has announced the scaling down of our troop
involvement in Iraq. Leaving aside the question whether we are
moving towards exit or minimal retention and increasing the troop
levels in Afghanistan to provide for security, from your point
of view as a development agency what would be your message to
the British people about the need for more troops on the ground
to create space for development and to start making a material
impact to demonstrate that what is happening in Afghanistan, albeit
a long haul, is achievable and measurable in this situation? Is
not the danger that people may start to say that we are pulling
out of Iraq? You well know that there is a campaign that maybe
we should pull out of Afghanistan. The first question is: could
you cope with development in Afghanistan with fewer troops? Second,
if the argument is about maintaining or increasing troop involvement,
can you give people confidence that that will create space for
significant development opportunities in Afghanistan?
Mr Drummond: You are beginning
to take me into areas where Ministers would probably want to comment.
Q50 Chairman: It has just been pointed
out to me that Des Browne is giving evidence to the Defence Committee
on exactly this issue now. I am asking you as the Department for
International Development what can be achieved and what the security
situation and troop level must be to create that space. I do not
ask for specific numbers but can you respond in general terms?
Mr Drummond: What we have seen
in Afghanistan is in many ways quite remarkable progress on the
development numbers in the past five years considering where we
started from. Despite our best efforts, I do not think that is
tremendously well publicised in the UK because the press tends
to concentrate on other things. The Taliban problem in the south
is obviously serious. It is localised and it has been contained,
and at a tactical level we are making good progress. Clearly,
if it spread that would have a major impact on development in
Afghanistan overall and so it is extremely important that our
forces do what they are doing. They are doing a tremendous job.
I do not think I can comment on whether or not it is sensible
to have fewer or more forces helping to do this because it is
not really my area of expertise, but there is a tremendous opportunity
in Afghanistan to make progress on development even though it
will be a 20 to 30-year haul. People need to recognise that there
are few quick fixes to development in Afghanistan, just as there
are few quick fixes to the narcotics problems that we have been
talking about.
Q51 Chairman: How do you respond
to the argument that has been put to us by some people that the
potential for development is greater in the centre and north of
the country and perhaps more resources should be put in there
because you get results that (a) may improve the absolute performance
of the economy and (b) even encourage those in the south to believe
that if they can get the security right there is something for
them to share?
Mr Drummond: Clearly, the problem
in the south needs to be addressed through a mixture of security,
development and politics, and we know that from the OECD guidelines
on working in fragile states. Obviously, that is what people are
trying to do. If we neglect the south then it will become a bigger
problem for the whole of Afghanistan. I do not believe we can
neglect it. As we have been trying to do, we need to find ways
to get development assistance in there even though it is more
difficult to do it in some areas of the south because of insecurity
than in the north.
Chairman: Thank you for your evidence
this morning. We look forward to finding out more for ourselves
and hope to make an evaluation of how things are proceeding. In
that process we shall be seeing more of you.
16 Ev 60-61 Back
17
Ev 60-61 Back
| 
