4 Inquiries into departmental actions
DFID and China
23. Our inquiry into DFID's support to China
began in the last parliamentary Session. Our visit to China initially
planned for June 2008 had to be postponed to December following
the devastating earthquake that hit Sichuan in May of that year.
Our itinerary included some of the poor western provinces of the
country. We were very impressed with the DFID-funded projects
we saw and the impact they had had in China. This supported the
view expressed to us by many witnesses that DFID had built one
of the most successful aid programmes of all donors in China.
Its approach was very cost-effective and relied on demonstrating
small-scale, innovative projects in health, education, sanitation
and water which were then expanded by the Chinese Government.
24. Our Report acknowledged that China presented
a conundrum for DFID.[17]
It is classed as a middle-income country and it is therefore DFID's
intention to withdraw bilateral aid in 2011. Yet around 16% of
its huge population (around 200 million people) still live in
poverty and many still lack access to basic services such as sanitation
and clean drinking water. Affordable healthcare is beyond the
reach of many and, amongst vulnerable groups, HIV/AIDS is spreading
fast. We believed that if DFID withdrew from China just four years
before the 2015 date for achieving the Millennium Development
Goals, this might contribute to several of the targets being missed.
25. There were also wider issues at stake. We
found that DFID has built influential relationships with policymakers
in China and believed that these were too important to lose. Crucially,
the path that China chooses, in terms of carbon emissions, energy
use and its sourcing of natural resources, will strongly affect
the international community's efforts to address climate change.
DFID has been the lead Department in climate change work with
China and we believed that other Departments would struggle to
take on this role. We concluded that the UK's aid programme in
China should end as planned in 2011, but that DFID should continue
to fund a "development partnership" with China until
2015. We recommended that this be based on a small funding element
and a continued DFID staff presence in China.
26. Despite the Minister telling us that he "couldn't
emphasise enough our willingness" to look at the findings
in our Report, the Government's Response showed an unusual reluctance
to engage with us on this topic. The response given to many of
our detailed and specific recommendations on the UK's future engagement
in China was simply: "The Committee's recommendations for
China will be considered as part of the planning process for the
next Comprehensive Spending Round."[18]
We regard DFID's engagement with middle-income countries, particularly
the rapidly developing countries like India and China, to be a
key development issue and, as set out in the last chapter of this
Report, we would expect that our successors will wish to return
to this subject in the next Parliament.
DFID's Programme in Nigeria
27. Our decision to conduct an inquiry into DFID's
Programme in Nigeria arose from it being the most populous country
in Africa and DFID's fourth largest programme in the continent.
Despite being a major oil producer, more than half of the 150
million Nigerian people live in poverty and the country is not
on track to meet any of the Millennium Development Goals. We identified
huge obstacles to promoting effective poverty reduction in Nigeria:
governance, public finance management, and delivery of basic services
had all suffered under 30 years of military rule and the economy
has been distorted by its oil wealth, which had discouraged growth
in other sectors. Corruption was identified as being endemic in
all sectors of society.
28. Our Report noted that, although the challenges
for DFID of operating in Nigeria should not be minimised, its
work was having a significant impact in demonstrating what could
be achieved, in supporting the Nigerian authorities to make necessary
reforms, and in bringing much-needed basic services to the Nigerian
people.[19] We therefore
believed that DFID's programme in Nigeria should continue, based
on its Country Partnership Strategy with the World Bank and other
major donors. However, we stressed the importance of being realistic
about the prospects for progress: change is likely to continue
to be incremental and slow until the Nigerian authorities provide
stronger leadership for reform. We recommended that the level
of UK funding should not be significantly increased while corruption
and poor governance remained such significant barriers to poverty
alleviation.
DFID's Programme in Bangladesh
29. We began an inquiry into DFID's Programme
in Bangladesh in October 2009. Bangladesh is the fourth highest
recipient of bilateral aid from the UK. The country has made significant
strides in poverty reduction in recent years especially in rural
areas, helped by sustained economic growth rates. It has halved
child mortality and increased life expectancy to 64 years. Community-led
initiatives and programmes run by non-governmental organisations
have been very successful in a range of sectors. However, despite
these achievements Bangladesh remains one of the poorest countries
in the world with nearly 60 million people living below the poverty
line and income inequality is growing. It is also likely to be
one of the countries worst affected by climate change.
30. We visited Bangladesh in early November and
were able to see many examples of DFID-funded work, including
vocational training and livelihoods programmes, support for health
and education, and assistance with mitigating the impact of climate
change. We were fortunate to have the opportunity to meet the
Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina and a number of other government
ministers as well as a wide range of other donors, non-governmental
organisations, and most importantly, local people who are the
beneficiaries of UK assistance. We plan to take evidence from
the DFID Minister in December and produce our Report early in
the new year.
DFID's Programme in Nepal
31. We decided to look at DFID's programme in
Nepal because it is the poorest country in south Asia. It is also
emerging from a 10-year civil war in which nearly 400,000 rural
families were displaced, infrastructure was destroyed and 13,000
lives were lost. Nepal is one of the fragile states on which DFID's
new White Paper said that it will increasingly focus.
32. Despite years of conflict and the difficulties
in providing basic services which the mountainous topography creates,
Nepal has made progress towards the Millennium Development Goals
in a number of areas, particularly reducing maternal mortality
and increasing access to education. DFID is the largest bilateral
donor in Nepal.
33. We visited Nepal in October 2009 where we
had the opportunity to travel to remote areas and to see a range
of DFID-funded projects including in employment generation, road-building
and women's empowerment. We were also able to observe the impact
of climate change on the glaciers of the Himalayas. We met the
Prime Minister and the former (Maoist) Prime Minister as well
as other international donors and civil society groups and again,
many local people who shared their experiences with us. We intend
to begin oral evidence sessions early in the new parliamentary
Session and to report in the new year.
17 Third Report of Session 2008-09, DFID and China,
HC 180-I Back
18
See Third Report of Session 2008-09, DFID and China, HC
180-II, Q 145 and Third Special Report of Session 2008-09, HC
535, pp 9-11. Back
19
Eighth Report of Session 2008-09, DFID's Programme in Nigeria,
HC 840-I Back
| 
