Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-98)
MR DAVID
MEPHAM, MR
MATTHEW FOSTER
AND MS
JULIE THOMAS
21 MAY 2008
Q80 Chairman: It was not taken out
of context.
Mr Mepham: No, no. I apologise.
I did not appreciate where it was quoted from. I am sorry.
Q81 Mr Singh: In terms of Save the
Children and yourself, how do you engage and try to ensure that
the most marginalised people receive basic healthcare? Do you
engage with DFID on that? Do you work with the Chinese health
system on that, or do you have your own delivery systems?
Mr Mepham: Save the Children's
approach has been very much, in all the programmes we do around
the world, to focus on the 10% poorest, most vulnerable, hardest
to reach communities. That is very much part of the way in which
we do programming and we bring that expertise from the 50 countries
in which we work, and we also have 50 years plus experience of
working in China on these issues. The point was made in the last
session about it not being a question purely of supply but also
about how do you empower poor people to actually try to access
the services they need, and I think the demand side is often a
neglected part of this debate. It is about looking at the factors
that will prevent poor women, poor children from trekking the
four or five miles that it might be to access, to get to the health
centre, how you address issues about the cost of drugs, and so
on. That requires a kind of series of tailored interventions,
which may be about cash transfers in some circumstances but it
also involves some cultural factors about sharing educational
information and knowledge and communicating with people about
what is available and how they might access those services. I
think NGOs in particular have got an innovative role to play in
that regard.
Mr Foster: We do not actually
work in the health sector, but we do work with health services
as part of our HIV and AIDS response. I think in China the HIV
and AIDS pandemic is targeted on particular groups and in particular
geographical locations, so it is quite easy for us to say where
to reach the most vulnerable people. One other point which I think
is valid for whichever sector you are working in is that there
is a real need to stimulate and support the emergence of grassroots
NGOs in China. I think they have a really difficult time getting
established, raising funds, getting support from international
NGOs, and I think there is a real role for international NGOs
and DFID to play there in actually helping establish or support
the establishment of more grassroots NGOs who are targeting the
most vulnerable people in China.
Q82 Mr Singh: I am glad you mentioned
your role in HIV and AIDS because DFID has committed quite a lot
of money to that programme in conjunction with the Global Fund.
How is that money being spent? What is actually being done?
Mr Foster: I have got a huge array
of statistics about the range of services which have been established.
Q83 Mr Singh: Because HIV and AIDS
is on the rise now, is it not?
Mr Foster: Yes, and it has moved—the
main transmission was previously from IDUs[14]
and now it is moving to the heterosexual transmission, so it is
quite a high risk situation. The total numbers, I think, are 700,000
people affected with HIV and AIDS, but actually it could go up
dramatically when you look at the absolute numbers of people in
China. So it is really important that we keep focused on HIV and
AIDS in the next five to 10 years, I think.
Q84 Mr Singh: So what is the approach
of the Global Fund then and of DFID and maybe yourselves, and
secondly in the context of that, how does the Chinese Government
see this issue? Do they admit it?
Mr Foster: Yes. The last five
years have seen a massive change in their attitudes towards HIV
and AIDS. If you go to Beijing Airport, when you arrive there
are lots of awareness campaigns straightaway, straight in front
of you. It is dramatic, the difference in the last five years.
The policies are good. The problem in such a huge country is the
implementation. So if you go not to the provincial level capital
but the prefecture or country level capital, that is the challenge,
it is trying to actually implement the policy when you are so
far removed from Beijing. But the actual response of central government
has been very positive, I think.
Q85 Mr Singh: In terms of the funding
from government, is that being spent on preventative messages,
or on drugs, or clinics?
Mr Foster: It is being mainly
spent, it is my understanding, on services, but there have been
some awareness campaigns. I think that is the area they need to
focus on more, because the stigma is still massive.
Chairman: We actually looked at
a DFID project in Hanoi, which was quite an interesting comparator,
where DFID had effectively persuaded the Vietnamese Government
to let them engage in a private scheme with both drug users and
the sex trade, and the government has been very reluctant to recognise
the problems in those areas or engage in them. It actually took
the programme up subsequently and expanded it, so I suppose that
is the kind of example of how you pilot something with the consent
of the government and then if you are successful in persuading
them of the effectiveness they can then run the programme, which
they might not have wished to start themselves. So that is a good
example, I think.
Q86 Mr Crabb: Can I direct this question
to Mr Foster? The submission we received from VSO spoke positively
about DFID's educational programmes in China, but I think in your
submission you express concern about what happens when funding
dries up basically. You said that DFID's exit strategy should
include the provision of continuous support for the practical
professional development of local partners and service providers.
So what specific measures do you want to see being put in place
now to ensure that the benefits of the programme can be sustained
after the bilateral funding partnership comes to an end after
2011?
Mr Foster: From our perspective
the first basic educational programme which DFID supported in
China, which I think was in Gansu, had great gains because it
really involved local NGOs, grassroots NGOs. The second phase,
which did not have the same level of involvement, I do not think
has been as successful. So I think there is something to learn
from the first project about really making sure there is encouragement
from local grassroots NGOs in China to actually support, spreading
the gains in basic education. That is one thing. I think there
is a real need to establish continued professional development
for teachers. It is not really established yet systematically
across the country. So I think there is a need perhaps for contracting
out to local NGOs again, people who can provide those services
which the government cannot. I think there is also a need to try
and align some of the school management practices with some of
the changes in the education system. For example, there is now
a child centred approach to teaching and learning. The assessment
and examination system is not necessarily aligned to that and
does not support teachers to use the new skills they have got
in the classroom.
Q87 Mr Crabb: How alive are DFID
officials to these concerns you have got about continuous support,
and to what extent are they starting to address, for example,
some of the measures you have just identified there?
Mr Foster: I think they are very
aware of those issues. I am not sure to what extent they are actually
addressing them. Now they are working in the second phase of their
education programmes with the government, much more closely with
the government, so I think it is a case of them lobbying the Chinese
Government to try and address some of these issues.
Q88 Ann McKechin: This is a question
to David. The massive rural urban migration that is going on at
the moment in China presents a whole myriad of different and complex
problems, so to what extent do you think development agencies
working in China can best address those types of problems and
provide appropriate advice?
Mr Mepham: That is an issue that
Save the Children is working on in cooperation with a number of
provinces. One particular issue, which actually applies across
the services, is this residency permit concept, that actually
often to access a service you need proof that you are living in
a particular place. If you have, as you have just described, a
process in which very, very large numbers of people are moving,
particularly from rural to urban areas, then often it is very
difficult for people to get the residency permits they require
then to access the services. That is something we are raising
through policy dialogue at a number of levels to try and encourage
the Chinese authorities to address that issue. They are very much
up for addressing it and they identify it very much as a problem
themselves, but there has been often a time lag between formal
policy statements which are made in capitals and then trying to
roll that out at a provincial level. But it is a particular problem
in both health and education.
Q89 Ann McKechin: To what extent
do you think DFID in its engagement is trying to influence this
type of issue?
Mr Mepham: It is certainly an
issue which DFID has talked about and I think it is a good example,
as we have been saying for the last hour and a half, talking about
the policy dialogue as opposed to large scale resource transfer.
I think it is a good issue which DFID can raise as a respected
interlocutor as an issue requiring the attention and concern on
the part of the Chinese authorities. It does not require money
really, it requires a discussion and a debate—apart from
very modest amounts of money—about what kind of legal framework
you need to address this problem, how best it might be done and
what we can learn from the parts of China where it has worked
successfully. So that seems to me a good example of sharing ideas
and experience to address a policy question where there is currently
a bit of a gap.
Q90 Chairman: Just a group of questions
relating to climate change and then sustainable development. First
of all on actually adapting to climate change, China is a sort
of subcontinent. It has a huge variety of climates, terrains,
and so forth, and therefore is very vulnerable to the impacts
of climate change. Do you think they are really taken seriously
enough the potential for all types of different disasters or severe
events and actually trying to deal with them?
Ms Thomas: If I can mainly talk
about the work we are doing in the Yangtze, which is looking to
reconnect wetlands with the Yangtze basin and look at how best
you can manage climate changes within that. We are very much working
with the planning authorities to think about future plans in terms
of what will be the climate change impact on that area, how towns
and cities are developed within that, but we are also looking
to reconnect those wetlands and bring them back into productive
use, thinking about issues of food security and access to clean
water, and how you start to manage those systems where you are
in a situation where you do have climate variability.
Q91 Chairman: But are they up for
it?
Ms Thomas: At the moment they
are committing a billion dollars to that programme. They have
strong environmental commitments. As is the case with every sector
we have heard about, there are challenges in implementing that,
but in terms of the way in which they are thinking about the environment
and the policies they are putting in place, then I would say very
positive.
Q92 Chairman: Because obviously you
have got to deal with that as well as emissions and the creation
of climate change effects. I happen to be a Vice-Chairman of Globe
UK and Globe International and there is an exchange with Senator
McCain in which a Canadian MP asked him when he was going to talk
to his friend Mr Bush about the need to acknowledge that Americans
might have to reduce consumption and countries like China need
a bit more space to accommodate it, to which he replied, "I
don't think America should reduce its consumption by one ounce
unless China does the same." The point that then arises is
that a lot of China's output is based on making things that we
are buying, so there is a certain hypocrisy in saying that we
do not recognise that China's emissions are anything to do with
us and leaving aside also the relative impact. Let us leave the
Americans to one side. We calculate that 5% of China's emissions
are caused by making things that we in Europe buy, so how can
you build that into the relationship and the accommodation that
we allow China?
Ms Thomas: I think it is important
that this starts to, as you say, be recognised. Too often the
consumption patterns are not there and it is not just in terms
of CO2 emissions. If we think of other areas in terms of energy,
I think 30% of China's energy goes into export and also in the
forest sector 70% of the timber coming into China is then re-exported—
Q93 Chairman: That is my next question.
Ms Thomas: —to European
and US markets. So I think it is important to actually get that
first of all politically recognised, that Europe does have a role
to play within this, and then to explore ways in which that can
be addressed. I think it is positive that the Prime Minister has
given £50 million to tackle climate change within China and
that is specifically looking at technology to boost things like
energy efficiency, clean coal technology and carbon capture systems,
so recognising that role that we are playing in terms of CO2 emissions.
Q94 Chairman: In a post-Kyoto settlement
do you think that kind of thing should be built into the formula?
One argument, which I think was made at an IPU conference, which
I think Miss McKechin was also at, was that where you could identify
that emissions in one country were really caused by other investments
by or purchases from another country then those emissions should
be credited to the country that was causing them rather than where
they were actually taking place.
Ms Thomas: I think this is an
area to explore, but I think much more needs to be done in terms
of the research into that and understanding what would be the
mechanisms for looking at attribution, so maybe as an initial
start of dialogue is that kind of recognition that there is a
role and looking at the ways in which the UK is already engaging
with China on that, looking at helping them to move to technologies
which are less energy intensive, supporting them on initiatives
like the low carbon cities and sharing a technical exchange there,
because I think it is a technically complex area to start to bring
into those kinds of agreements.
Q95 Chairman: I think that is a fair
comment, that they should be acknowledged. You mentioned timber
and this morning we were discussing the relationships with Africa,
and so on, and there is concern that China is engaging in purchasing
all kinds of raw materials and fuels, and so forth, from Africa
on terms which do not seem to acknowledge the issues of sustainability
that we are trying to establish. The discussion this morning was
the question of to what extent we are entitled to expect China
to behave in a similar way and whether that is reasonable or unreasonable.
On that particular point, what do you think could be done reasonably
to persuade the Chinese to apply sustainability criteria to their
purchases of timber, because there is not much point in the UK
Government putting £50 million or whatever it is into the
Congo Basin to try and secure sustainability if China simply comes
in and cuts straight through it and says, "We will buy it
with no questions asked"?
Ms Thomas: I think there is movement
within China at the moment. They now have an outward investment
strategy for plantation forestry and the timber trade, which has
brought in sustainability principles within it and they are looking
at how they begin to implement that and WWF is supporting them
in that and looking at doing it in case studies in countries in
which they are working so that we can also start to feed an African
perspective into those standards as they are implemented. Also,
the Ministry of Finance and Commerce has seen that as an area
of concern and they have commissioned studies looking at China's
role in the global timber trade, and again specifically looking
at forestry, the sustainability practices they should be putting
in place. We have also supported dialogue between the state forestry
administration and the Tanzanian Government with regard to the
illegal timber trade and looking at how some of the Chinese aid
to Tanzania could be redirected to support sustainable practices.
We have just had a study this week of Chinese academics from the
Ministry of Finance and Commerce (MoFCoM) to better understand
the issue and to feed back recommendations from Africa. That is
a joint study between a Chinese institution and a Tanzanian research
institution.
Q96 Chairman: The recommendation
this morning was that the best way to achieve it was through Africa
determining its criteria. If you agree with that issue—I
think you have— presumably it means DFID and the international
community have actually got to work with African governments to
advise them on how to do it, rather than to tell them what to
do or impose the criteria. Would you agree with that?
Ms Thomas: We would definitely
agree with that. There needs to be more support not just for Chinese
investment coming in but investment overall into the natural resource
sector in Africa to support the development of strategic plans
within that sector so that Africa can make the most of that opportunity.
Currently, particularly within DFID, that is an area which is
not receiving great attention or funding, particularly within
their programmatic work in East Africa.
Q97 Chairman: My final question to
you all, which is actually triggered by Stephen Crabb's question
to you about how much funding you get or do not get from DFID.
If you turn the question the other way round, if DFID was to leave
China, in other words if we close the office and move away and
say, "It's a middle income country," would it make any
difference to your activities, any of you?
Mr Mepham: We would continue in
China. As I say, we spend about £3.5 million a year. Actually,
one of our biggest donors is Ikea, the Swedish furniture chain,
slightly bizarrely, but also the European Commission is a big
funder of ours and we would have certainly the intention of continuing
to have a significant presence in a range of parts of China.
Q98 Chairman: I did not actually
mean just in terms of funding.
Mr Mepham: No, regardless of what
DFID decides to do, we plan to stay.
Ms Thomas: Similarly on the funding
side. Obviously we have been developing a more strategic relationship
with the China office, so we would miss that opportunity there
for the engagement on the international development agenda.
Mr Foster: I agree. We will stay
in China in the long term, but we would miss out on the opportunity
to engage more with DFID and the leverage they have got at central
government level.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
That was an extremely helpful exchange.
14 Intravenous drug users Back
| 
