§ Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury)This year the rains have failed in Africa, a continent where two-thirds of the world's poorest people scratch a living that is precarious at the best of times. Whole communities are on the move in search of the food that they are unable to grow for themselves, and in hunger people are eating their seed-corn.
The FAO estimates that more than 20 million people are facing starvation in Africa; and a number of countries such as Algeria and Morocco, although not on the desperation list, have appalling food shortages. The Save the Children Fund estimates that some 1 million people face immediate starvation in the area of Ethiopia, Eritrea and the Sudan, between 1.5 and 2 million face immediate starvation in the Sahel in the area of Upper Volta and northern Ghana, and about 1.5 million face immediate starvation in the south of the continent in Mozambique, Swaziland, Lesotho, Zimbabwe and Zambia. Ethiopia and the Sahel are areas, moreover, that never really recovered from the disastrous drought of 1973.
This year's disaster is partly the result of 20 years' agricultural decline in Africa that has left the continent at the mercy of every natural and man-made disaster.
Tragically, since 1960 the amount of food produced in Africa has increased by less than 2 per cent. a year, and the growth rate is falling, whereas during that time the population has increased by well over 2 per cent. a year, and the rate is increasing. Africa is now the only part of the world that grows less food for its people now than it did 20 years ago. The World Bank estimates that more than 60 per cent. of Africa's total population eats fewer calories each day than are required for a survival diet.
Even previously thriving agricultural countries such as Senegal and Kenya are now dependent on food imports, most of which must be received as aid, since they have no foreign exchange to pay for the imports. The FAO has appealed for 700,000 tonnes of urgent food aid, and estimates that next year Africa will need 3.2 million tonnes. So far, less than a quarter of that figure has been placed by FAO member Governments, and we are not that far away from next year.
Africa should be one of the great food-producing areas of the world. The tragedy is that Africa cannot feed itself, and it is in a worse position now than it was 20 years ago. Africa's agriculture seems to have collapsed. Moreover, drought causes not only immediate famine but the decimation of herds and the migration of people from the countryside to towns and across national boundaries in search of food and water. The drought was compounded by other recent disasters, such as a plague of rats in Senegal in 1976, smallpox in Somalia in 1977, floods in the Sudan in 1978 and cholera in Uganda in 1980. A continent that is in such a bad position is even less able to cope with added disasters.
The areas hardest hit by drought and famine also seem to be those areas of civil war and political unrest, which in turn means that there are now millions of political refugees seeking safety, food and shelter in parts of Africa other than their homes. Ethiopia — one of the areas hardest hit by famine—is most wrought up in the civil wars of Tigre and Welo. That tiny wedge of desert, 233 Djibouti, with almost no resources of its own, has had to accept about 30,000 refugees from Ethiopia and the civil war in the Ogaden.
The position in Africa is critical. What should be our response? A recent article in The Guardian on the Third world stated:
The West will need a new sense of political will if it is to help Africa contain its catastrophic food shortages.I question the central premise in that statement. Why just the West? Does not the entire world need a new sense of political will to tackle Africa's seemingly inherent inability to produce enough food, and does not that world include Africa itself?The attitude that it is the moral responsibility of the West alone to help Africa is largely responsible for generating antipathy in Britain and elsewhere to increasing our aid contribution. Recently Ethiopia's relief commissioner, Dawit Wolde Giorgis, visited London. We should remember that Ethiopia is fighting civil wars on several fronts, and is undoubtedly supported with arms and technical assistance by the Soviet Union. I have no doubt, from discussions in Addis Ababa, that much of Ethiopia's coffee crop— its prime crop — goes to the Soviets as payment for arms, as does a fair amount of its mineral resources.
I asked the commissioner when I met him last week how much food aid Ethiopia received from the Soviet Union. The tenor of his reply—I did not take it down verbatim — was that, as the Soviets had difficulty in feeding their people, it was unreasonable to expect them to feed the developing world. However, there is no reason why Russia or her Communist allies should be absolved from their responsibility to help to feed Africa, or why African states should be surprised if western Europe and Western democracies are hesitant about giving further aid to countries while there is a shadow of suspicion that the aid will be used either for political purposes or for buying more arms. I shall say a little more about Ethiopia in a moment.
Drought in Africa is a world problem and requires a world response. We as a nation must give humanitarian aid, but simply to say that there is a problem and that we must give more aid is, while perhaps understandable, none the less short sighted. If feeding Africa is a world problem, Africa is part of that world. There is much that Africa could do to help itself and to win greater confidence and support from the rest of the world.
There are many nomadic people in Africa who do not consider themselves as refugees, and who cross and recross borders to trade and visit relatives. There are also 5 million refugees in Africa who cannot help but exacerbate the feeding problems of the areas where they gather. They are almost all victims of the actions of various national Governments.
For example, Nigeria's decision in February this year to expel up to 2 million people created a local emergency of huge proportions. Thousands of people crammed into buses leaving Nigeria for Ghana. Overnight a crisis was created, with urgent demand for medical supplies and food. Those refugees appeared in Accra not because of had weather or a poor harvest, but simply because of the actions of an African Government.
One can understand Nigeria's concern at falling oil prices, but African nations cannot expect to act with callous indifference towards the well-being of others and 234 then wonder why people elsewhere increasingly question aid programmes. One would have hoped better of a nation such as Nigeria.
If Africa is to survive, every nation there must make efforts not to act to cause massive and urgent migrations of people. Frequently, refugees result not from the actions of Governments but from insurrections, civil war and outside influences. Insurrections and civil disorder may be a reflection of the fact that there are too many one-party states in Africa. One-party states mean one-party elections, and one-party elections mean no change of power through the ballot box. When elections offer no hope of change, coups are planned and civil wars begin. African nations could do much to make the continent more secure by making more possible unviolent and peaceful changes in government and democracy.
Nowadays, all too often, political and guerrilla warfare are supported and encouraged by neighbouring states. For example, only time will tell who is funding the Mozambican resistance movement, as it seems to be an organisation without territorial roots or political creed. The only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that it is intended by others simply to destabilise Mozambique.
Everyone in Africa has a vested interest in maintaining and promoting political stability. There should also be an interest in demonstrating confidence in that stability to the rest of the world. One way to do so is for a number of African states to try to establish better records on human rights.
For example, the revolution in Ethiopia took place in 1974. There are still up to 10 members of Haile Selassie's immediate family in captivity. I only wish that I and others could get through to the Ethiopian Government the fact that the very people who would be likely to argue their case for further food aid are often the same people who are particularly concerned about human rights. I recognise that the Ethiopian Government recently released some political prisoners, but when more opponents of the regime are being imprisoned, that does nothing to enhance the reputation of Ethiopia or other countries in Africa.
In a letter to The Guardian last week, the Minister said that there were difficulties in giving food aid. I suspect that he meant that it is almost impossible nowadays to give food aid without there being a number of inherent political value judgments. Giving bilateral food aid is all too often regarded as being a value judgment to the regime of the country to which it is sent. If only some African countries could realise that their long term political stability would be enhanced greatly by a better record and attitude towards human rights, they would do much better.
The political will of the rest of the world to help Africa depends to a large extent on the extent to which the African nations are prepared to maintain Western confidence and try to provide a stable political climate. To put it bluntly, it is not sufficient for any African country simply to say, "We have a serious problem", and expect Britain or Europe to help. Much can be done in Africa by Africa to limit the devastation of drought and national disasters
What can Britain and Europe do?
Only four countries give more by way of overseas aid than Britain—the United States, France, Germany and Japan, all of which have stronger economies than ours.
Britain helped to launch and later expand the United Nations Disaster Relief Office — UNDRO — and the Overseas Development Agency has had a disaster unit since 1974. Britain is fortunate in having five major 235 voluntary agencies—Oxfam, Christian Aid, the British Red Cross, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and the Save the Children Fund, all of which undertake invaluable voluntary work in drought affected areas which combine to form an effective disaster emergency committee.
I am not telling the Government that they are not doing enough. However critics might juggle the figures, despite the world recession and the need to control public spending, the aid programme has grown this year, albeit modestly. Our approach to overseas aid requires a slightly more sophisticated approach than the usual responses of "We are not giving enough" or, "We are giving too much".
We must consider two specific areas, to which I hope that my hon. Friend will address himself in reply, the first being disaster aid. Disasters happen throughout Africa, in countries some of whose regimes we like, question or would rather did not exist. Some critics allege that food aid is abused, that it does not get through to the relevant areas or it is given to the army. Endless rounds of rumour and counter-rumour exist, which is not surprising in those parts of Africa where armed conflict is occurring. I understand that it is embarrassing for any Government to be seen to be giving aid to any country which might be abusing it. The articles which appeard in The Sunday Times in July by Simon Winchester and by Peter Wilshire a few weeks ago are easy to write but difficult to disprove. Reliable information is often difficult to obtain. Members of our embassies are frequently limited as to where they can travel and in the information that they can send back to London.
The voluntary agencies, such as the Save the Children Fund and Oxfam, have reliable relief workers in the localities, able to make sensible judgments about food needs on humanitarian grounds. I appreciate that much of our aid to countries such as Ethiopia has gone through organisations such as the Save the Children Fund. I suggest that we channel as much of our aid as possible through the voluntary organisations in the disaster emergency committee. It will be able to make the best judgment for its use without involving the Government in difficult value judgments without the necessary information. One recognises that circumstances will exist where humanitarian aid will be urgently needed and that, by giving it through organisations such as the Save the Children Fund, we are demonstrating that we are giving humanitarian and no other form of aid.
This year's drought is not an aberration. As I mentioned earlier, Africa is the only part of the world that now grows less food for each of its people than 20 years ago. The important thing for Africa is help to improve its food production. There should be a major campaign to help it move towards greater self-sufficiency in foodstuffs, and to move the emphasis of development away from urban areas and back to the land. All too often Africa's townships are fed by imported food while the rural areas remain stuck with subsistence agriculture. What hope is there for Africa to feed itself in future?
More than half of the unused farmland in the world is in Africa. If it were all made to yield the best that could be obtained elsewhere on the same sort of soil, Africa could grow at least 100-fold more food than it grows now. Perhaps the greatest challenge about the present drought 236 in Africa is that it will spur us and the whole world to assist Africa to attempt to become self-sufficient in food during the next 20 years.
It may be quaint to see people threshing corn outside Addis Ababa in exactly the same way as they did in Biblical times, but it does not help feed the people of Africa. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to do all that he can to initiate an urgent programme to help Africa feed itself and move away from some of the high prestige projects that have become the toys of national Governments in Africa during the past 20 years.
§ 8.6 am
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)Any scrutiny of the figures on British aid to Africa reveals that two countries have been especially favoured during the past two years — Gambia and Senegal. I rise simply to ask for an explanation of the favourable figures for aid to Gambia and Senegal.
§ 8.7 am
§ Mr. Jim Lester (Broxtowe)One of the glories of this place is that on a wet Tuesday morning we can move from talking about the problems of liquor licensing and excess liquor to the desperate shortage of such an essential commodity as water and the massive problems in Africa. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) for introducing the subject.
It is relevant at Christmas, as we look forward to a festive season with drink and good food — we could describe it as a time of excess—to think seriously about the facts given by my hon. Friend about the millions of people under threat in Africa. It is difficult to conceive of anything that contrasts more greatly than the provision of plenty in our country and the threat of starvation to millions in Africa. I do not doubt that it is right that we should debate this subject. It is one of the glories of this place that we can do so— provided that it results in something effective being done.
On 5 December my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development answered a question about the Government's response to the drought in Africa. He made it clear that this country was providing food aid worth £5.7 million to Mozambique, Ghana and Ethiopia and that we were doing all that we could to speed up delivery of our food aid. He said that we have given another £1.4 million as disaster aid to a number of countries, and also contributed to the EC's food aid programme.
I welcome that response to my question. What is the European Community likely to do? What is the response to the Food and Agriculture Organisation target which aims to meet the needs of African people? My fundamental worry, which is the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, is that we barely meet present needs and we may not meet the circumstances that threaten. We in the West are trying to provide a form of first-aid through these programmes. We are trying to stem the initial risks, but we are a long way from tackling the basic problem which my hon. Friend mentioned in his excellent speech.
The infant mortality rate is accepted internationally to assess the difficulties facing Africa and the developing world. Only last week, the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund put out its programme "The State of the World's Children 1984". In table 14 on page 237 13, UNICEF described the countries that are unlikely to reach the target of 50 infant deaths per thousand live births by the year 2000, which is quite a long way in the future. Each of the countries mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury are in that table which shows infant mortality rates for African countries of more than 100, or even more than 150, infant deaths per thousand live births. One of the lowest rates is 84 infant deaths per thousand live births. Virtually every African country is mentioned in that table. Despite what we can do in the short-term, agencies such as UNICEF see the problem continuing past the end of the century. That is the basis on which we should consider our actions and thoughts.
One of the first-aid suggestions pioneered by UNICEF has been oral rehydration therapy. Last year, at the United Nations I first heard of that development in the statement on "The State of the World's Children 1983", and that was the impetus for an action that I undertook in my area. I believe that that action fits in to the long-term problem about which we have been talking.
Oral rehydration therapy is the provision of a simple formula of salts that prevents any person, but especially a child, from dying of dehydration. The cost of providing that formula is about 5 cents a pack. Much of that money goes towards providing the sealant and the unit by which the salts can be preserved from the effects of weather. Five cents can save a life, and so spending that small amount of money can result in a considerable reward.
We in the east midlands chose to launch a scheme to raise £25,000 between Easter and Whitsuntide to provide half a million packs for use in the Sudan. especially the drought-stricken areas in the south, to deal particularly with the refugee problem caused by the draught and the civil war. There are more than 750,000 refugees in that country. The scheme was launched by using the BBC Nottingham programme "Afternoon Special" which was beamed out to the four counties of Lincoln. Derby, Leicester and Nottingham. We began with some trepidation at the idea of appealing for that kind of money in that way, but to our amazement a simple description of the plight of that part of the world and the realisation by listeners that a contribution of 5p would provide a pack of medicine that would save a life brought in not £25,000 but £42,000.
In August this year the first batch of 1 million sachets of salts was flown to the Sudan. Since then, I have received telexes from the Sudan and the new ambassador came to Nottingham last week to put on the lights on a Christmas tree in one of our local hospitals as a gesture of recognition of the contribution of the people of the east midlands to solving the problems of his country. It is estimated that that contribution will save about 18,000 lives. That shows what can be done.
In considering infant mortality rates until the year 2000 we should also look back and recall that in 1906 in Birmingham, the heart of the west midlands, infant mortality was more than 200 per thousand—higher than in almost any country in the world today. The proposed target is therefore perfectly realistic and attainable. To bring the figures down, preferably before the year 2000, I wish to propose a series of actions.
First, agencies such as UNICEF have the same kind of contact on the ground as the voluntary agencies that we all support. They see the challenge now as political rather than technical—the need to motivate people to take the necessary basic steps in their own countries. Our 238 contribution to UNICEF has not changed in the past two years. Schemes such as the one that I have described show that there is immediate assistance to which we could contribute both through the Government and by voluntary action. UNICEF estimates that it could distribute about 1 billion sachets of oral rehydration salts world wide. Last year it distributed 80 million and it is a source of considerable pride to me that the east midlands provided one eightieth of the total—1 million sachets. If the east midlands can make that kind of contribution almost by accident, I am sure that other Members, other voluntary agencies and other forms of direct link could achieve similar targets and help to provide this vital basic medicine.
Secondly, we must develop our food aid programme. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury that this form of aid must be used circumspectly as it may prevent people from growing their own food rather than encourage them to do so, although the situation in many parts of Africa at present makes that a secondary consideration. I know from personal experience the great difficulty that the agencies experience in calculating the quantities required and the transport needed to move those quantities to the areas where they are needed. Because of civil war and the movement of refugees, even the best organised Governments find that between making the calculations and getting the food moved many thousands of miles, another 9,000 refugees have moved into the area concerned. We must work on the co-ordination of food aid and getting it to the key areas at the right time.
We must also develop our effective use of the voluntary agencies which are politically acceptable. They tend to work more directly with isolated communities and with people. Much of the problem with aid programmes is that they are conducted between Governments, and not all Governments share the priorities that have been described in the House. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the excellent Overseas Development Aid book and the figures it provides. It is a milestone in Government publications. Much Government aid is wasted as it goes to things other than what we would want.
We should also encourage a more direct link between people. As a result of what we did in the east midlands. we received letters from people in the Sudan requesting: books and magazines to help with the teaching of English. They were requested for schools that had literally nothing —not even pencils—and yet people there were trying to teach English. We were able to provide books and magazines at short notice and they were flown in. Much of the problem is transport and its cost. The Government could give a lead to voluntary agencies to make links and to see what needs to be provided immediately. Such aid could be given free provided that the Government or the agencies undertook to provide transport.
Direct links between people can be used to get to the problems of drought and defoliation which is caused by simple people continuing to burn more and more wood, cutting down ever more trees, thus creating erosion of the soil which causes weather changes which cause drought. In the Sudan, there is a scheme to plant the gum tree which produces gum arabic as it has been developed in Israel and Australia as a means of stopping defoliation and the expansion of desert. Perhaps young people in Britain who are interested in trees will provide the trees and go and plant them, so linking themselves with communities in different countries and creating personal links.
239 My plea is that in addition to my right hon. Friend's immense responsibilities in overseas development, in addition to the work that he is trying to do between Governments through Europe and world agencies and in addition to his encouragement of private investment, he should encourage personal investment between communities, especially in Africa, to deal with the problems that have been described. I can think of no cause which would do more to motivate people to be involved.
Many matters which concern the headlines and the public get out of perspective. One of the figures that I heard only last week affected me deeply, in view of all the campaigning that we see here on cruise missiles. Every day, world-wide, 50,000 children die of something that we can cure—malnutrition, and conditions and complications following that disease. Every three days 150,000 children die, and that is about as many people as died, tragically, when the atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. When we think of the concern about the nuclear weapons and the worry about a situation that is most unlikely to occur, and compare that to 150,000 children dying from something about which we can do something, that should be a spur to us all.
§ The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison)The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) for raising this topic today, and one could hardly have a more appropriate topic to raise just before Christmas. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), who has spoken so movingly, illuminated a problem which is obviously of profound importance—literally a matter of life or death. We have heard the figures of just how many people for whom it is a matter of life or death.
There is widespread concern here about the suffering that has been caused by the drought in Africa. Much help has been given by the voluntary agencies, and we in the Government have also been active. I am glad to have this chance to say something about what the Government have been doing and about how our efforts fit into those of the wider international community.
The debate is peculiarly timely, because it is near to Christmas, and because a new cycle of rain has started that may lead to some improvement. It also poses the question of what should be done if the rains should prove inadequate. There is a serious humanitarian problem here, as my hon. Friends have said. I assure them that the Government will continue to work to alleviate it, in partnership with other donars and the African countries themselves. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said, they, too, have to face their responsibilities.
This is clearly a deep-seated problem, and I should like to set it in its context. Parts of western and central Africa can normally count on abundant rain, but there are large tracts of the Sahel and of eastern and southern Africa where the failure of the rains has always been a hazard. In recent years the food situation in many of these arid and semi-arid countries has become more difficult. for reasons which I shall explain. Moreover, the lack of rain over the last two years has been such that some regions where rainfall is normally sufficient have been as hard hit as the traditionally drought-prone areas. Quite apart from the 240 drought, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said, food production in many African countries has not kept pace with population growth. Plant and animal diseases and losses of grain in storage have cut into food supplies and so have outbreaks of fire. Migrations and the movement of refugees have meant more mouths to feed. The lack of vehicles and adequate roads has made it difficult to move food from surplus areas into deficit ones and the problem of transport is an important part of the picture.
Against that background, the drought has had very severe effects in some countries, while others have escaped lightly. This is partly due to the patchy nature of last season's rains, and partly to the fact that some countries have been better placed than others to withstand the effects of the drought. Ghana and Chad have been very badly affected, and so has much of Ethiopia. In southern Africa, Mozambique has been particularly hard hit, and Botswana, Lesotho, Zambia and Zimbabwe have also suffered. Malawi. on the other hand, has happily had good harvests.
Given that drought is a recurrent problem across so much of Africa, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that tackling its root causes is no less important than taking immediate relief measures. Unfortunately, we cannot control the weather, at any rate on the scale that would be necessary, but much can be done to help the African countries to increase their own food production and to make better use of what they already grow. The potential is there. Improving the productivity of agriculture is one of the central objectives of our own aid programmes. Our aid to Africa last year in the field of renewable natural resources was about £40 million, which is a very substantial sum.
However, the problem of food shortages in Africa is far too big for a single donor, such as the United Kingdom, to tackle on its own. In any case, it depends in large part on the policies of the African Governments themselves. I am glad to say that the wider internatinal community has been giving the problem the attention that it deserves. The World Bank and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation have each been active in diagnosing the causes, discussing them with the African countries, and pointing out the appropriate solutions.
The World Bank's concern has been chiefly with the underlying economic causes. The bank has drawn attention to some shortcomings in the policies of many African Governments, in particular. the lack of incentives to farmers and the inefficiency of many of the parastatal bodies which handle marketing and distribution.
It has rightly fallen to the FAO to take a more direct initiative. In the past two months the Director-General has convened two special meetings to focus on the needs of the many countries which are affected. I was able to attend one of those meetings myself, when I was in Rome for the FAO general conference. I was impressed by what FAO had been doing to identify the food gap and to encourage African Governments to improve their food strategies for the longer term. I was able to tell the other Ministers at the meeting of our own response to the crises, and I undertook that we would do our best to speed up the delivery of the aid already promised.
The Director-General has subsequently written to express his appreciation of what he termed
the positive and encouraging response from a number of participating countries.241 I also made our concern clear in my address to the FAO general conference itself; and we supported the resolution which the conference passed calling for a continued effort by donor and African Governments alike.There is also the European Community. For many years now the Community has supplied food aid to Africa, and its programmes in this field are extensive. I am sure that my hon. Friends will want me to say something about food aid, whether from the Community or direct from Britain.
Let me put it on record, then, that the European Community has made food aid allocations totalling £50 million to 24 drought-stricken African countries, and £4.8 million has been specifically provided as drought relief. A total of £50 million worth of food for the drought affected countries is a substantial sum, and I need not remind the House that over a fifth of it comes from Britain. The Community is currently considering further allocations.
While we shall continue to support the European Community's efforts to bring practical help to the drought-affected countries, our judgment has been that some of them need additional food aid. We have, therefore, offered them such aid direct from Britain, as part of our own bilateral food aid programme. We allocated 80,000 tonnes of food aid to Africa in 1982–83, and that has now been supplemented by new allocations to Mozambique, to which we have allocated 11,500 tonnes, and Ghana, to which we have allocated 17,000 tonnes. The total value of that purely British food aid is £13.3 million.
I should add that we are not taking the attitude that once we have pledged such-and-such an amount of food aid we have done our hit. We are well aware of the importance of ensuring that the aid reaches the people who need it with the least delay. While we recognise that there are various procedures to be followed, and that physical bottlenecks can also cause delays, we support the view of the Director-General of the FAO that the more that can be done to speed up such aid, the better.
Apart from food aid, we have another string to our bow in the shape of aid for disaster relief. We would much prefer to prevent emergencies from occurring than to cope with their effects, but we have the ability to provide special help where it is needed.
The emergency assistance that we have given for drought relief comes to some £1.4 million. Over half of this has been allocated to Ethiopia, about which I shall say a little more later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury asked whether the food aid gets through, and there has been much talk about that. We certainly do our best to find out, and so does the European Community. It is not always easy. We also keep in close touch with the voluntary agencies and we use those agencies as much as possible to handle emergency disaster aid, notably in Ethiopia, where all the aid goes through voluntary agencies or the United Nations disaster relief office.
As I have already said, many activities under our normal aid programmes are aimed at countering the effects of low rainfall and other constraints on food supplies. I said that about £40 million was the overall total of our aid to Africa last year in the agriculture and natural resources sector. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said, it is vital to understand that the development of agriculture is the real priority in Africa.
I wish that I had time to do justice to the effort within that total aid that goes specifically towards improving 242 water resources, breeding drought-resistant varieties of crops, and tackling post-harvest losses. To mention a few examples, we are funding irrigation projects in Zambia and Zimbabwe; we are helping to survey underground water resources in Botswana; we are constructing grain stores in Kenya, Tanzania and elsewhere: and we are providing experts and equipment to combat the greater grain borer in Tanzania—a pest which causes extensive damage to harvested grains. All these are examples of assistance provided under our regular aid programmes and of tackling a fundamental problem.
We are very conscious of the severe difficulties facing Ethiopia as a result of continuing drought and security problems in the northern provinces. We have done a good deal this year to help Ethiopia. We have provided 19,000 tonnes of United Kingdom food aid costing nearly £3 million, as well as our share—worth £1½ million—of European Community food aid to that country. Quite apart from that, we have contributed more in disaster relief in 1983 to Ethiopian victims of the drought than to any other drought-affected country in Africa. I hope that this will go some way towards allaying any fears that our relief aid is heavily influenced by political factors. That is not so, although there are other ways in which we have to express our concern about human rights and political situations in countries such as Ethiopia.
We are very concerned by reports of continuing port congestion which prevents the prompt unloading and distribution of vital relief supplies. I voiced our concern to the Ethiopian Commissioner for Relief and Rehabilitation, Atu Dawit Wolde-Giorgis, when he was in London recently, and I urged him to give priority to clearing relief supplies through the ports. I am sure that the House will have noticed what my hon. Friend said about the role of Russia and the Communist bloc and their pathetic showing in providing real aid to Africa.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe made some interesting remarks about the appalling problem of infant mortality. He talked of oral rehydration techniques and the encouraging effects that they have had in reducing child mortality. He talked about the special concentration by UNICEF, which is widely admired. He also spoke of the remarkable enterprise in which he has been engaged in the east midlands. I congratulate him on the way in which that is being carried out.
The problem of oral rehydration is in a sense separate from that of hunger, since many of the diarrhoea) diseases which kill children in the developing countries are due to infections rather than malnutrition. I accept, however, that the same deprivation and poverty cause conditions in which such disorders flourish. I am glad, therefore, that my hon. Friend has brought to the notice of the House the significant impact which oral rehydration therapy can have on mortality. I am also glad that British scientists were prominent in the research into the physiological basis of this kind of therapy. I am pleased, too, that we are able to contribute, to the extent of over £100,000 a year, to the work of the international centre for diarrhoea) disease research in Bangladesh.
We support UNICEF's initiative in publicising the potential benefits of a package of low-cost measures to curb infant mortality and we are among the largest contributors to the fund's resources. We recently pledged a contribution of £6 million in 1984, which is at the same level as in the current year.
243 The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked one of his sharp and specific questions, which I shall answer. He asked about our aid to Gambia and Senegal and asked why they were, in his words, so large. Our largest aid programmes in Africa go to other countries — Sudan, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi and Tanzania, but we provide fairly large aid to the Gambia in terms of its population. This is because, like other small countries in the Commonwealth with which we have good relations, it has basic needs for its infrastructure and manpower which it cannot supply itself. I have had more than one meeting with Gambian Ministers and have known Gambians over many years, and I feel, as many other people in this country do, that Gambia is one of those countries where help from us is of great value. We would be very sad not to be able to come to the help of a country which has such good relations with us.
Aid to Senegal is fairly small and is mainly concentrated on English teaching. Indeed, in a number of the francophone countries the spread of the English language is the emphasis that we are following, but we have offered about £3 million which we hope will be used to boost village water supplies and so help fight the problems of drought which we are debating.
Meanwhile, as I have said, what should be the rainy season is now in progress over much of Africa. In west Africa the 1983 rainy season ended in October. The FAO reports that river levels remain low and that crops have received insufficient rain in northern Ghana and other areas. Seasonal rains have started in southern Africa, but soil moisture reserves have been seriously depleted and it is still too early to assess the prospects for 1984. We shall, however, continue to watch the situation closely and to study reports from the FAO, our own diplomatic posts, and other sources. Should there be any risk of the drought going into a third year, the consequences could indeed be grave.
I hope that the situation will become clearer over the next few weeks. Apart from assessing the effects of the current rains, we shall know more about the European Community's plans for additional food aid, and will consider allocations from our bilateral food aid programmes for 1984.
I also hope that we shall be able to sit down soon with the main voluntary agencies, share our information with them and reach at any rate provisional conclusions on what the extent of the needs may be in the coming year.
These are all matters which my Department will be following up during January. I can promise my hon. Friend that we shall not just fold our arms and hope for the best. There is far too much at stake in terms of human suffering. Relieving hunger is not, of course, an exact science, and there must always be an element of guesswork about how large any particular food shortage is and exactly what measure of outside assistance may be required. But I hope I have said enough to convince the House that the Government have been acting purposefully, within the limits of their resources, to help to relieve this disturbing problem, and that our action will continue in the same humanitarian spirit.