Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
120-135)
MR GARETH
THOMAS MP, MR
MARK LOWCOCK
AND MR
JOHN DENNIS
23 FEBRUARY 2010
Q120 Mr Lancaster: I accept the answer,
but I suppose what I am really pushing for is given the sheer
scale and how a relatively small percentage are being reached
given limited resources from the Department, how can we move forward
perhaps in greater collaboration with others. That is really what
I am asking.
Mr Thomas: I think the Protracted
Relief Programme is expanding. It has gone from the first phase
when it was largely just the UK funding it to a much bigger programme
which is allowing us to reach many more people, including orphans
directly or those who are looking after orphans. Similarly, the
expansion of the number of children who will get support through
the OVCS programme up from about 250,000 so far to, we hope, 600,000
this year is an example of the way in which we are trying to expand
the numbers that we can access. As we have discussed, in the end
it does come back to the economic and political situation in the
country moving forward and donors being willing to do more as
a result and, frankly, more resources being able to be generated
in-country.
Q121 John Battle: If I could just
go back to the issue of food security. I think the UN at one point
said five million people would be food insecure and the Crop and
Supply Assessment Mission estimated around 2.8 million might need
humanitarian assistance before the next harvest, which is this
April. Some of the reports are suggesting that the weather has
not been all that good and the harvest might not be that good.
What is your latest prediction for food aid requirements that
are coming up in the next year from April?
Mr Thomas: In terms of prediction
in terms of hard numbers, I am not sure I can give you that specifically
now. We share the analysis that you employed that there are some
early indications that this year's harvest is not going to be
as good as in previous years. As I said, notwithstanding that
sense of what this year's harvest is going to be, I think we will
have to provide humanitarian assistance anyway at least for the
next two years.
Q122 John Battle: The next two years.
Mr Thomas: In recent years there
has always been a substantial humanitarian component of our aid
programme at different times, almost 50% or more. We work very
closely with organisations such as the World Food Programme who
deliver that food aid and humanitarian assistance. Frankly, the
development of the Protracted Relief Programme is not only an
attempt to meet the immediate food needs of those affected but
is trying to get at some of the deeper roots of that humanitarian
crisis. As well as giving the seeds and fertiliser programme direct
support, we are also giving support to NGOs so that they can give
actual guidance to people as to how to use those seeds and fertilisers
to increase the yields that they do get.
Mr Lowcock: I was going to add
a point on when we will have a better sense of this year's harvest.
It will be March-time probably. Most people think that it will
be better than 2008 and possibly less good than 2009, so the numbers
requiring emergency assistance will be in that range that you
described.
Q123 John Battle: Can I thank you
for the way in which you gave the answer on the longer term rather
than immediate relief. Forgive me, I am not sure I clearly understand
this. You provided £9 million to the World Food Programme
in 2009 and that aid was mainly for food relief programmes. I
wonder whether the World Food Programme itself has that longer
term food programme development as well as relief. It is that
distinction between your work on the programmes I referred to
earlier that are getting sustainable agriculture again, but are
you working with the World Food Programme itself on getting those
longer term programmes in as opposed to just dishing out food
aid, frankly?
Mr Thomas: We are, but it is important
to recognise that the World Food Programme has particular expertise
at getting food aid to those who need it instantly, who are hungry
now in that sense. We are looking as a donor community, which
includes WFP, at a cash transfer programme, in a sense, which
helps people both to plan for a slightly longer term process as
well as meeting their immediate needs now.
Q124 John Battle: If I could follow
through from Mark Lowcock's comment. When will the figures be
available? We are in March next week, are we not, so is there
a chance that an assessment could be included in our report? Have
we got time to get that far?
Mr Lowcock: Normally it is sensible
in Zimbabwe to make an assessment of the harvest level by late
March. We will give you any update we can at the point at which
you want to go to press, but late March is probably the earliest
at which we can say something resembling an authoritative answer.
Q125 John Battle: If I can be absolutely
clear, that is two things: one to get on to those longer term
food development programmes, both our own and working with the
World Food Programme, and the other is to look to cash transfers
to stimulate that rather than going to handouts. Have I got that
right?
Mr Thomas: That is effectively
where we are now. Obviously if the harvest is better than anticipated
then we can move further up that particular long-term process
earlier.
Q126 John Battle: Also not to lose,
and sometimes it is lost, may I say, and criticism is made of
the UN and the World Food Programme sometimes. People standing
in queues and just getting it dished out to them does not always
encourage community participation, whereas other methods might
include that engagement of development with the people at the
local level, which is where I am hoping our programmes are geared
towards now.
Mr Thomas: You have to use a range
of ways of getting help to people and you have to look at the
reality on the ground and adjust what you do to reflect that reality.
John Battle: The direction of the overall
programme is very clear from that answer, thank you.
Q127 Richard Burden: Could we move
on to the question of internally displaced people, which is clearly
a very, very big issue. Estimates vary of IDPs making up between
just over 4% of the population and 7.5% of the population. Yet
there is also difficulty, there is quite a lot of evidence, a
lot of concern being voiced that as far as the Zimbabwean Government
is concerned, because they take the view that IDPs do not exist,
IDPs are being fairly systematically excluded from a number of
relief and humanitarian programmes. Some of the NGOs are saying
that really the UN as an institution is not tackling this head
on and that it needs to be a lot more assertive around the question
of IDPs, both in terms of Zimbabwe's own obligation under UN obligations
but also from a straight humanitarian point of view; aid is not
getting to where it should be getting. What is your response to
that?
Mr Thomas: I think that was a
situation that was certainly true of the previous Government.
I think the Inclusive Government has been better at recognising
both the existence of IDPs and their needs, but I would not want
to downplay the challenges that still remain. I think many of
our existing programmes upon which we have touched are also giving
assistance to those who are internally displaced within Zimbabwe
but who are perhaps living with other families or who are vulnerable
in some other way. Clearly there is more we need to do, as we
have described, across the range, but I do believe that our programmes
and those of others in the international community, are helping
to get aid to those who are internally displaced, albeit there
is clearly a lot more that could happen.
Q128 Richard Burden: Certainly the
impression we got was that a number of NGOs and others were saying
that yes, whilst things may have improved since the formation
of the Inclusive Government, the issue is still very much there
as far as IDPs are concerned. Partly because of the nature of
some of the security ministries, it is quite easy to get in the
way of aid programmes where necessary.
Mr Thomas: In that sense, absolutely,
I would agree with that. There is a huge problem in terms of the
ability of IDPs to move around in terms of particular locations
and the level of need that we have described in terms of humanitarian
issues, in terms of children or young people, if they have been
internally displaced, it is particularly acute in that sense.
What I would want to avoid the Committee having the impression
is that none of our programme is thinking through issues around
IDPs; they very much are. However, as NGOs have described to you,
certainly there are real difficulties for IDPs in terms of the
security situation.
Q129 Chairman: The aid programme
to Zimbabwe has more than doubled in the last four years. You
said in a press release last August that the Department was willing
to re-engage and support recovery in Zimbabwe provided the new
Government can demonstrate: its commitment to sound economic management;
the democratic process and respect for human rights; the rule
of law; full and equal access to humanitarian assistance; and
a timely election held to international standards. I would suggest
none of those things is what is happening on the ground. The serious
point behind that is, nevertheless, you have increased it. What
capacity is there for increasing it further or perhaps, putting
it the other way round, how do you assess your ability to deliver
and whether you should do more or less? What is the process that
goes round the Department in evaluating this?
Mr Thomas: We do look firstly
at the humanitarian situation on the ground and we would provide
humanitarian aid almost regardless of the political situation,
and it is clearly right that we do get help to people who are
in desperate need, despite the particular governments that they
have. In terms of long-term development assistance, you are right,
we will have to look at the political and economic conditions
that are operating and are on the ground before we can make big
decisions about be it substantial increases in aid or substantial
changes in the nature of our programmes. I think there has been
progress in Zimbabwe, in particular in terms of the economics
of the country. Clearly the political progress in Zimbabwe has
been much, much slower, and that certainly affects our ability
to do more and more quickly; there is no question of that. If
we were to see faster political progress, then there is no question
that we could do more, and more quickly, and I am sure that others
in the international community would probably see things in the
same way.
Q130 Chairman: We were told, and
indeed we saw for ourselves, that in spite of the migration of
some of the brightest and best people from Zimbabwe, the administrative
capacity to deliver services was one of the best in Africa. Even
now we saw effective delivery. Do you envisage a situation, if
the political background were transformed, where government support
or sector support would be a possibility? Obviously it is not
today but can you see a scenario where it would and how would
you judge that? Is that something you could even incentivise?
Mr Thomas: I think it is a long
way off. I would hope that we could get to a situation where the
politics of Zimbabwe had moved so radically forward that we could
have confidence in government systems or in the particular sector
plans of particular ministries. I think we are a long way off
from having confidence that the Government's financial systems
are strong enough and robust enough and would be free from political
interference. Having said that, there are ministries that are
committed to reform and who are starting to try and give direction
to what should happen in their particular sectors, and where we
have confidence in the plans of those ministries, then we are
trying to align our support as a donor community behind those
plans. I think moving down the route of sector support or budget
support is a long way off. The first stage is what we are embarked
on, which is where we have confidence in the plans of a particular
ministry thinking through how, without going through government
systems, we can support those plans and move forward.
Q131 Chairman: And if you were increasing
the funding further, how would you allocate that between multilateral
or donor partnerships as opposed to the bilateral work that the
NGOs are doing, which, to be honest, is mostly what we were looking
at, which was extremely good, but the question is whether it is
best to expand that or would it be best to expand it through multilaterals
or would it be a parallel process?
Mr Thomas: I do not think we have
a fixed view, frankly, in that sense. We would want to spend money
in a way that was going to have most impact most quickly and for
which we can properly account. Whether that is through UN organisations
or through civil society, I think in reality it will be through
a mixture and quite what the balance of that mixture would be
going forward, I do not think we are yet in a position to say.
It does depend on how particular programmes work. I think the
Protracted Relief Programme is a programme, for example, that
has a mixture of a whole series of civil society organisations
and is making a significant difference. If the humanitarian situation
were to deteriorate, clearly using organisations like the World
Food Programme would make a huge amount of sense, but they, too,
use civil society organisations, as I understand it, so it is
not a question of either/or. I think it will simply come down
to a hard decision as to which particular organisations are going
to get money on the ground where it is needed fastest.
Q132 Chairman: In spite of the very
heavy anti-British rhetoric, the general dynamic on the ground
in the attitude between the Zimbabwean and British people is quite
positive in terms of that underlying trend. It was suggested to
us that Zimbabwe ought to be one of the overriding priorities
for the UK, in other words one of the three or four countries
in which we do most, not because of that particular British interest,
which is just stated as a positive underlying fact, but because
it would have such a dynamic effect on the whole dynamic of Southern
Africa if it could be turned around. Do you accept that as a possible
analysis and, if you do, what could DFID do more that would reflect
that priority, taking on board entirely that it is complicated
and unpredictable but the argument that so long as you were working
in the right direction it justified that kind of prioritisation?
Mr Thomas: Zimbabwe takes up a
significant amount of both ministerial and very senior official
time in both Departments in that sense, so it is accorded a high
level of priority. I think the analysis about the importance of
Zimbabwe to sub-Saharan Africa is absolutely right. There is no
doubt that if we were to see further economic stability and progress
and further political progress, Zimbabwe's recovery could help
to drive progress towards the Millennium Development Goals across
the whole of the region. I have a particular interest in regional
integration and in the transport infrastructure that helps to
drive, if you will forgive the pun, that integration, Zimbabwe
has a pivotal place in the north-south corridor, a network of
key roads, and therefore the investment, or lack of investment,
that Zimbabwe puts into its road network has a fundamental impact
on the capacity of sub-Saharan Africa to trade between the countries
in that area. I think the analysis is spot on and that is why
I hope that we will see the type of economic progress and political
progress that I suspect all of us would want.
Q133 Chairman: Thank you very much.
The Committee would want to repeat the thanks that have already
been made to the DFID staff for the visit they organised. All
eight members of the Committee who went on the visit came away
with a much more positive impression of what is going on than
we had anticipated, although I would hasten to add we are not
naive enough not to realise the huge political difficulties and
underlying tensions and threats that could blow it all away. We
understood that. What we saw was impressive. Our report has to
focus on the development agenda rather than the political agenda,
but, again, you cannot deliver the one without the other. Our
intention is to complete the report in advance of an Election
unless we are ambushed.
Mr Thomas: With that in mind,
I wonder if I can ask Mr Lowcock to give you the answer on the
textbook delivery timescale. I think we have that information.
Q134 Chairman: Anything you have
now and anything you do not have now if you can think days rather
than anything else.
Mr Lowcock: Could I preface the
answer to Mr Stunell's question by saying that of course we are
not in complete control of this because we are a tiny part of
the financing. We have to get all the other players into place
as well. The answer to the question is that the contract will
be let in the next few weeks and the first books will be delivered
from about eight weeks from then, so about 12 weeks from now the
first books will be delivered.
Q135 Chairman: The Committee will
watch with interest the developments which obviously go through
convolutions almost daily. Perhaps the one positive thing which
was said was that whilst nobody knows where it might head, the
feeling was that things had got to the point where going back
to a situation where there was no space was perhaps unthinkable
unless the situation deteriorated beyond all hope. If I may say
so, there were comments and compliments about DFID's role, and
indeed the Foreign Office's role because it is important to recognise
this is a joint operation, in doing that. I think it was the Dutch
development representative who said specifically that he wanted
to put on record his appreciation of the leadership role that
was being provided by DFID in Zimbabwe and how important it was,
both politically and in terms of development. I am happy to put
that on the record and say that we appreciate it and we appreciate
that the team there are doing really good work in difficult and
challenging situations, but at the moment not unrewarding because
there is something coming back for it. Can I thank you very much
indeed for your evidence. I genuinely hope that our report is
something that will make a useful contribution to both your work
and a wider understanding of what we are trying to do.
Mr Thomas: Thank you, Mr Bruce.
| 
