Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-179)
MR MICHAEL
FOSTER MP, MR
ADRIAN DAVIS,
AND MR
SCOTT WIGHTMAN
22 JANUARY 2009
Q160 Mr Hendrick: To follow up on that,
has the earthquake affected your assessment of when or whether
to withdraw bilateral aid to China, especially given that climate
change is likely to increase the incidence of extreme weather
which could, and probably will, cause natural disasters? Interestingly,
China is seeing the effects of climate change now. Whilst we talk
about the effects of climate change as possible events in the
future, China sees them on a day-to-day basis in terms of crop
harvests and extreme weather. How do you feel about DFID's presence
in China given the development on climate change?
Mr Foster: In terms of the earthquake,
which is taken separately to climate change, on its own, I do
not think the response to the earthquake will necessarily change
our view on what type of future programme DFID might have. On
climate change, it might be different and if you were asking me
as an individual now, what would I do in your shoes in terms of
looking at the evidence and looking at the type of relationship,
climate change would probably be the number one issue I would
home down on and consider whether we should be having a development
programme of sorts with China. The way the world is working, climate
change is increasingly going to be an issue. The impact is being
felt in China already, as it is with many other countries, where
the development goals that we have set could be adversely affected,
disproportionately to the impact it has on the overall population,
because the poorest people are going to suffer the most and the
hardest from changing climate. That has always been our feeling.
Climate has a role to play in terms of our work on climate change;
we have already had programmes that have been developed in Ningxia.
Of course, we are already committed to a bigger study with DEFRA
DEC and DFID contributions.
Q161 Mr Hendrick: Could I ask you
to follow up on the point I made about the withdrawal of bilateral
aid.
Mr Foster: If I were looking at
it in your position, the difficulty we have is probably one of
terminology as much as anything else. The term "aid"
tends to conjure up an image where future relationships with China
might want to graduate towards more of a partnership approach
as opposed to being a recipient of aid. So, rather than a donor/aid/recipient
relationship, if there is to be a future relationship, it will
be more of a development partner.
Q162 John Battle: On partnership,
and it is a suggestion rather than a question, as we are all well
aware in this Committee and you are as a Minister in the Department,
it is about much more than giving money or organising programmes,
whether through budget support or direct projects, DFID is also
about experimental, really innovative, really advanced 21st century
methodology. I mention that because one of the most exciting things
of my whole visit to China—and I have been a few times before,
including as a minister in the Foreign Office—was a primary
school that we visited in Yongtai, the Yongtai Centre School.
Why is that important? Because I saw methods of participatory
teaching there that I have not seen anywhere in the world, that
were so advanced that I want to bring them back to my neighbourhood
in inner city Leeds to lift the education levels of the people
that I represent, and I want Ed Balls to take it up in the Department
of Education. What I am suggesting is that while we are looking
at things as bilateral programmes, if we take an overview of the
programme and certainly if we just look at it as money, but even
if we just look at it as a programme, we may miss out on some
of the far-sighted, experimental work where DFID, in that partnership,
is leading the new thinking of development that will be development
not just in China but also development in our neighbourhoods.
At last we are starting to link north and south together and see
that development might be a common project. I am desperate not
to lose sight of that. It was not just that one school. We met
two heads, both of whom were spectacular and could stand high
in my neighbourhood tomorrow. So, as for the notion that they
are behind us, I think it is the other way around. I am putting
in a plea, rather than a question to say, can we make sure that
when we think out our relationships and partnerships that we do
not lose the absolute best bit.
Mr Foster: I am sure you are not
going to let this lie when it comes to writing up the report that
you are currently considering. I share with you my admiration
for the enthusiasm of certain projects that I saw over there.
I did not see schools, as they were on school holidays at the
time, but I went to see the International Labour Organization
project, where starting your own business and improving your own
business schemes are being run, which DFID are funding. I raise
that because I used to teach accounting and went to look at a
class about cash flows and business plans, which was something
I would have taught before I became a Member of Parliament. It
was not just their ability to grapple with a cash book and cash
forecasts, there was a real enthusiasm that they were not just
going to use this learning for their own sake, they were absolutely
determined that they were going to set up their businesses and
improve their businesses. There was a real enthusiasm there which
I picked up on and from what you said, you picked up in the schools.
On the impact that DFID has on schooling, David Dollar, the World
Bank Country Director, had a fantastic quote. He said that when
he goes around schools, he can recognise a DFID-influenced school
straight way, merely because of the layout of the room, no longer
in formal rows as we would have seen perhaps in Victorian times,
but really encouraging a participative approach to learning. On
the issue of future programmes and north-south, south-north learning,
people are talking about whether the department should bring out
a new White Paper and challenge things in the future, if we were
going to do that then global links will be an absolutely essential
key to that because we need to take the issue of development that
step further forward.
Q163 Hugh Bayley: Can I push that
last exchange a little bit further? Like John, I was very interested
to see the child-centred learning and impressed also to see that
it was rippling up through the policy chain. It was being spread
province-wide with hopes that it might be spread further. That
is really important from a development point of view; you run
a pilot study and it ripples through the system; it succeeds.
To what extent do you think it would be possible for Britain to
influence Chinese education and health policy after 2011 if we
no longer have health and education programmes in China? How will
you do it without the aid relationship?
Mr Foster: That is a good question.
In my earlier response to Mr Battle, I forgot to deal with the
issue of cutting-edge policy development that he mentioned. I
will put the two together, because that is where they could have
a future relationship—a post-2011 development programme,
a partnership programme, but geared towards action research so
that pilots may be tested. If they work, they can be rolled out
not only in China but because China is increasingly a major player
elsewhere in the world, we could look to influence Chinese attitudes
and Chinese policy, say, in Africa, through a research programme
that they have seen running domestically in China, possibly seeing
whether it is successful in China and then move forward. We have
evidence of that happening already. I am sure that Adrian Davis
would be able to give you examples of pilots that we have run
alongside China which have then found themselves incorporated
into Chinese activity in Africa.
Q164 Hugh Bayley: Before you move
on to Africa, could I focus back on China, because I have much
less of a problem putting British taxpayers' aid money into partnerships
with China to deliver development in Africa because, clearly,
those are some of the poorest countries of the world. But in terms
of China policy, if we want to see the positive policy developments
which we saw on child-centred learning continuing after 2011,
but to use your own words, do not believe this should any longer
be an aid relationship, but perhaps a partnership relationship,
how might that be developed? Is it feasible that our expertise
would be paid for by the Ministry of Education because of the
excellence for which we are known? Or would it be possible for
us to change the relationship so that it is not a gift relationship
and provide loan finance to pay for our input, and then when China
has the dividends of the pilot study, repay the loan? Are either
of those feasible?
Mr Foster: On the loan issue,
it is possible for the Department to give loans as well as grants
subject, obviously, to the foundations laid down in the International
Development Act, about the necessity to look at tackling poverty,
which I am sure they would do, but that is a caveat that we have
to comply with. In terms of using DFID as consultants, I am not
sure whether that would be an appropriate route. There might be
some issues about other consultants who might want to sell their
wares to China in competition, and whether there is an advantage
built in to DFID staff just because they are known. Whether DFID
staff wanted to move out and offer themselves up as independent
consultants, I am sure that is possible. In terms of what other
routes there might be to developing the links along the lines
you are suggesting, we would have to be mindful that any decision
would be subject to the next round of the Comprehensive Spending
Review, if it were going to affect grant aid. We would have to
sit down and have a good discussion with the Chinese authorities
to see where they best view our work and where we can add most
value. I would also want to be mindful of what the Chinese had
to say, rather than us saying that we are really good in policy
area XYZ, you can have this, let us engage with the Chinese authorities
to see if we can agree on policy areas where they would value
our expertise; we have that expertise; then we can sell the concept
of a partnership continuing post-2011.
Q165 Hugh Bayley: We saw a couple
of very good examples of work in the field of HIV/Aids on methadone
replacement for drug addicts on a gay care voluntary organisation
providing services to their community. If in 2011, it still appears
that China is off track on its MDG target for HIV and Aids, would
the Department seek to continue to work in this field and if so,
how? If aid finance is not available, how would you do it?
Mr Foster: I also saw the programme.
It was quite remarkable and is clearly delivering results. Talking
to some of the recipients of the methadone, I got to know them
a little and heard why they had gone to the centre and the benefits
of the centre as far as the reduction in risk for HIV transmission,
which although HIV/Aids in China is at a relatively low level,
in certain groups it is markedly higher—the group that you
mentioned, commercial sex workers, gay men—those are the
three vulnerable groups that if we were going to look at a programme,
then we would focus on those areas where it is contributing to
a failure to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. In terms
of how it would be paid for, if it was going to be an aid programme,
that would be subject to any decision that we make in response
to your Committee's findings, but also subject to what the Comprehensive
Spending Review suggests. The programme itself and the piloting
of that particular programme has brought benefit in that the Chinese
authorities are rolling it out as a more national programme. That
is obviously going to be of huge benefit more broadly, rather
than just in the Chengdu area, where I saw the programme working.
Q166 Hugh Bayley: My colleagues and
I saw in China, some of the most effective DFID interventions
that we have seen anywhere in the world. But there is a nagging
thought in the back of my head that it is hardly surprising, because
China is not a developing country, it is a country with a massive
cadre of university-educated professionals. It has a lot of administrative
capacity, which Zambia and Mozambique do not have, and therefore
DFID is working in a climate where it is working with teams of
fellow professionals who can make the best use. How would you
reflect on that view that the very success of DFID's programme
in China is a reflection of China's development as much as DFID's
work?
Mr Foster: That is one of the
"unique" features that applies to China, but it gives
an advantage to China meeting the Millennium Development Goals.
They have this incredible capacity to learn from a project, take
evidence that clearly shows that a programme works and then replicate
it in huge volumes and, because of the size of the country and
the huge population base, the impact that we might have in an
influencing role in China providing evidence of a programme that
works, when rolled out across the country as a whole, it has the
potential to have an impact on the global Millennium Development
Goals because of the sheer size of China and its population.
Chairman: It is fair to say that
the debate that we are having is not about a further aid programme—I
do not think there is anyone on the Committee who sees a further
aid programme. It is a question of the dynamics of the relationship
and the role in partnership and being able to fund and pilot some
of those projects, to enable and facilitate them to happen. We
may have differences of opinion and we do not know how we are
going to reconcile those but nobody is suggesting that a continuation
of aid is what it is about. It is how you take the partnership
forward.
John Battle: Crucially, if we
picked up the notion of action research, that might be helpful.
Q167 Mr Hendrick: Minister, you referred
to China using the analogy of it being a Premier League team as
far as its impact globally but on a per capita basis looking like
something from the Conference. Have you or the Department thought
about looking at how China can in some ways mimic the development
of the European Union in that it has a regional policy, because
clearly there are huge disparities in terms of wealth and income
between the big cities and some of the fairly remote provinces,
particularly in the west? I am sure there is some excellent work
going on with your Department in terms of development in different
parts of China but, given the huge resources that are available,
when you have a situation where Chinese peasant farmers are currently
funding the Gucci watches bought in the United States by a country
that is over-consuming and under-producing, which seems a bizarre
situation, and at the same time we are providing aid to a country
that is financing the downfall of western capitalism. Have you
thought about looking at ways in which you can promote certain
forms of governance that may help development as well as the specific
programmes around health and education?
Mr Foster: I am conscious that
this is probably a question that should be geared towards what
China does itself in terms of how it governs itself. I am not
sure DFID is the body that should be putting forward recommendations
as to how they should deal with that. There are issues where we
have been able to help deliver benefits, through our piloting
work, to some of the rural areas that you describe as challenging,
particularly through water provision, where we have done some
very good work, as well as the creation, through our support,
of water associations, which have helped rural farmers not only
reduce the water usage, but also increase crop productivity at
the same time because of the very careful way that they have dealt
with the water management, and that has been rolled out to other
provinces. We are doing work there and it sells the concept of
the piloting approach—I absolutely accept that. I am not
sure whether we have got involved in overall governance in China.
We have helped in our work on participation in post-earthquake
reconstruction, so that people have got involved in what follows—how
they rebuild their communities. Whether that has any longer-term
impact in China has yet to be seen.
Q168 John Battle: If I were praising
DFID for being way out ahead through learning programmes and education,
I might be a bit critical of DFID in terms of its response rate
when it comes to water and sanitation. I say that because we did
a report in 2007 on Sanitation and Water, highlighting not just
DFID but right across the world; in terms of the MDGs, it is the
one that is well behind. In China, it is well behind; a quarter
of the population does not have access to safe water. Some of
the figures are lower than that: Zimbabwe, Zambia and even Malawi,
which is quite shocking. If we say that China is going to carry
us through the Millennium Development Goals, we have to do much
more in the water and sanitation fields. DFID has waited until
really late to get in on the game on water and sanitation, despite
the Chinese having talked about it for about 10 years. To be fair,
DFID has done good work on the ground—the community participation,
i.e., hygiene—there was nothing but praise for the detailed
work going on there; how they were changing the consciousness
of the people. But with that larger scale, water provision and
clean water provision, should DFID not be doing much more to say
that this is a neglected sector in China and unless we lift the
water and sanitation sector, the world has no chance of meeting
the World Development Goals in that topic?
Mr Foster: I am not going to disagree
with your concerns on this. Without doubt, globally, the MDGs
for water and sanitation are off track; quite frankly, they are
slipping—900 million people globally without access to safe
water and 2.5 billion without access to sanitation. I was mindful
of this Committee's previous report with its focus on sanitation
and water, as opposed to water and sanitation. I did not want
to get the ire of the Chairman, but yesterday I had a meeting
with WaterAid and Tearfund and we have agreed a new acronym—they
came up with it and I thought it was a really good one -that is,
WASH (water, sanitation, hygiene). To link the two together makes
rather a clever anacronym. So perhaps we can move on from the
argument of water/sanitation, sanitation/water and call it WASH
from now on.
Q169 John Battle: I preferred your
point about action research; can we include water and sanitation
in a new programme of action research so that DFID puts money
into an enhanced sanitation programme in China? What if I were
to suggest that to you, even in the face of the proposed ending
of the programme?
Mr Foster: I came away from my
visit with my private thoughts as to what I would do in your shoes.
Looking at the evidence and making an assessment of where the
future would be, one of the four things I would have put down
would be WASH. Where I also think there is scope for work to be
done with China as a partner is at a regional level, in terms
of broader water management because of the climate change impact,
as well as the access to safe water and it hits agriculture also,
so broader water management in the region also should be considered.
We should not underestimate the challenge that China has with
20% of the world's population, but only 7% having access to the
world's water.
Q170 Andrew Stunell: In terms of
China's role in the world, its impact for good and ill on climate
change is clearly going to be absolutely fundamental and therefore
fundamental to the long-term future of the United Kingdom and
our policy. Can you say what plans you are putting in place to
support development aspects of climate change post-2011, because
that would seem to be the thread which, above all else, ought
to carry on as being the UK's engagement with China?
Mr Foster: In terms of the four
issues that I rate, climate change is my No. 1. It is not only
where we can add value with the Chinese Government, it is where
they have a real vested interest that they need to tackle this
issue both in adaptation as well as in mitigation, because they
are a huge emitter of greenhouse gases. That is why they are so
important to engage in the issue of climate change. As for our
work that we can see running on from now post-2011, it is through
the sustainable development dialogue that we have with China—I
think I am right in saying that we are the only country that has
that relationship with China on adaptation climate change—there
is potential to continue it onwards as we seem to be a trusted
partner of the Chinese Government on this matter.
Q171 Andrew Stunell: I had a two-minute
flick through the report and, as the Chairman said, it does not
mention any Government department apart from the FCO. Do you see
the post-2011 development of that relationship being one which
is a DFID-based relationship, or do you see it as being a DECC
or a DEFRA-based relationship? How do you see the UK Government
engaging and taking that forward?
Mr Foster: Contrary to what you
may have read in the newspapers, DFID does not deliver a separate
foreign policy to the Government generally and as far as moving
forward on climate change, it would be a joint approach of Her
Majesty's Government. At the moment, DFID plays a lead role because
we have expertise on the ground and have had those pilots that
have run. For our initial pilot project, DEFRA was the biggest
funder of the project but we led because we had our expertise
and had that international relationship with China already in
place in Beijing.
Q172 Andrew Stunell: Do you see that
rolling forward or do you see that relationship changing?
Mr Foster: There is potential
for it to roll forward. That would have been my No. 1 area of
choice if I were in your shoes—to look at a post-2011 relationship.
Q173 Chairman: We have already explored
the nature of the relationship and the quality and benefit of
it now. Given that we have this relationship and we are seen to
be a lead, and the discussion we had with some of the multilateral
agencies, if the programme did come to an end in a financial sense,
and possibly qualitatively after 2011, is there any danger that
other donors might take that as a signal for them to take the
same view, which might lead to an accumulative compromising withdrawal
from China that could be counterproductive?
Mr Foster: I am not aware that
there is any evidence to suggest that other countries are looking
at their aid programmes, given what we announced some years ago
about ending our relationship in 2011. That does not mean that
they are not thinking of it, but clearly that might well be a
concern of the Chinese authorities. In the discussions I had with
other international donor bodies, they see a small aid programme—because
£32 million is a relatively small aid programme compared
to the size of the overall Chinese economy—as a way in to
a development partnership. The expression they use is "you
don't buy a seat at the table but you're seen to be working shoulder
to shoulder with the Chinese authorities". I think that works.
John Battle: It is traditional,
after a visit, to thank the department, the Foreign Office and
DFID for arranging the visit. Of all the visits, it was the best
arranged visit, so in terms of the programming and planning, it
was absolutely superb. It was encouraging and enlightening. DFID
is about brilliant expertise on the ground and is associated with
analysis and action. DFID is also known in China for having a
presence and respect at the centre, where the power lies. The
staff in China are the best staff that I have seen in DFID anywhere
in the world in their ability to do both ends of that job.
Chairman: On that point, a personal
one perhaps, I was particularly impressed with some of the Chinese
national staff who had that real ability to articulate the Chinese
point of view, whilst fully understanding the DFID approach and
philosophy.
Q174 John Battle: People have complained
about DFID not branding everything it does. The Norwegians are
there and have their label on a project or a tin hut. But, no,
DFID has managed to get its presence respected at such a high
level in China. What I worry about is that if we have the bracket
"action research"—and I am minded to go in that
direction—and we put in some things under that heading:
education, participatory learning, water, climate change—what
about leading the international development community in the relationship
with the leadership of China? That is a valuable thing and should
not be jeopardised. If we pull out, will the Japanese, the Norwegians,
the French and others pull out their aid money? It is something
to do with the way the nature of that conversation at the centre
is going on. How could you turn that into a heading for action
research as well?
Mr Foster: First of all, what
I will make sure Adrian Davis passes on your comments about the
DFID staff in the China office so that they can read what you
have said and, as DFID Minister, I am most grateful for that.
I absolutely agree, in terms of the quality of the Chinese staff.
You mentioned their ability to articulate the policies from a
Chinese perspective, as well as giving us an understanding in
the UK sense. Having spent some time with them, I can tell you
that they also have a UK sense of humour, with some of the teasing
that I had on my first visit to China. There is an important point
about DFID having a centre based in Beijing; that is where the
decisions are made by China itself, not just domestically, but
also internationally. If we were trying to influence, let us say,
Chinese policy in Africa or one of its near neighbours, being
based in Beijing gives us a real head start. It is something that
has to be looked at, not only in terms of what you are going to
do, but also our response.
Q175 Chairman: It may seem in retrospect
that setting a deadline for withdrawing was perhaps not the best
thing to do. Why was it done? Perhaps it is worth reflecting,
particularly on the discussions we had with the multilateral organisations—I
know Adrian Davis will acknowledge that it came as a bit of a
shock to him—particularly with David Dollar and Constance
Thomas of the ILO, who fundamentally said that you are doing a
fantastic job here; you have an enormous reach and influence with
a remarkably small amount of money; you could still reach it with
significantly less money, but we do not think you can do it with
no money, not because the Chinese need the money, but because
you need to be able to step up to the plate and say whether it
is child-centred learning—let us show you how to do it—or
health—let us show you how to do it—knowing full well
that for every pound you spend you will probably ultimately get
a hundred or a thousand from the Chinese authorities when they
then apply it across the piece. That is something, obviously,
on which we reflected. Would it not have been better and more
appropriate, going back to the middle income country strategy,
to say that in any case you do not set a deadline and say at that
point it all stops? What you say is that it changes, there is
a transition. Is that possibly what you are now acknowledging
and what is meant?
Mr Foster: That is probably one
of the learning experiences that I have picked up from looking
at China and its graduation from a low income to a middle income
country. China is not unique but it makes you think about the
process of dealing with a country moving to middle income status.
It has features that are common, but also has a huge population
base, which makes it a significant global player. Without doubt,
without trying to write your report for you, there should be something
along the lines of how the Department moves from support to bilateral
aid through graduation. I am sure we could look carefully at what
you recommend on that.
Chairman: The counter to all of
this is reassuring the taxpayer and politicians, too that we are
careful about what we are doing. That is one of the reasons, arguably,
that the programme, as it is at the moment, should come to an
end. People look at the Olympics; they look at the achievements
of the space programme and ask why we are giving aid. Is there
not a need for a clear explanation that this is not about that,
it is about helping to achieve the MDGs, of which China is the
biggest means of delivery, and helping to develop programmes that
will be applicable, not only in China to that direction, but can
be tested elsewhere, either in partnership with the Chinese or
just on the basis of what DFID has learnt. I got the impression
that there were things we saw in China that DFID officials may
apply in other countries, adapted suitably in partnership with
those countries. I am thinking, in particular, of the presentation
we had in Chengdu on rural poverty reduction strategy. It was
just so impressive; what they set out, what they identified, how
they executed and delivered it and said, as a result, they had
reduced poverty in this area. You might well say on the basis
of that, could we do this somewhere else? Can we help you give
that reassurance that the taxpayers' interests are being protected,
this is not about putting money where it should not be going but
giving good value for the taxpayer.
Q176 John Battle: Just as a supplementary,
which, in a sense is in retrospect, our Government did well to
make a party political point, quite deliberately moving from annual
budgeting to three-year budgeting at the Comprehensive Spending
Review. The Chinese got a much longer time-frame. It may have
been that instead of 2011, we should have targeted 2015, including
for the middle income development strategy—because that
is when the MDGs line up—and then ask who has met the MDGs?
If China is well behind on some MDGs—and it will be—then
that 2015 internationally should have been a marker. What worries
me is that our strategy as a Government—not all governments,
but in Britain, in particular, as we do sub-annual budgets—is
to have pilot projects and then snuff them out before the oven
has caught alight. We could be moving away from things in 2011,
which if we kept going to 2015, might spark up much more in terms
of those MDGs. That is a retrospective comment as to why that
date was fixed then. We know why, because of the brackets of the
Comprehensive Spending Review, but on this one we need to think
longer term and that would give us some space to talk about the
transition to a new kind of relationship.
Mr Foster: In terms of the decision
on why 2011 was set, I would ask you to reflect that this decision
was made in 2006—so, five years' notice was being given.
I think it is right and proper that we give notice of graduations
like that, so that people have time to adjust and if they wanted
to, could come in and carry on with the programmes. In terms of
the point that you made, Chairman, about the future, where DFID
needs to focus more would be on the higher end of development
policy, rather than direct provision. That could easily facilitate
a sizeable reduction in future spending commitments for any programme
that we might want to reflect on that we have with China. There
is a communications issue that we have to deal with. There is,
not in here, but outside, some party political kickback going
on about relationships with China. I said before, the use of the
term "aid" can sometimes give a misleading impression
because of the space programme, the Olympics, and why this country
needs aid. We can have a very sensible discussion about a development
partnership at a substantially lower financial cost to the taxpayer,
bringing benefits not just for China, but we can enhance UK learning—from
what Mr Battle said, he was quite keen on that. There is also
scope to roll out any research findings across other parts of
the developing world.
Q177 Chairman: On that point, are
you involved in discussions with other departments as to the extent
to which DFID can help co-ordinate that? I am thinking particularly
of education and health, but where the development dimension—put
it at its crudest, for example, we heard of the conflict during
a DFID approach on health and the Department of Health. The Department
of Health was saying, how do we get China to buy our pharmaceuticals,
as opposed to, how do we actually help China have a functioning
health service which will enable it to be a much better developed
economy and player in the world? I am not saying the two things
are mutually exclusive, but are you engaged in those kinds of
discussions with other departments as to how DFID could represent
their interests?
Mr Foster: The short answer is
yes.
Q178 Andrew Stunell: Turning to the
international role of China in development. They are clearly becoming
big players; perhaps we might say they are somewhat clumsy players.
There is clearly a role here for DFID to provide "subtle
training" or "indoctrination", or something similar.
Can you say whether, if we terminate the programme in 2011, the
work that is being done on that aspect of getting China's international
development programme to be more engaged with the real problems
in the countries that it is helping, will that process be slowed
down? How would you see that developing?
Mr Foster: To be honest, I would
simply say that there would be a risk that UK-DFID influence would
diminish if we were no longer there with the programme and China
is going to continue with its international investment and the
programme in Africa and its near neighbours. That is going to
continue, and if we are not there, yes, Mr Stunell, there is going
to be a risk that we do not have that influence over good development
practice.
Q179 Andrew Stunell: Could you tell
the Committee if you can see any practical impact in Africa as
a consequence of what you have done so far in China?
Mr Foster: Adrian Davis might
be able to give you a few more details about specific programmes
that have been piloted in China, which have worked and then gone
on into use in Africa. At a broad level, with HIV/Aids work, we
have seen evidence in Africa of good DFID practice being seen
in China and then China working it through. It is the same for
health generally; certainly in Education, and in terms of climate
change, water management in the broadest sense; again, there is
some evidence of DFID's involvement in China then being reflected
in Chinese work and policy in Africa.
Mr Davis: There is great interest
now with our Chinese partners for us to work and help them in
work they are doing in Africa. As the Minister said, particularly
on health, you recognised that we were asked to help them with
development of a health strategy in Africa. At the summit next
week, we will be announcing our work on sustainable timber with
WWF in East Africa, which is backed up by the State Forestry Administration
in China. We are also announcing a second phase of support to
the China-Africa Business Council and there is work ongoing in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where we have been doing
work on environmental assessments for the big Chinese road package;
there have been close relationships developed there. Now, whenever
we are looking at programmes and projects with China, one of the
explicit criteria is that we want to see what the international
implications are for other developing countries, so that the new
climate change adaptation project has specifically, as one of
its outputs, that lessons learnt should be disseminated to other
developing countries.
|
