International Fund for Agricultural Development (Hansard, 19 June 1986)

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I assume the noble Lord has in mind the fund's special programme for countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. We are contributing our agreed share to the recent general replenishment of the IFAD, but beyond that we believe it is better to help agricultural projects in Africa bilaterally and through the voluntary agencies than to put the money into this separate extra appeal.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, I was referring to the statement reported on 31st May by the right honourable friend of the noble Baroness, Mr. Timothy Raison, that Britain would not subscribe to the appeal of IFAD for a £200 million special fund. Is it not the case, in considering the massive and practical compassion which has been shown by the people of this country, that the Government should give a lead by supporting an organisation which, it is accepted on all sides, is both designed to be and is efficacious in preventing future famines not only in Africa but in all the poor parts of the world?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I appreciate the point that the noble Lord is making about this fund. We would indeed have put more into the general replenishment if we had thereby been able to use it to act as a lever to obtain extra contributions from the OPEC donors. As it is, we think that it is better to use the extra money for specific bilateral projects in Africa.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that agricultural development is the first necessity in Africa to overcome the fact that millions there die of hunger? Will the Government therefore consider anything which would assist the international fund which is in a practical way, dealing with this problem?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, yes. We very much agree with the point that the noble Lord is making about the importance of agricultural projects in Africa, and to that end we have given very considerable amounts of aid. The proportion of our bilateral aid in Africa has increased. In 1984 it came to £66 million. We have recently announced the approval of some important additional projects in the Sudan, Zimbabwe and Kenya. The total British bilateral and multilateral aid to Africa was about £570 million in 1985, having risen from £447 million in 1982.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, can the Minister say what efforts are being made to ensure that whatever money is given to these very worthy projects goes eventually to the people who need it and not to organisations who spend a lot of time and money on administration. and corruption?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, the point that the noble Lord makes is an extremely important one which has been raised in your Lordships' House before and by many other people. We make every effort to ensure that our aid is spent as effectively as possible. I think that there have been some very good examples of the use to which it has been put.

Lord Oram
My Lords, is not the important aspect of IFAD that, of all the international organisations, it is the one which specialises in aid to agriculture, and indeed that 100 per cent. of its funds go in that direction? Is it not therefore an outstanding channel for dealing with the famine conditions in Africa, making sure that agriculture there is supported? Is it not also the case that this admirable organisation has very small funds? Can the Government not therefore reconsider their attitude to this special appeal for extra money?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, as I indicated earlier, we were ready to contribute to a larger replenishment supported by all donors. However, this was not possible, notably because OPEC donors did not pledge more. But what we are not spending multilaterally, as this added contribution would have been, we shall be spending bilaterally. One important point about that is that British bilateral aid to Africa is usually on grant terms while the IFAD aid is usually through repayable loans.

Lord Oram
My Lords, is the Minister saying that the money which was requested for this special fund will be extra money on the bilateral programme?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, no. I am saying that this money will come from the agreed amount of money for bilateral aid, but it will be a part of that money. It will be spent on these particular matters.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, will the Minister agree and inform the noble Lord, Lord Mellish and those who have supported him, that the International Fund for Agricultural Development is universally accepted as a fund of integrity with very small administrative costs, all the money going to poor farmers? I cannot understand the argument of the noble Baroness. Why is it that Her Majesty's Government are inhibited by the actions of OPEC with regard to their support for a fund universally accepted as preventing future famine in Africa, rather than their following a policy independent of the actions of other countries?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I would agree that the IFAD is a very valuable organisation which has done some good work. It is not a criticism of that organisation. But one of its merits is its pattern of agreed co-operation and negotiated burden sharing between and among the countries of the OECD and OPEC. This is absent on this particular replenishment, and therefore each donor has to decide what it should do. We have decided that the money that we would have given is better spent bilaterally on particular projects for the reasons that I have given.