Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200
- 219)
WEDNESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2009
MR MIKE
FOSTER MP AND
MR CHRIS
AUSTIN
Q200 Chairman: Is this additional
money?
Mr Foster: This is additional.
This is not part of our 0.7% ODA commitment by 2013.
Q201 Chairman: Does the £800
million that was committed to the Environmental Trust Fund come
out of the 10%?
Mr Foster: I would have to check
whether that was part of our 10% and get back to you. Certainly
the additional allocations that have been made by the Prime Minister
as part of the run up to the discussions in Copenhagen are looking
at new money for those pots. They are certainly not raiding ODA
for that.
Chairman: We would appreciate it if perhaps
we could have a note on that. I think it would be in our mutual
interest.[11]
Q202 Andrew Stunell: Could I just
turn to the mechanisms that we have? We have the multi-donor trust
fund. We have the Bangladesh trust fund. We also have the conundrum
which we explored briefly, in an SI[12]
committee about EU leadership of EU spending in Bangladesh. I
was quite surprised to find that the UK was not the lead country
as far as EU spending is concerned. Can you say something about
the mechanisms and whether you are satisfied for instance that
the World Bank has its act together as far as this goes? What
about increasing transfers to the Bangladesh trust fund? Perhaps
you could briefly say where the EU funding and management of funding
comes into it?
Mr Foster: The issue in the SI
committee that we were both on was more to do with development
funding per se rather than climate change funding. The
issue there as to why the UK did not take the lead was that this
had been something that was a moving feast. The list of countries
that were taking lead responsibility for managing development
spend there was not fixed in stone and was liable to mean that
the figures that you had and the stake you had was a snapshot
as at a point in time as to what countries had been identified.
If my memory is correct, the UK was in effect the vice-captain
of the team as opposed to the captain in terms of the relationship
with Bangladesh. In terms of the climate financing aspect—and
this is where the multi-donor trust fund comes in—and has
the World Bank the capacity and the capability to deliver, certainly
we believe that the World Bank has a track record of administering
these funds in other parts of the world. That is why we think
it is the right route to go down. Of course the government of
Bangladesh is supporting the mechanism of the multi-donor trust
fund, having the World Bank administer that as well. We think
we are getting the buy-in from the government of Bangladesh as
well as the capacity and capability of the World Bank to deliver
upon this particular scheme.
Mr Austin: If I could add a word
of clarification on the mechanism and on the UK role and division
of labour. Just on division of labour within the EU, the Netherlands
and the Commission are leading the work just within the EU Member
States and Bangladesh about how we can improve our harmonisation.
We are not doing that because we are leading the overall donor
effort as the UK. I am currently the chair of the local consultative
group for all the development partners. The multi-donor trust
fund that we have been advocating with Bangladesh has not formally
been signed by the government yet. We have been pressing them
and I believe the Secretary of State spoke to the Environment
Minister in Copenhagen about this a couple of days ago. The European
Commission, Sweden and Denmark are all lined up to be contributors
as well, because we see it as more effective to pool our resources
through that mechanism. Potentially, that mechanism both as a
funding vehicle and as a governance vehicle could be the route
for Bangladesh to receive whatever monies are agreed at Copenhagen.
Q203 Hugh Bayley: Having money and
having money effectively managed is important. To illustrate why
I think the discussion in the last 20 minutes leaves the public
absolutely adrift, we have not in the last 20 minutes explained,
even in terms of one single example, how these funds, hundreds
of millions here and trust funds there, are going to make any
difference to people, apart from Mr Austin's passing reference
to enhancing household level resilience. What you need to do is
talk about building homes higher than the flood level and explain
to the public in Britain that this is what our climate change
adaptation money is doing. It is providing different livelihoods
for fishermen whose fishing grounds are being destroyed. It is
about reforesting areas where people live. Until we start talking
about these things, the public will not think all the billions
pledged to one fund or another will make a scrap of difference.
Let us talk about the £60 million. How will Mr Austin's team
of experts make sure that we force the World Bank to deliver the
maximum number of plinths for homes and new livelihoods for people
whose farming land is lost? In other words, how will the multi-donor
trust fund be made accountable for delivering results to the people?
Mr Foster: Let me talk about the
point you raise about dealing with people. You are absolutely
right. It is a trap we all fall into, to talk about billions of
funds, the volume of funding, and assume everybody in the wide
world knows exactly what they deliver on the ground. For me, the
Chars Livelihood Programme is a classic example of where you could
actually combine an attack on the impact of climate change through
flooding and raising the plinths of houses. It is also a poverty
reduction programme with the cows and seeds for the families as
a way of generating income. It deals with health. It deals with
education and also water and sanitation that I know this Committee
is very passionate about. That is a holistic way of looking at
development and at the future of climate change adaptation. I
am keen to pursue examples like that, but it is also in other
areas of work that we are engaged with. If we tell a better story
people can understand why we are moving in this direction in terms
of development. It is not a flippant comment but we talk about
the conversion of people to have ducks rather than chickens to
deal with areas that are prone to flooding. They provide the same
benefits but they just adapt to wet conditions better. It is about
getting farmers to look at harvesting crabs as a way of generating
income in areas that are becoming more wet and saline and rehabilitating
mangrove swamps as an example. Our work on climate change also
looks at some of the research that is going to be needed on developing
saline resistant rice, which will be a major benefit to Bangladesh,
but perversely drought resistant wheat which is also going to
be necessary for parts of Bangladesh. If we talk in the language
of what projects are we engaged with, I hope people listening
to this and reading the transcript will understand that actually
the UK government is doing something very sensible, working with
the people of Bangladesh to deliver mechanisms to cope with climate
change. In terms of how we get the multi-donor trust fund to deliver,
it is about getting government buy-in. It is about being really
clear about what the threats are to the people of Bangladesh and
to land use in Bangladesh as a result of climate change. We have
to be convincing in terms of the evidence that is available and
the impact it is going to have. Then we can start putting together
the programmes that are necessary.
Mr Austin: On telling human stories
about how climate change is already affecting Bangladeshis, we
have invested quite a bit of effort over the last two or three
months in supporting regional journalists and UK journalists to
visit Bangladesh to see the issues for themselves. There have
been some good programmes on the BBC and reports in the UK media.
The totality of the challenge is quite stark. If sea levels rise
by a metre, an area 18 times the size of Greater London could
be flooded. This is big stuff for Bangladesh. The multi-donor
trust fund will support the government's climate change strategy.
Our pro rata estimate is that our share of what is committed
so far will benefit 15 million people living on the edge of climate
vulnerability because they are at risk of sea level intrusion,
flooding or cyclones. The overall strategy is targeted at 40 million
people in the country. The transparency we hope will come through
in a Bangladesh development forum that the government has now
agreed to hold on 15 and 16 February next year. Climate change
is one of the four issues that the government particularly wants
to focus on and we are keen—not just the UK but all donors—to
agree an action plan at that forum that will set out what the
government's objectives are, what the tangible outcomes will be
in the coming one, two, three or four years and how development
partners will support that. That will give us a transparent framework
to judge progress against.
Chairman: We can see this is work in
progress, but you can see from our line of questioning that if
we are a bit confused other people are likely to be. A note on
some of these issues would be mutually beneficial.[13]
Q204 Hugh Bayley: I want the additional
climate adaptation money to be additional money, but I think it
would be wrong to give the impression that these are two entirely
different things that are being funded because the adaptation
work, if it is building a plinth, has a major development benefit.
How will your department work to make sure in Bangladesh and elsewhere
that every pound of British money spent bilaterally or multilaterally
on climate change adaptation in developing countries gets in addition
to the adaptation benefit the maximum development gain per pound
spent, because otherwise we really do miss a trick. It is not
a zero sum of money—money spent on development plus money
spent on climate gain—it is how to make an increased pool
of money do more for adaptation.
Mr Foster: It is a point well
made. It is why the Secretary of State was over in Copenhagen
this week, to put a very clear development focus on any climate
change funding. Frankly, the scale of the impact on Bangladesh
is so great that actually it has to by default have an impact
on development. The figures I have in front of me are that flood
prone areas will increase from 25% to 40%, so around 70 million
people in Bangladesh will be affected annually just taking that
one aspect alone. That is nearly half the population who will
be adversely affected. Therefore, anything we do on climate change
will have a clear and direct link and impact.
Q205 Hugh Bayley: That is not enough.
That £60 million could improve the livelihoods of 10 million
people or 15 million people, depending on whether you go for policy
plan A or policy plan B. You should be putting in the development
analysis to ensure that you go for plan B if that is the plan
assisting more families to maximise the development effectiveness.
Mr Foster: We are not going to
disagree at all in terms of what we are trying to do. Just in
terms of the scale of the problem affecting Bangladesh, if we
focus on this one country in particular, that is why I say it
cannot but have a direct development impact, anything we do on
climate change, because the scale of the problem is literally
just so great in that one country alone. It might be different
in other countries affected by climate change but for Bangladesh
climate change and development go hand in hand and should always
go hand in hand.
Chairman: I think it is inevitable that
the development community is watching very closely to see that
there is added value and added benefit and it is not an either/or.
I think that is really where we are coming from.
Q206 John Battle: The Himalayas act
as a water tower. 90% of the water then flows down through Bangladesh
but it is its relations with the neighbours that I would be interested
in. There is a South Asia Water Initiative and I wonder if Bangladesh
and DFID are involved in that initiative at all—i.e., to
manage the water better from the Himalayas.
Mr Foster: Yes. We are funding
the South Asia Water Initiative. It is certainly something that
was flagged up to me when I was in Nepal as a major issue of concern
to get the six or seven countries that surround the Himalayas
involved in this regional body because the challenges of the melting
glaciers mean that literally three quarters of a billion people
are affected in terms of their drinking water alone from Himalayan
sourced water. We know it is a real challenge.
Q207 John Battle: You are seriously
engaged with that initiative?
Mr Foster: Absolutely. The name
escapes me at this moment in time, but the lead person from the
UN on this I met in Nepal and subsequently when she visited the
UK I met her again in the UK to reinforce DFID's commitment to
looking at this regional water management. I will send the name
when it comes to me.
Q208 John Battle: The numbers bandied
around at the moment are in the right ball park. 13 million are
incredibly vulnerable now. What struck me in what we learned about
Bangladesh was that climate change is not something that is going
to happen in 2050. It is happening now in Bangladesh. People are
losing their livelihoods because they are drowning now, putting
it crudely. Did you say 13 million or 15 million are immediately
to be affected and another 60 million later on? Are those the
numbers?
Mr Foster: It is 15 million now,
is it not?
Mr Austin: At least 15 million
are directly affected. I will check the figure and confirm this
but I think it is 40 million who are potentially vulnerable at
the moment because they are living in very low areas. It may be
worth reminding ourselves that 80% of Bangladesh is 10 metres
or less above sea level.
Q209 John Battle: That image, if
spelt out more popularly, if I can put it that way, would make
sense of a lot of the discussions and the numbers being bandied
around at Copenhagen. It might drive it home a bit more seriously.
They cannot all come and live in our house. One person in Bangladesh
said did I know anybody who lived in my village from Bangladesh
and I said, "Yes." They said, "Is it in Bradford,
because we know someone there. Could we move there instead?"
I mention that because, Minister, you said that in terms of migration
and the effects of migration what happens—you made a very
prescient comment—is that people will not move to Bradford.
They will move to Dhaka, to the towns, so that urban issues will
become very important. What is DFID doing to help Bangladesh and
its neighbours deal with that probable migration? I know we wish
we could keep people where they are and give them livelihoods
at the moment, but migration is coming. What is DFID's approach?
Mr Austin: Not directly to help
stop people from moving. All of our programme is directed at helping
Bangladesh live with climate change and reduce poverty. The climate
change impacts that are being felt today are affecting rural livelihoods,
urban livelihoods, the physical infrastructure. It may sound a
little bit sweeping but I would say that all of our programme,
trying to improve the quality of social services, support private
sector development, improving governance, is about helping the
economy and helping society increase its resilience and ability
to deal with climate shocks. For individuals, that means putting
their home above the high flood mark, giving them some assets
so that they have a regular income, a supply of food and they
can clothe and educate themselves more strongly, to help the economy
grow at more than the current 6% a year, so that the government
will be able to afford to improve its physical infrastructure.
There is already a lot of migrant labour from Bangladesh. It is
a huge source of income for the economy. We are already investing
quite significantly in a programme to improve English language
skills—benefiting 26 million people is the target over nine
years—as a way of improving their ability to get better
paid jobs in Bangladesh or abroad. We will develop the skill strategy
in concert with the government and others again to try and improve
the mobility, if you like, of Bangladeshis to work in the region
and further afield, because the physical land mass is not going
to be big enough to deal with a population that could be 220 million.
Q210 John Battle: The Finance Minister
in Bangladesh has asked other countries to take migrants from
Bangladesh. I can understand if I am stood up to my ankles in
water traditionally collecting rice. Then the water comes in higher.
It is salt water. I am now up to my waist and I am fishing for
shrimps. I can understand the transition and helping people manage.
It is called "adaptation" and very good it is. In the
longer term I do not think that is going to be sufficient, given
the scale of vulnerability of Bangladesh. The ORCHID[14]
assessment recommended that the DFID programme should develop
a multi-donor approach "to stimulate international dialogue
around complex and crucial, politically charged issues of mass
migration and trans-boundary water initiatives." I go back
to my point. Is it Dhaka or is it Leeds and Bradford? Can we talk
about it, because ORCHID is suggesting that we do, not only us
but a multi-donor thing. Would we take the initiative to get that
going?
Mr Foster: We are working on the
trans-boundary water issues through the South Asia Water Initiative.
We also recognise the need to improve the educational standing
of people from Bangladesh who may want to emigrate to perhaps,
say, the Middle East to earn a living. That is why what we have
done in some of the work on remittances is actually to make it
more cost effective for remittances and speed up the process for
remittance transfer, not necessarily engaging in a debate about
numbers of people emigrating and where they go to, but accepting
the fact that there is in the Middle East a large economy that
requires labour and is close to Bangladesh that could be used
as a platform for people to earn a living, making it easier for
that money to get back to the country of origin.
Q211 John Battle: I think I am pushing
for a debate that may be just slightly ahead of its time. I suspect
the next Copenhagen in 20 or 30 years' time will be about migration.
It is difficult to take on and I think that not only Britain but
the whole world is going to be engaged in conversation about people
moving round the world on a scale we have never seen before on
this earth.
Mr Foster: If you spoke to Mo
Ibrahim he would say exactly that.
Q212 Hugh Bayley: We have had evidence
from a Dr Gill, a consultant, who said that there was a danger
that the lessons of the 2008 food price spike will be forgotten.
What steps are DFID taking to minimise the impact of food price
spikes on the annual monga season in Bangladesh? Would DFID support
the idea of an enhanced public food distribution system as a way
of improving food security?
Mr Foster: I think it would be
fair to say that food and food security as an issue for the developed
world had slipped off the radar prior to the food price spikes
and the developing world is now looking at this with far more
seriousness and more intent and backing it up with resources.
I know our counterparts in USAID have made this a big feature
of their programmes as we have done with our country plan for
Bangladesh. If I could just run through what we set out in our
country plan to deal with food security, our target was to assist
by 2015 six million people by our food security and livelihood
programmes. A quarter of a million women would no longer be underweight.
Four million adults are to eat food daily with a more diversified
diet. Under five child wasting is to be reduced from 17% to 11%.
Stunting is to be reduced from 43% to 25%, underweight from 41%
to 33%. To increase the availability of nutritional supplements
like vitamin A—I know you and I, Chairman, attended the
Save the Children launch on the particular issue of nutrition
and I know that will mean something to you—to 90% in Bangladesh.
That gives you a flavour. We have recognised the problem that
hit us and are looking to make sure that we can do our bit to
affect the impact of the monga in particular.
Q213 Hugh Bayley: What about this
idea of a sort of public ration card targeted on disadvantaged
groups?
Mr Austin: If I could add another
word about what advice the UK has provided to Bangladesh following
the 2008 experience. We funded a series of Bangladeshi experts
to study five or six issues around food security subsidies for
production—subsidies for fertilisers, subsidies and arrangements
for silos and storage and distribution, all of which came together
as a package of policy papers that has been shared with government,
hopefully to inform their own approach. On the issue of feeding
programmes, the government in Bangladesh already provides subsidised
food administered sometimes by the army and sometimes by civilian
authorities. It could have its place in ensuring that at all times
of the year the people who are most unable to buy or grow their
own food have a regular supply of food. I think there are some
question marks about the efficiency of the distribution and the
allocation, issues that came up earlier when we were talking about
governance arrangements. Whilst it would have its place, we would
want to look carefully with the government at whether it is the
most efficient way to make sure that there is food available all
year round. Bangladesh produces not quite enough food to feed
itself. It is not producing it at the right times of year and
it has not got its internal transport system properly sorted.
Chairman: In spite of the fact that the
Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition are both women,
the status of women in Bangladesh does not seem to be spectacularly
improving.
Q214 John Battle: We have had a long
session in depth on many of the issues. I do not think the question
of women's gender inequality in Bangladesh should be left off
the agenda in any conversation. NGOs have suggested that you include
specific targets for women in all DFID programmes. Are you planning
to do it? What discussions have you had with the Bangladesh government
about practical measures to tackle gender inequality?
Mr Foster: In terms of the programmes
that we have and whether we should have a specific target, all
of the programmes that we have actually monitor their impact,
disaggregated by sex so that we can see what we are doing on the
ground and that it is delivering. Our programmes generally in
DFID are gender mainstreamed. That is how they are developed to
begin with. Then, having the disaggregation of our monitoring
can be a check on whether we are doing what we set out to do with
our programmes.
Q215 Chairman: Chris, I know you
have a role in this.
Mr Austin: I do. I am privileged
to be the gender champion for the South Asia division. Our divisional
approach in the five countries where we have offices is to reduce
violence against women, which will involve us having a partnership
with UNDP on perceptions for men and boys. We are keen to use
high profile male figures to spread the message that the way women
are treated in Bangladesh and other countries in the region is
unacceptable in any civilised society, irrespective of religious
context and ethnic context. The statistics are pretty appalling.
60% of women in Bangladesh suffer domestic violence at some time.
Women earn at about 65% the rate of men. There are fewer than
two million of them formally employed despite, I suppose, the
dynastic history that has led to the Prime Minister and the leader
of the opposition being in their positions and despite the fact
that the Agriculture Minister and the Foreign Minister are also
women, women are poorly represented in positions of authority
in Bangladesh. We supported a campaign with Sweden, Denmark and
Norway to raise awareness about these issues over the past year
and our support through the Rights and Governance Challenge Fund
led to a Bill against domestic violence. It is a thread that runs
right through the country programme. Giving women better access
to employment opportunities and improving their legal rights are
things that we are supporting through civil society. Changing
the nature of cultural norms is probably even beyond our remit,
although we like to be ambitious and transformational, but I hope
that the contacts with the diaspora and the connections between
Bangladesh and the UK could help.
John Battle: I would have thought that
some of the work BRAC was doing in that village on gender inequality
was absolutely superb work and was easily translated back to some
of the difficulties we have in our own inner city constituencies.
Q216 Chairman: We have also made
a recommendation that at least two Members of this Committee should
always be women. We would be happy for there to be a lot more
than two but we do not have any at the moment. It is embarrassing.
Thanks to the fact that we do have women advisers, as a Committee,
I hope we are aware of these issues but it does not always give
us total credibility when we are all men. In every country we
have visited in the last year energy has been a problem, the lack
of it and the intermittency. There is a coal project which is
somewhat controversial involving a UK company. I just wondered
if you could give us your take on it. It is the Phulbari Coal
Project. They were at your reception and they have visited me
here in London and put in a note. They argue that this would provide
better quality electricity using cleaner coal, but it would involve
the displacement of people. Clearly some of the NGOs and other
campaigners are against it. Could you just give us an indication
of where the department is on this and whether indeed there are
discussions involving the Department for Business about the project?
Mr Foster: The mine in question
is clearly an issue for the government of Bangladesh to make a
decision on. We recognise the challenge that they face with lack
of energy and the handicap that can be on development and economic
growth, impact on jobs, incomes and poverty reduction. If the
project gets the go ahead—I do not know if it has been given
the go ahead yet—clearly we will press for the social and
environmental impacts to be addressed by the government. In terms
of what the UK is doing, I understand the development is done
by a UK company and clearly they have access to UKTI[15]
support but in terms of the decision about the project that is
a matter for the government of Bangladesh.
Q217 Chairman: Has there been any
discussion between DFID and the Business Department about this
particular project?
Mr Foster: I have not been party
to any discussions. I would have to check with my officials whether
they have had discussions. In the broader sense, whenever displacement
of this scale is being discussed, we would always be minded to
suggest that the social and environmental impacts were taken into
account.
Q218 Chairman: I understand that
but the counterpoint from the protagonists says here you have
a country which desperately needs power. They have their own resources
of coal which are cleaner than the alternatives—not cleaner
than gas but cleaner than the coal they are importing—and
it is a good thing that they are developing. Are we just entirely
neutral about that or do we have a view given that we know the
energy shortfall is an issue and a constraint?
Mr Austin: Just to clarify first
of all on the officials conversing, we talk to our UKTI colleagues
who are in the High Commission in Dhaka because we have received
similar briefings from the company and we have received some of
the concerns expressed by local, international and UK NGOs. We
have a kind of joined up understanding of the issues. As the Minister
said, the government has to confirm the licence for this mine
to go ahead. As far as I am aware, they have not done that yet.
The government has said that, of the four issues they want to
talk about most explicitly at the Bangladeshi development forum,
energy and power is one of them. Amongst the development partner
group, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank and Japan
are the development partners with the most funding and technical
expertise in this area. We would expect them to be at the front
of policy dialogue with government to make sure that, once government
reaches its policy decisions, the implementation is carried out
in the best possible way, including the social and environmental
mitigation measures.
Q219 Chairman: Thank you very much
for that. I just felt it was important to put it on the record
because there certainly needs to be some engagement about it.
Can I thank both of you very much indeed? It has been quite a
long session. The Committee, as I think you will appreciate, has
been fascinated by its visit and seen a lot of good things being
done both by DFID and indeed in terms of the country itself, but
huge challenges as well both for their politicians, governments
and for the people, given the physical pressures they are under,
and a resilience that is quite remarkable in the circumstances.
I hope we will be writing a useful report and obviously your contributions
have been essential. If I may echo what John Battle said, Chris,
thank you very much to your team for facilitating our visit. I
think the Minister is going again. Is that right?
Mr Foster: The hope is, yes, subject
to things that might be happening next year.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
11 Supplementary written evidence submitted by DFID,
Ev . Back
12
Statutory Instrument. Back
13
Supplementary written evidence submitted by DFID, Ev . Back
14
Opportunities and Risks of Climate Change and Disasters Methodology. Back
15
UK Trade and Investment. Back
| 
