Southern Africa: Famine

HL Deb 15 July 1992 vol 539 cc262-94

6.1 p.m.

Lord Judd rose to call attention to the impending famine in southern Africa; and to move for Papers.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, southern Africa is enduring the worst drought in living memory. For millions the coming year will be the harshest they have ever suffered. Crops are devastated and no fewer than 18 million men, women and children face the very real prospect of starvation.

We are understandably mesmerised by the cruel events in Yugoslavia and by the danger of contagious anarchy in much of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. It was therefore essential that at its recent meeting the Group of Seven decided to make further assistance available for the Commonwealth of Independent States and that the European Community should vote its 120 million ecu for Yugoslavia. However, more, much more, is needed.

But people too are at risk—some 18 million—in southern Africa. The struggle for democracy is as real there as in the CIS and Yugoslavia. There are few parts of the world in which British and European interests and involvement, not to speak of moral responsibility, are greater. It is therefore disturbing to learn that, as aid is being mobilised for the former communist world, non-governmental organisations are being told both by the British Government and by the European Community that the money allocated for Africa has virtually run out.

The relationship between ethnic politics and hunger is as real in southern Africa as in Yugoslavia and the former Soviet empire. The grotesque racially based social inequalities in the Republic of South Africa mean that the burden of hunger falls heavily upon the black community. Failure to reach political settlement will perpetuate that position and perpetuation makes political settlement more difficult.

But it is not only within South Africa that the political dimension applies. The drought is no respecter of frontiers. The 10 developing black African countries which comprise the SADCC region adjacent to South Africa are badly stricken. What is more, they depend upon South Africa for much of the logistics of relief. There is a crying need for them and South Africa to work together. A settlement in South Africa will make that possible. Delay will prolong the obstacles. It is high time the British Government and the European Community follow the example of the Security Council today and put the disturbing setbacks to negotiations in South Africa at the top of their agenda alongside East European preoccupations. It was without doubt the combination of internal dynamics and external pressure which brought about the South African negotiations in the first place. A serious external assessment of what has gone wrong and of what action is now appropriate is long overdue.

From South African sources I learn that between 7th April and 21st June no fewer than 40 vessels unloaded more than 1 million metric tonnes of grain in South African ports. Last week some 10 vessels were unloading. During the same period in June, I am told,187 trains left South Africa for Zimbabwe with more than 240,000 tonnes of food. Some 16 trains went to Zambia with more than 20,000 tonnes of food; 23 went to Malawi with more than 31,000 tonnes; 8 to Botswana with more than 11,000 tonnes; two to Swaziland with more than 3,000 tonnes and 14 to Lesotho with more than 15,000 tonnes. Imagine the potential consequences for those countries if the setback in South Africa were to deteriorate much further with large scale prolonged disruption to ports and transport. It is abundantly clear that the political and humanitarian issues of the whole of southern Africa are deeply interlinked.

The dimensions of the drought are appalling. Even Zimbabwe and South Africa, the traditional bread baskets of the region, are importing millions of tonnes of food. South Africa will need 5 million tonnes of maize and 1 million tonnes of wheat this year. Zimbabwe, which is normally a net exporter of grain, will need 1.7 million tonnes in 1992– 93. Indeed, South Africa and the rest of the southern Africa region combined will need over 11 million tonnes of food between now and April 1993.

In early June the United Nations and the SADCC countries made a co-ordinated appeal in Geneva. They stressed that 10 countries were at risk of starvation and that 2.6 million square miles of land were stricken by drought. They called for 685 million dollars for 1.6 million tonnes of urgently needed emergency relief food,150 million dollars for emergency non-food aid such as water, health services and agriculture, and 21 million dollars for regional logistics and co-ordination. They also called for 2.5 million tonnes of programme food aid which they emphasised is essential if sufficient food is to remain in the markets. The background to their call is that malnutrition is increasing; surface water supplies are precariously low; boreholes are drying up, with grim consequences for schools and clinics; draught oxen, essential for ploughing and future crops, are dying and once mighty rivers such as the Zambezi, the Limpopo and the Orange have all but dried up. The social fabric of the SADCC countries has been gravely damaged and, overall, cereal production has fallen to 6 million tonnes—that is, about half the normal production.

I understand that the international response to the United Nations and SADCC appeal has been seriously inadequate with only two-thirds of the total target so far met. It is particularly disturbing that the pledges for emergency food aid for the most vulnerable people are less than half that requested. Furthermore, it seems that almost none of the food aid pledged at Geneva in June has yet arrived in Africa. Recently the director of Oxfam, Dr. David Bryer, and his colleague, Justin Forsyth, a specialist in African affairs, travelled to the region with Simon Hughes, a Liberal Democrat Member in the other place. Underlying the United Nations and SADCC appeal, they reported that in parts of Zambia people have resorted to eating wild fruits and roots. The traditional economic coping mechanisms such as selling crafts to markets have broken down. The reserves of food have been eaten. Water tables have dropped and malnutrition and a lack of clean water have meant that health is deteriorating fast. Men are deserting their villages in search of work in urban areas, leaving women-led households to take responsibility for coping with the drought.

In Zimbabwe some 40 per cent. of the population who are dependent on subsistence farming have lost most of their income. Countrywide, some 5 million people are estimated to be affected by drought. A special feeding programme is already being provided by the government for 1.5 million children. The whole situation is likely to be made still more acute by the arrival of an additional 350,000 refugees from Mozambique searching for food and water.

In many communal areas between half and two-thirds of the cattle have died. Those surviving are frequently too thin to be marketed. Seed has been eaten and tools have been sold. Dams are averaging only 19 per cent. of capacity and there is a real prospect that the Kariba Dam itself may close by February 1993 if the next rainy season proves to be a failure.

In both Zambia and Zimbabwe other, non-drought, factors are aggravating the situation for the poorest people most at risk. The structural adjustment programmes agreed with the World Bank and the IMF have led in the short term to price increases for basic foodstuffs, rising unemployment and cuts in basic services. Heavy debts are draining vital resources and driving the governments of both countries towards a choice between meeting their repayment obligations or feeding their people.

The drought is also having a significant impact on financial resources and foreign exchange reserves. Both Zambia and Zimbabwe have been forced to import substantial amounts of food at tremendous cost to their balance of payments and foreign exchange reserves. In addition, Zimbabwe has lost its foreign exchange earnings from its usually significant agricultural exports.

In Mozambique the nightmare is made worse by the continuing warfare. There is a pressing need, which I hope is being taken seriously, to feed the troops guarding food convoys if they are to do their job properly. It has been depressing to witness the gap between the peace rhetoric of Renamo and the reality of its activities on the ground. We desperately hope that the Minister may have news of progress on that front.

In Malawi the latest estimate is that there are 6.2 million people in need,2 million more than estimated in the joint SADCC/UN appeal in June. Namibia has experienced a 71 per cent. fall in cereal production, down from 114,000 tonnes to 33,000 tonnes. Cattle deaths there are widespread.

As recommended by the Bryer, Forsyth and Hughes mission report, I hope that the Minister, who has already responded with at least some additional British aid, will promise tonight to call for rapid international action on five points. The first point is pledges. The international community must provide the necessary funds to meet the minimum needs spelt out in the joint SADCC/UN June appeal. It is very worrying that pledges for emergency or target food aid for the most vulnerable in Zimbabwe and Zambia are so low.

The second point concerns deliveries. As things stand, very little of the food pledged in Geneva is likely to arrive in the region before September. Pledges must be turned fast into shipments. Supplies from large donors such as the European Community are needed by the end of August. Shipments should be properly co-ordinated to take account of port capacity and priority needs. Co-ordination by all concerned is also important at national level to identify the communities most at risk and ensure that the required assistance reaches them, overcoming the problem of the "last mile", as it is known to aid workers in the field.

The third point is recovery. Agricultural recovery is as much a priority as relief if next year's food needs are to be met. Seeds, tools, tractors, oxen, water harvesting and food reserves are all vital to stimulate food security. Structural adjustment programmes must take proper account of that.

The fourth point is the structural adjustment programmes themselves. As the poor struggle to survive more targeted aid is urgently needed to cushion the adverse effects of SAPs.

The fifth point is debt. Debt could be the final straw that breaks the camel's back. The Paris Club is to meet on 23rd July to review Zambia's debt. Zambia is likely to be offered only a limited Trinidad Terms debt relief package—a 50 per cent. rather than a 66 per cent. write-off. But surely Zambia, a country which is fulfilling all the international political and economic conditions and struggling to reconstruct democracy, should be given maximum relief, the full Trinidad Terms. Surely the IMF and World Bank should reschedule Zambia's multilateral debt as a first step towards debt cancellation. Now that Zimbabwe has been given access to World Bank IDA funds for the least developed countries Zimbabwe, too, should surely enjoy full debt relief.

In 1984 the BBC and Michael Buerk shocked the United Kingdom with their powerful pictures of death by starvation in the Horn. Everybody said it must never happen again. The public response was magnificent. Record sums were rapidly raised. It could very well be about to happen again in southern Africa, but there is still time to prevent it if, and only if, the governments of the world move decisively and fast. When we reassemble in October it will probably be too late.

The United Kingdom holds the presidency of the European Community. It therefore has an ideal opportunity to lead and to get the act together, to use the Minister's own words. As a first step I suggest that the Minister should immediately convene an emergency meeting of the European Community Council of Development Ministers to review the situation and to speed the action. I know that the whole House will cheer the noble Baroness if she takes the humanitarian lead and uses it relentlessly. I beg to move for Papers.

6.15 p.m.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, when I heard, with gratitude, that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, was to instigate this debate I got in touch as soon as I could with the various church societies which work in that part of the world. I was fortunate enough almost immediately to get in touch with Bishop Donald Arden, who was at one time Archbishop of Central Africa and who is at present commissary for the dioceses of Malawi and Mozambique. He returned from Malawi two days ago and has very kindly let me have his report so that I may relay some of it to your Lordships today. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I overstep the usual conventions about reading because I wish the House to know what the Archbishop said, which is considerably more pertinent than anything I could have said myself.

He says that this is the worst drought in living memory and its results are calamitous. One does not yet see frank starvation though there are plenty of examples of people eating every other day. People cross the border into Mozambique in order to re-enter a few days later as refugees to get the tiny rations which the UN supplies of maize meal, pulses and cooking oil. But there are no stocks of food in the villages and eight months to go before the next harvest. That must be seen against the background that in normal times half the children under five show marked stunting from malnutrition and there is a death rate among under-fives of 253 per thousand.

As noble Lords have already heard, even promises of grain fall far short of requirements. No one can see how it will be transported into Malawi with all the main routes closed as a result of the Mozambique war and all surrounding countries competing for such transport as is available.

Malawi's normal export-import routes are closed (for example, at Beira) or have a capacity of one train a fortnight travelling at 10 miles an hour—as at Nacala. The alternative routes—by road from Lusaka and thence by rail to Durban or Port Elizabeth, running the gauntlet through Mozambique to Harare and thence to Beira or Durban, or 800 miles by road to Lusaka and thence to South Africa by rail—are estimated to take up to 47 per cent. of the export earnings of that country. Added to that is the horrific effect on firewood and food reserves of supporting a million official refugees and an unknown but larger number of unofficial refugees.

The Paris sanctions are a consideration. I do not believe that anyone would oppose the idea of the Paris sanctions, least of all noble Lords on these Benches. Political change is essential and with no active political parties for 30 years, no free press and no opportunities for public debate there is a crying need for democratic reform. But the sanctions are having a devastating effect on the lifeline of the poorest of the poor, the non-wage-earning rural population. Their only income is the produce of their lands which this year has been practically nothing. There is a need for positive action to see that the very poor do not bear the brunt of those sanctions. One way of doing it is by seeing that aid is not cancelled but redirected through the NGOs that directly serve the poorest of the poor. That will usually mean church agencies, since it is only they who have a wide network of health centres and schools in rural areas.

Apart from stopping starvation, there is an urgent need to support the health services. The Church Hospitals Association of Malawi provides more than one-third of the health services of that country, and at the moment it looks as if it will get only 50 per cent. of its basic needs from the government. Education in secondary and primary schools, particularly in the rural areas of Malawi, is desperately in need of resources. In rural areas the pupil/teacher ratio is between 68 and 90 and the number of children per classroom ranges from 98 to 167.

The Bishop asks me to say that the steps he believes to be within the power of the United Kingdom and EC Governments, are, first, to make available to churches and other NGOs directly involved in providing basic services to the rural poor the resources needed to prevent the total breakdown of health and education in the next three to six months. As a minimum, that should be equal to the amount of aid which has been withheld because of civil rights deficiencies. The poorest of the poor should not have to suffer as a result of a campaign which, after all, is undertaken on their behalf. There should be a fresh examination of the resources available for health, education, agriculture and women's development in countries like Malawi. It is too easy to blame the deficiences on mismanagement. Factors totally outside the control of the government—terms of trade, debt climate and the war in Mozambique—also have their effects.

Every available ounce of political and diplomatic power should be used to bring an end to the war in Mozambique. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office should be congratulated on joining the Rome talks as an observer. It should not turn a blind eye to foreign aid to Renamo which is still arriving from sources in South Africa. Whether they are individuals or the third force of army and police referred to by Nelson Mandela is very difficult to say. If humanly possible efforts should be made to open the rail corridors from Malawi to Beira and Nacala to enable famine supplies to be imported. The same applies to roads in Mozambique, regarding which I believe Her Majesty's Government have already made representations to Renamo to avert deaths from starvation.

The latest reports seem to show that Renamo members are murdering people in ambushes up to the present time and there is no undertaking from Renamo that it will halt its attacks on vehicles carrying humanitarian assistance.

I repeat the Bishop's closing words that if humanly possible efforts should be made to open the rail corridors from Malawi to Beira and Nacala to enable famine supplies to be imported, and the same applies to roads in Mozambique.

It is tremendously important that we are seen to do the best we can to help this area of Africa and stop the deaths which will take place over the next eight months if aid does not reach the stricken lands and we do not manage to transport the food to where it is needed. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for having initiated the debate and hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to redouble their already good efforts in this area. It is tremendously important for the future of the whole of Africa.

6.25 p.m.

Baroness Hilton of Eggardon

My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Judd for introducing the debate. I do not have the specialist and detailed knowledge of the crisis facing South Africa possessed by other noble Lords who are involved in the debate. However, from the sidelines I have been wondering why there is so little public awareness of the impending catastrophe. Public awareness is important because it is only through the mobilisation of public opinion that the politicians and governments of the developed world will be moved to action with sufficient generosity to avert disaster. I have wondered why our attention is focused on the appalling situation in Yugoslavia to the exclusion of almost everything else. It is likely that in Yugoslavia 10,000 have so far died and there are one million refugees. Clearly, that is a dreadful situation. But the drought and famine in southern Africa may kill 18 million people which is an order of comparison far beyond anything we have seen so far in the Balkans. That may occur in the next few months and is already affecting the lives of 40 million Africans.

No doubt there are many explanations for our lack of attention: I propose to concentrate upon three. First, it is a slow crisis without the excitement of daily gun battles and the fast-moving scene in Croatia and Bosnia. Therefore, it does not produce the daily headlines beloved by the media attention is inevitably fickle and feeds on crises and vivid images. No doubt the television crews and reporters currently in Yugoslavia will lose interest as the civil war continues and move to southern Africa as the images of death by starvation become increasingly horrific. By then it will be too late to provide the necessary food aid. So far only 50 per cent. of what is needed has been promised.

Secondly, to people in this country Africa does not have the familiarity of Yugoslavia where many of us have spent holidays in the now shattered cities of Zagreb, Sarajevo and Dubrovnik. Nowadays, it would seem extraordinary if anyone referred to Yugoslavia (as Neville Chamberlain referred to Czechoslovakia) as a far away country of which we knew nothing. But that is how many people still think of Africa. I suspect there is also a strong element of racism. It is easier for us to identify with the problems of white Europeans in Yugoslavia than those of black Africans. However, we belong to one world, and it is in many ways the crippling debts owed to the western world by developing countries which in some cases outstrip their gross domestic product that make it impossible for them to buy the food they need.

The third reason for the lack of public interest is that the scale of the crisis is too enormous to be grasped. Perhaps that is why the public interest has not yet been engaged by this particular crisis. I have been seeking some means of making the scale of the crisis more concrete to the ordinary citizen on the street. The 18 million people at risk of dying from starvation are equal to two and a half times the population of London or one-third of the population of the British Isles. I have finally settled on a figure which may have more impact. Fifty years after the event we are still affected by the horrors of the Holocaust in which six million Jews died in Nazi concentration camps. If we allow the catastrophe in southern Africa to happen, three times that number will die in the famine. No doubt that will reverberate for many times 50 years ahead. It is essential, as my noble friend Lord Judd said, that the developed world responds forthwith to the crisis in southern Africa.

6.30 p.m.

Lord John-Mackie

My Lords, like other noble Lords I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Judd for introducing a debate on two countries in Africa which have suffered such terrible drought. In my opinion, it will affect them for more than one year. Of that I am pretty sure. I should like to widen the discussion beyond just those two countries. I am obliged to Oxfam for a very good brief on the situation as observed by the head of Oxfam and Mr. Simon Hughes, a Member of another place, when they were out there.

Some of the stories that they have told are tragic. There was one in particular about a woman with 12 children and an unemployed husband. All their cattle had died and she was left sitting watching her 12 children daily become thinner. To have so many children raises the issue of population control, which is a subject in itself. I shall not go into that matter other than to say how important it is that something should be done.

The report notes that the lives of about 18 million people are threatened by starvation. That point was emphasised by my noble friend and the last two speakers. The information I have from Christian Aid indicates that the figure is more likely to be 40 million. It could be greatly increased by those in an equally hungry Mozambique. So we are talking about very large numbers of people who are likely to starve in the coming year unless something is done.

That brings me to the world food situation. Accurate figures are difficult to obtain, but there is little doubt that well over 1,000 million people are starving to death in the world today. Estimates from reliable sources say that a figure of between 600 million and 700 million people die yearly of starvation, a very big proportion of whom are young children.

At lunch time today I was speaking to my wife about this debate. We have two grandchildren aged 4 and 6 who stay on our farm. The thought came to me of how it would be to watch those two children—who are well fed, well clothed, and I nearly said, well behaved, but I might need to amend that—starve to death. It simply cannot be imagined. But it is happening all over the world and something has to be done.

There are two problems. One is to get as much food as possible to the starving millions; the second is to teach them how to develop their own food production. It is extraordinary that they do not appreciate the situation. My noble friend said that they were eating their reserves of food and, even worse, many of them were eating the seed for the next year. Those are both big, long term problems.

Early in 1982, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, made a speech in this House about the issue. How right he has been proved. But the problem has grown worse over the past 10 years and still not enough has been done. What is to be done? First, the food that is available must be got to the people. I do not think that there is enough food available to do the whole job but we must do what we can.

There are difficulties. I was recently speaking to an Oxfam official who has been distributing food to villages in various parts of the world. He said that there are quite a lot of difficulties—indeed, there is no question of that—but that those difficulties could be overcome. However, there has to be the will to overcome them. He believes that that will is not there. Too many excuses are made. One excuse is that putting food into those countries destroys the local market for food; another is that the water supplies are so bad that it is a waste to send surplus dried milk.

There are answers to both those excuses. So far as water is concerned, let us send out more water purifiers. This country makes a lot of them. As for destroying the local markets, we should give the money to governments and tell them that they must spend it to subsidise farmers and to ensure that they are not made worse off by food coming into the country. Those difficulties can easily be solved.

As regards producing more food, at the behest of the EC this country was asked to take 1,500,000 acres of land out of food production. That is in addition to the 500 thousand that have already been taken out in the past two years in set-aside. At the same time our imbalance in temperate foods is something like £3,000 million a year. We should produce that ourselves and spend the savings in food for the needy countries. I cannot emphasise that point too much.

One thinks of the shiploads of food from New Zealand, Australia and other countries proceeding up the eastern seaboard of starving Africa with food for Europe, including Britain. Surely an arrangement could be made to deliver that food to the ports of the starving countries—it could include the two countries in southern Africa about which we are speaking—from Mozambique to Abyssinia. For that matter, before leaving the Mediterranean, some could be delivered to Algeria. That may seem difficult to arrange. The point is that we must have the will to arrange it.

A strong point made by David Bryer and Simon Hughes was that there is a need for co-ordination between governments and all the parties concerned to achieve the objectives that we all wish in this tragic situation. It is emphasised that we have the presidency of the EC for six months and we should use all the influence that that gives us to produce a co-ordinated scheme to help not only Zambia and Zimbabwe, but all the areas of hungry people. There was a very good letter published in yesterday's Independent signed by the heads of various charities—one of them a church charity—emphasising that point. I hope that the Government will pay attention to it.

6.38 p.m.

Lord St. John of Bletso

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for introducing this debate today on the impending and in many cases existing famine in southern Africa. The whole issue of the consequences of famine in Africa was raised last year by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, when he addressed the problems existing in the developing countries. Two underlying themes came out of that debate: first, the need for effective distribution of food aid and measures to provide international assistance in farming methods in Africa; secondly, the disastrous effects of conflict in many of the famine stricken countries.

I wish to elaborate on both those themes in the context of today's debate. As noble Lords are aware, Africa is the poorest continent, with an estimated population of 400 million people living in poverty. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, mentioned, in the 10 countries of southern Africa an estimated 18 million people are threatened with starvation as a result of the drought, which is said to be the worst ever. Not only has it destroyed many farms, it has also resulted in many of the great rivers—the Limpopo, the Zambezi and the Orange—beginning to dry up. There have been dramatic reductions in the production of maize, grain, sorghum and sunflower seed during the current year.

For much of southern Africa maize is the staple diet. In South Africa the maize crop is down 67 per cent. to 2.4 million tonnes. In 1990–91 the domestic consumption of maize in South Africa was 6.7 million tonnes. Namibia's maize crop is down 71 per cent.; and Botswana has lost almost its entire crop. Zimbabwe, which used to be a major exporter of maize and sugar products, has seen almost its entire harvest collapse. Already food queues and hoarding has started in Zimbabwe and Zambia. As noble Lords may be aware, Mozambique—which for many years has been ravaged by civil war—has the highest level of human suffering through starvation in the world. Mozambique will reap only one-third of its food harvest this year and more than 3 million of its population of 15 million will need food aid. Almost half of that total amount has already been promised. Even though the international community has pledged vast amounts of food aid, there is frequently a long time lag before the food is delivered. That point has already been made.

The drought and impending famine has placed an important test on regional co-operation in southern Africa. With its sophisticated infrastructure of ports and road and railway networks, several southern African countries are to a large degree dependent on South Africa for rail transport for the maize and other products that they import.

The noble Lord, Lord Judd, mentioned the amounts of maize to be distributed in southern Africa. It has been estimated that a train 1,500 miles long would be needed to bring in all the maize that is required by South Africa and its neighbours. Of the 11 million tonnes of grain, some bought and some supplied by the United Nations world food programme, South Africa's railway network SPOORNET is transporting 8.5 million tonnes. It is the biggest transportation exercise in food and relief in the world. Even the Ethiopian drought relief effort involved only 2 million tonnes of food.

It is worth noting that South Africa, despite being excluded from the SADCC regional conference on the drought in Lusaka in April this year, and the Pledging Conference organised by the SADCC and the United Nations in Geneva in June this year, has nevertheless taken the initiative in fostering a regional approach to the problem. Together with Botswana, Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe, the world food programme, and the SADCC, South Africa has established the Strategic Group for the Southern Corridor for the purposes of distributing food supplies. At any particular time about 20 ships from Argentina and the United States are on their way to South Africa to unload grain. The grain that is not distributed from South Africa is offloaded at Walvis Bay in Namibia, Dar es Salaam in Tanzania, and Beira, Nacala and Maputo in Mozambique.

That vast transport operation obviously has its political side. Although Zimbabwe has had a firm policy in the past of no ministerial contact with Pretoria, because of the seriousness of the food situation a Zimbabwe Minister recently visited South Africa to discuss transport arrangements. The whole exercise highlights the ridiculousness of Zimbabwe's stand on sanctions against South Africa. Despite the deadlock in South Africa at CODESA II, and the tragic recent incident at Boipatong, together with the continuing violence, surely now should be a time for a concerted effort by all parties in South Africa to resolve the log jam, and for an international mediation group to be established to endeavour to break the deadlock between the various parties in South Africa. Will the Minister consider that option? I believe that an international delegation to South Africa would have an immensely persuasive influence.

A major theme on the issue of the impending famine is the relationship between conflict and poverty. I make brief mention of the stalemate situation in South Africa. Since half of my 10 minutes is up, I wish purely to touch on the issue of violence. There is no denying the fact that the security forces in South Africa have been indirectly partly to blame for many of the deaths in the townships. But it would be totally wrong to put all the blame on the Government for not controlling the security forces. There are clearly elements from both the extreme right and the extreme left which have sought to derail the democratisation process in South Africa. Pressure should be exerted on all parties to meet to discuss ways of strengthening the existing peace structures that were established in the national peace accord last year and thereby to encourage the need to return to negotiations as soon as possible.

South Africa is currently suffering its third consecutive year of negative economic growth. Mass action, in particular the general strike threatened by the alliance of the ANC, the South African Communist Party and COSATU between 3rd and 9th August, can only have a devastating effect on any chances of resolving the deadlock. Not only will it be totally destructive in its effects on the economy, but, with intimidation in the townships, in particular of workers wishing to ignore the boycott, violence will worsen and finally will detract foreigners from investing in South Africa. That foreign investment is desperately needed not just in South Africa but in the whole region. Will the Minister prevail on the alliance of the ANC, COSATU and the South African Communist Party the futility of that threatened action?

Clearly, the Government are and will continue to be under pressure to provide as much food as possible. However, I also believe that it is vital that aid is focused not just on food aid but on assisting the economies of southern Africa with education programmes, such as co-ordinated agricultural research programmes, health assistance—the point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont—both in the treatment of famine stricken peoples and in the improvement and treatment of water supplies.

Voluntary organisations such as Oxfam, Christian Aid, Save the Children Fund and others are to be much thanked for the fantastic work that they have done in the distribution of food aid not only in southern Africa but throughout Africa. The Minister is to be congratulated on her policy of granting and coupling food aid with good governance. The Minister is conscious of the severity of the drought and impending famine in southern Africa. I look forward to hearing more about Her Majesty's Government's policy for assisting the region.

6.48 p.m.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, the most graphic illustration of the depth of the famine and drought in southern Africa came from the news that the bushmen community, for the first time in history, is appealing for food aid. It is a community which for thousands of years has been independent. It has obtained the needs of its families from fruits and from hunting and gathering. It is now reduced to appealing for food aid because the berries, vegetables, nuts and vegetation have been wiped out by the drought.

We have had an ample supply of figures. My noble friend Lord Judd began with a set of figures which would be shocking in any era of history but is particularly so in our modern times. All I would say is that, according to the United Nations,130 million people are already affected and 18 million people face starvation in that region.

Again, to bring that up against the international realities of today, the governments of Zimbabwe and Zambia are both faced with the desperate choice that they either renege on their debt payments and are cut off from credit or they allow their people to starve. They either put the money into food for their starving people or they pay it in debt repayments according to the structural adjustment policies as laid down by the IMF and the World Bank.

That is an effect of nature. The drought has not come from any human activity, with some exceptions which I shall mention in a few moments. However, a question is raised and it is a question of which I gave prior notice to the Minister who is to reply to the debate. Has there not been an opportunity to predict that famine and to prepare for it coming? I wonder whether the Minister has read the words of the noted Columbia University geologist Mark Cane who suggests that the drought could have been predicted if enough work had been done on seasonal climate forecasting. The question I wish to ask the Minister is this. In view of the fact that seasonal climate forecasting is done excellently by our meteorological office and at the climate research unit, is the ODA helping to finance that work? I believe that it did so in north Africa some time ago and I believe also that that finance has either come to an end or has been drastically cut. From the point of view of information, I should like to know what the ODA's policy is towards that crucial aspect of climatology which can save so many lives and can provide a basis for forecasting and predicting. That makes it possible to take action before such tragedies as we see today have come into effect.

The second aspect of famine with which I wish to deal is the impact of wars. We have already heard of the disasters in Mozambique brought about very largely by South African policy and forces. Millions of refugees are now moving into Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Tanzania, away from both the drought and the violence of Mozambique.

What some of us have been saying for decades now is that that kind of tragedy is inevitable under the system of apartheid. Those who have had the opportunity of travelling across the mountains of Transkei, Ciskei, Bophuthatswana and other reserves in southern Africa can see, and have seen over the years, the scarring on the hills, the soil erosion, the land of more and more people taken away and given to the whites, and pushing those people into the reserves until they are overstocked. The people cannot keep their families alive and so, again, there is the rush to the towns and the reserves are left with only old people and women to husband them. That is a direct effect of apartheid.

The revolt against apartheid is not just political; if anything, it is based most deeply on the love of the land and on the anger which comes from the removal of people from the land according to their racial origins. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, that that continues. He calls for the ANC and COSATU to withdraw their tactics of strikes, but how is it that he is making no demands of the white minority government? They have shown themselves to be both brutal and determined to maintain white supremacy. The political deadlock has not come about just through intransigence; it has come about essentially because the de Klerk Government have been insisting on maintaining white supremacy through their constitutional proposals and through their refusal to compromise over those proposals.

The South African government and Mr. de Klerk himself have openly and publicly admitted—and I heard them so do—that they have been funding Inkatha and its trade unions. It is estimated that of the 7,000 deaths which have occurred in the past two years, well over half have been caused by Inkatha attacks. Anybody who wants to substantiate that should go along to Gray's Inn this week and listen to the international hearings organised by the United Nations and the British anti-apartheid movement.

The mad dogs of war have been let loose in South Africa. We have a responsibility. The Government, unwisely I believe, removed sanctions far too early before it was clear that irreversible measures of reform had been undertaken. If that is allowed to continue, the whole of southern Africa will collapse into chaos. I suggest to the Minister that she should tell the House this evening what action the British Government will take this evening in New York at the United Nations Security Council meeting when the ANC call for international intervention and mediation and the South African Government are saying we should keep out of their country.

I suggest that along with the United Nations, our position in the Commonwealth and in the EC gives us special responsibility and special opportunities to bring our pressure and international pressure to bear on those who are destroying southern Africa. We should show that when we speak to President de Klerk we speak with the backing of the international community in telling him that, if he wants to be accepted as a member of the international community, he must withdraw from the violence that is taking place and either control his security forces or else allow a new government to do so.

7 p.m.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, we owe a duty of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for introducing the debate this afternoon. It is a subject of great importance. It disturbs me that we seem only to be hearing contributions from one side of the House, apart from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. I hope that the Members of the Government are all busily beavering away writing cheques to Oxfam to help the situation, but I suspect that they are not.

Be that as it may, it is inevitable when we discuss a topic relating to southern Africa that the political difficulties that beset the region inevitably come to the fore. I do not want to go down that road. I want to discuss a different aspect of the subject, except for making one aside to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, who railed against the ANC for calling what is effectively a general strike in South Africa to put pressure on the De Klerk government to attend the negotiating table in a better frame of mind.

I understand that there may be some economic dislocation. But that is surely far better than having a situation where the negotiators of the ANC—Nelson Mandela and his team—are effectively divorced from the mass of the people of South Africa. We must recognise that there are not simply two parties to the dispute; namely, Nelson Mandela and De Klerk. Both have constituencies consisting of millions of people who need to be taken with them. When one is engaged in negotiations one must sometimes put on a show of force, a demonstration of solidarity, if for no other reason than to assure one's own supporters that one is going in the right direction.

Lord St. John of Bletso

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Is the noble Lord aware that in the threatened mass action of a strike the ANC youth league stated categorically that it intends to make the townships ungovernable?

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, young people are always taken with making extreme statements. While I appreciate that in the context of South Africa one must be extremely concerned about those statements, the impetuousness of youth needs to be recognised as well as the need for the leaders and the led to be together.

I do not want to spend too much time on that aspect. Our debate concerns the power of nature. I hope that we all agree that the tragedy unfolding in southern Africa is not being caused by the ethnic divisions, the economic unemployment and the political scene in that part of the world. It is being caused by an act of nature. Effectively, a natural disaster is taking place. We are talking in terms of 18 million people who are liable to die. We can compare that with the scale of death—I agree that it has been horrific—over the past few years caused by ethnic conflicts and the various political instabilities and crises in that part of the world.

Eighteen million is an enormous number of people. As my noble friend Lady Hilton said, it is three times the number of people who died in the concentration camps in the second world war. The impact that that would have if it came to be, not simply in Africa but around the world, would be immense. I suggest that the rich peoples of the world, the peoples of Europe, North America and Japan, would be held significantly responsible for those deaths. It is within our power, through our economic might, our wealth, to do something about them. That is what our task should be over the next weeks and months.

A number of speakers said that time was running out. There is only another half day of this Session of Parliament before we go away for a long Recess. We must have action from this Government not only as a government of a rich nation needing to make a financial contribution for all of us in the United Kingdom, but also, as a country holding the presidency of the Council of Europe, our Government have a position of influence and responsibility. That should be used over the next few months. Our membership of the Security Council in the United Nations is a privileged and responsible position. Some may argue that it is a relic of 40 years ago. But we should use that position also to ensure that not only our own country, not only the European Community, but also that the other rich nations of the world make their contributions as well.

We have seen this impending tragedy unfolding over the past few months, this awesome power of nature affecting now and liable to affect even more significantly in the future our fellow human beings and we must take action. We must take action through the Government. We must take action because of the wealth that we own. As a statistic, the per capita income of the peoples of southern Africa is less than 500 dollars a year. The per capita income of the rich nations—Europe, North America and Japan—is in the order of 15,000 dollars a year. Those statistics are stark. It is the difference between the poorest and the richest peoples of the world. We have a responsibility as a rich people, a rich community, to take the necessary action to prevent the disaster happening.

I make a plea that we do not rely on the charity of individuals. We are a rich community. The European Community is a rich Community. As a society, as people acting together, we must make that contribution. The only way we can do that is through government contributions. Governments must levy the taxes on the citizens of their countries to raise the money and to spend it in a way that will save many millions of people in southern Africa from dying. I make the plea for our Government to take action as soon as possible.

7.10 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester

My Lords, I must begin by apologising for arriving late for this debate. It was unavoidable but I felt it was important that one from the Bishop's Bench should contribute to the debate, for which we are all deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd.

It is difficult to follow so powerful a speech as that made by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I can concur with almost everything that he said. In passing, perhaps I may repeat what was perhaps implied this afternoon at Question Time, that I believe that Nelson Mandela is in fact a moderate; that he said before he went to the United Nations that as far as he was concerned the ANC had left behind warfare and violence in favour of persuasion and negotiation. It is essential that we give him affirmation so that he may lead his people and not leave the townships to the mercies of the extremists and the mindless who have no real understanding of the future and the statesmanship which is needed in southern Africa. So I greatly hope that we can still, as a government, keep in touch with the moderate leaders so that the situation does not degenerate into total chaos.

I know that every Member of this House agrees that there is a human tragedy of vast and almost apocalyptic proportions about to take place in southern Africa. It is difficult to take in the figures. They have been given by most of the speakers and I do not wish to repeat statistics. I believe that it is a similar situation to the kind which we might have faced if there had been a major nuclear exchange between the nations. It affects both black and white and urban and rural people. All of us must have heard from friends in the cities of southern Africa—Bulawayo, for example, where sanitation has almost come to a halt and from people in Zimbabwe—who have said that we are one step away from the tragedy of Ethiopia.

This is a tragedy so immense that it must command from us an equal, generous and unprecedented response. I believe that there is a sense in which we either survive together in the present-day world or we do not survive at all. The destabilisation of the continent of Africa through abject poverty which will bring the breakdown of government, will obviously affect us all. If they go deeper and deeper into poverty the more sophisticated economies will follow them. That much we noted when we had a debate in this House on the successful completion of the GATT round.

I say again that I believe that the time is here for an unprecedented response on the part of government as well as individuals. I can assure your Lordships that the Churches have alerted their members to the need. But I agree with the noble Baroness that there have been so many other things in the headlines of the news that the tragedy of southern Africa may have gone less noticed than it should have done. We need first aid, but we also need a long-term strategy.

Perhaps at this point it would be fair for me to say that the Christian Council of Mozambique, for example, has organised an airlift to the remoter areas. The Zimbabwe Christian Care Council is running a supplementary feeding programme in primary schools. Children are being both fed and educated. A headmaster went on record as saying,"Children who had stopped coming to school because they were too weak have started again", with the provision of food. Christian Aid in southern Africa is also raising at the moment £500,000. It has reached that target for southern Africa alone. The Catholic Bishops Conference raised a "Crisis in Africa" fund, which I am glad to say reached £1 million yesterday.

I do not recount these things with any sense of complacency. I continue to make the point, however, that has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. The Churches of any denomination are singularly well placed to make distribution of food to local people. They have the people on the ground who know those who are in need and where the landless poor and the stricken farms are to be found. I know that I hardly need urge government to make use of us in the relief programmes which must be mounted. It is a matter of saying to government: "Give us the provisions and we'll help finish the job".

It is vital at this moment of summer pause and summer vacation, as noble Lords have already pointed out, to persuade the international community to make a new round of pledges. The first round was none too successful. Not only was it too small but it was too long delayed. There should be a new round of pledges. I hope that Britain, as holder of the European presidency, will take the lead in such an initiative. We have done in the past. We in this nation have a reputation for caring for dispossessed people. Let us live up to that reputation.

Furthermore, as other noble Lords have urged, it will be necessary to release more Treasury funds to enable the Overseas Development Administration to meet unforeseeable needs generated by the drought. In the long term it will be abject poverty which will be the enemy of those administrative, economic and governmental reforms which are so necessary in some of the poorest countries in southern Africa. Perhaps I may again give a statistic: people in some of the poorest countries in southern Africa are 120 times poorer than a British citizen. Many people would love to have the food that every evening we put down for our cats and dogs.

The Prime Minister of this country is to be praised for his consistent return to the need for debt release, because that would set free the resources needed for development. As noble Lords will no doubt know, Africa's development deficit will amount to 35 billion dollars over the decade of the 1990s. If action is not taken, the present cycle of deepening poverty will surely bring in its train war, epidemics and the breakdown of government as night follows day. Furthermore, I am told that investment during the 1980s in sub-Saharan Africa has, like the landscape, dried up.

Perhaps I may speak extremely briefly about a lesser-known United Nations organisation, the International Fund for Agricultural Development. It helps small farmers to grow more food. But in spite of it being rather a success story, I believe that Her Majesty's Government are no longer going to contribute to it. I would like some reassurance on that from the Minister when winding up. Seven million pounds were put into the organisation at the beginning. Although other nations in the northern hemisphere are supporting the international fund for agricultural development, we in Britain have refused to continue to do so. This body has organised 26 projects in 20 countries. It has enabled farmers in Burkina Faso to rehabilitate 5,000 hectares of degraded land and to increase staple cereals by 40 per cent.

Let us not waste time arguing as to who should pay the share. Can we not return to the position of being a supporter of this lesser-known United Nations outfit? The famine in southern Africa and in the Horn of Africa is becoming, as we have already said, massive and tragic. There are few things which are more terrifying than drought. I pray that, if the experience teaches us that the time has come to transfer some of the multimillions we have spent in developing weapons of destruction in past decades to resources for both short-term and long-term needs in such an impoverished world, then we may have learnt an important lesson. I repeat: we either survive together or we do not survive at all.

7.19 p.m.

Lord Bottomley

My Lords, I too join in the tribute that has been paid to my noble friend Lord Judd who has great knowledge of the subject that he introduced and who speaks from great experience. He has done more for the developing world than most people. I am also delighted to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester who spoke with feeling and understanding.

It was my privilege to be a member of the United Kingdom delegation to the United Nations in October 1946. The leader of that delegation was Ernest Bevin. It was my responsibility to watch the British interests in the developing world. I was a member of the trusteeship committee and some of my fellow-members included Foster Dulles of the United States, Gromyko of the Soviet Union and Field Marshal Smuts. At the end of the session Field Marshal Smuts said to me,"I am very glad that young members of the Labour Party are taking an interest in southern Africa, but you do not understand the problem unless you see it first hand". He said that he would send a letter to Prime Minister Attlee suggesting that I visit South Africa.

In due course the Prime Minister said to me,"Field Marshal Smuts is going to send you an invitation to visit South Africa and you can accept". Again in due course I met the Field Marshal in London and he asked me whether I would bring my wife with me. I said that I could not do so because I could not afford it and the Government would not pay for that. He said,"The South African Government will have her as a guest". My private secretary on that visit was Lord Hunt, who eventually became Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet.

There has been some comment today that the Commonwealth has no relevance to today's problems and that it is more of a liability to Britain than an asset. The links may be mainly sentimental, but the fact is that over 40 countries, most of them of considerable importance, still wish to preserve this multiracial association. In 1980 Willy Brandt, who was the first Socialist Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, produced the Brandt Report. He called it an assault on poverty and hunger, a programme for survival. Seventy thousand copies of the report were sold. The present father of the House of Commons, Sir Edward Heath, was associated with that report. I wonder whether the Government might consider asking him to get together a team of Commonwealth statesmen and women to produce an up-to-date Brandt Report.

During the past 60 years conditions of life have altered more than in the past 2,000 years. Television, radio, computers, electronics and automation have changed our life-style. We live longer. Our most acute problems today are mass hunger and disease. They are not new, but they are intolerable because they could be solved by our modern knowledge and technology.

A friend of mine who recently returned from Zambia said that Lusaka was surrounded by immense squatter camps, populated by those who had come to seek refuge from the drought-ridden countryside. There is violent crime there caused by out-of-work guerrillas. Malawi, which is a land-locked country, has one of the largest refugee populations in Africa. The competition between the local population and the refugees over food resources could cause untold trouble. In Zimbabwe, hundreds of thousands of families are experiencing severe food shortages. The drought has hit different groups, small-scale farmers being among the most severely hurt. Lesotho, Swaziland, Mozambique and many other southern African countries are similarly affected.

In the coming year many millions of people in southern Africa will be threatened with starvation. They have had one of the worst droughts in living memory, destroying huge amounts of crops. It is estimated that to meet this devastation 11 million tonnes of food will be needed between now and April 1993.

Rural communities are stretched more than they have been ever before. They will face a bleak future if action is not taken to help with agricultural recovery. Oxen, seeds, tools and tractors are urgently needed to ensure that crops are planted in September. If we fail to cure mass hunger and disease we shall be condemned by history.

7.27 p.m.

Lord Rea

My Lords, from the many speeches that noble Lords have made the tremendous extent of the impending disaster which is about to hit southern Africa is now clear. I should like in my speech to discuss briefly some of the underlying reasons behind the recurrent severe droughts and famine conditions which have been affecting both the Northern and Southern Savannah regions of Africa. First, however, I wish to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, about measures which Her Majesty's Government might be able to take in the present emergency to assist in getting help out to populations at the village or remote settlement level—"the final mile"—where the need is most severe, especially among women and children. Roads are bad and distances great, especially in Zambia and Mozambique. The atrocious surfaces are punishing to vehicles and according to Oxfam local transport companies are unwilling to use their vehicles because of the possibility of breakdown and the lack of spare parts. If development was at a higher level and the roads and infrastructure in general were better—as they are in parts of Zimbabwe and South Africa—getting supplies out to the periphery would be easier. It must be part of future development aid to help to improve that situation.

As many noble Lords have pointed out, the need is to get the food, seeds and tools out to where they are needed as soon as possible—and certainly by September—to be ready for the next planting season. I remind the noble Baroness of the significant part that was played during an earlier drought and famine in Ethiopia by Hercules transport aircraft. Their part in moving grain and other supplies through war-torn and difficult terrain will not be forgotten either by the NGO teams who were working there or by the local population. A similar exercise for southern Africa might well be appropriate. The Hercules transports might even take with them mobile workshops and suitable spare parts so as to keep a fleet of local trucks in operation as well. There would be considerable training potential for the military personnel involved in mounting such an exercise.

One of the justifications for maintaining an army or an airforce in peacetime should be their ability to intervene and assist in civil disasters. A mobile task force could be assembled to work very effectively in the situation in southern Africa. Ideally this should be under UN auspices, but because of the urgency of the situation and our long association with southern Africa it would be entirely appropriate for the United Kingdom to offer bilateral emergency assistance of this kind. Such a task force to southern Africa, rather than to the south Atlantic, would be something we could be proud of.

The Republic of South Africa is very much affected by the drought. It should have sufficient resources, or should be in a position to buy them, to avert serious consequences within South Africa, but that is no guarantee that it will do so. For example, will it get adequate help out to African people, especially in more remote settlements? Does the noble Baroness have any information on how the South African Government intend to tackle the problem within their own borders to help their people, particularly their black people? Has South Africa offered any assistance to its more severely affected neighbours?

In the five minutes left to me I should like to put forward some thoughts as to why these problems affecting the sub-tropical and savannah zones of Africa seem to keep recurring. Droughts of course are not new in these ecologically rather delicately balanced areas where rainfall, often heavy, is concentrated into one third of the year to be followed by long and often very hot dry periods. Southern Africa is more fortunate than mid-Africa and the Horn of Africa because it is narrower and the sea is nearer. Moisture enters the atmosphere nearer the centre of the continent. But both in the south and the north the effects of a drought are much worse now than they used to be for several reasons.

As my noble friend Lord Hatch pointed out, the land is more intensely cultivated and is often over-grazed, leaving less in reserve. Water tables are lower and fall more quickly and there is less natural vegetation for populations to fall back on. To quote a report from Christian Aid regarding Zimbabwe: Up until two years ago Zimbabwe had built up large stocks of maize which could have covered the shortfall caused by drought. But in order to increase foreign exchange earnings the government sold some of the surplus, and encouraged farmers to increase production of cash crops like cotton and tobacco. The remainder was used to cover shortfalls in the harvest during the poor rains of recent years"— my noble friend spoke of warning signs— So when this year's drought struck, the country was left without any reserves". In Mozambique the situation, like Ethiopia in the mid-1980s, has been made far worse, as other noble Lords have pointed out, by the continuing conflict which has severely disrupted agriculture. The Christian Aid report states: Taking trucks through Mozambique, where the civil war disrupts normal life, is very difficult". To return to the cause of the droughts, we have to consider whether man and his activities are contributing to their increasing frequency. Even if we leave aside the possible effect of global warming it is highly likely that intensive agriculture and forest or scrub clearance contribute to the problem. Indigenous plants are well adapted to long dry spells; they have deep roots and can draw water from deep down. At the same time they contribute to atmospheric moisture by transpiration through their leaves and by covering the ground in the dry season to prevent some of the heat of the sun being reflected back into the atmosphere. Unchecked, this extra heat decreases the relative humidity in the atmosphere so that cloud formation and precipitation of moisture as rain is reduced.

This has lessons for agricultural practice. For example, the level of the water table could be improved by building many small dams—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester mentioned what has happened in Burkina Faso—to prevent run off and erosion, and atmospheric moisture could be increased by planting suitable tree cover between and around crops and restricting forest clearance.

There is an urgent need for assistance to small and medium farmers if Zimbabwe and Zambia are to continue in their role as the bread basket of southern Africa. One important step here—I fully echo what was said by the right reverend Prelate—should be to augment the funding of the International Fund for Agricultural Development. The reason put forward for our not contributing to the fund is that other countries are not contributing their share and so we are withholding our share. I can understand that if a small contribution is spread around the whole world it might be dissipated. This again might be a reason for Britain going alone and instituting its own agricultural projects in southern Africa to follow up this drought. Britain could well support an assistance and development policy to help small farmers. But even before this, as several noble Lords have pointed out, the reduction of debt, both official debt through the Trinidad mechanism and commercial debt through pressure on the banks, must be considered as a top priority.

To sum up, I suggest that Her Majesty's Government have within their power the ability greatly to alleviate the immediate crisis but also to make a major impact in the long term. If they were to do so both now and later they would earn the gratitude of many millions of people in South Africa and throughout the world.

7.37 p.m.

Lord Pitt of Hampstead

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Judd for introducing this debate. I am lucky in that I am the last Back Bench speaker and most of the detailed arguments have already been put. I want therefore to make a summary. There is a drought in southern Africa. We should be asking ourselves why there is a drought in southern Africa. Could it have been foreseen, and if so, why was it not foreseen? If it could not have been foreseen, why could it not have been foreseen? There is evidence to suggest that it could have been foreseen and that action could therefore have been taken to—I would not say prevent—at least reduce the worst consequences. That is my first point.

One needs to ask another question. Assuming that there was no way of forecasting the drought and that nothing could have been done to prevent the drought, why has the drought had such devastating effects? That is a question we need to answer. Unless we answer that question we will not be able to deal with further developments in this way. Let us face it: we do have droughts and they have consequences. But there are areas where preparation is made and the consequences are not so serious. Therefore one needs to ask why in an area like southern Africa the drought has had such serious effects.

My noble friend mentioned the political activities in the area which have played a part. I want to build on that because I believe that the direct activity of the South African Government to destabilise its neighbours is one of the factors in the situation that we are now facing. I believe that I am right to say that. For example, if I just instance Mozambique, there is no question about it: the activities of the South African Government through Renamo have been largely responsible for that country being flat on its back, because that is where it is. Therefore, we have to look at that as a political side. If I am right and that political side is important, then the British Government must ask themselves what they must do about it.

Over the years the Government have tried to defend what is happening in South Africa in one way or another and to be a sort of friend to that country. The stage has now been reached where, if the Government are to be a friend to South Africa, they must be a candid friend. I say that because there is a real danger at this moment of South Africa going backwards rather than forwards. If it does so, much of what we are talking about is small fry compared to what will in fact happen. Therefore, it is necessary to try to ensure that there is agreement in South Africa and that, instead of splitting up in the way that it is doing, the country is able to unite and to unite not only within itself but also with its neighbours so that the area which is fertile and which has many good resources becomes an area of which the world can be proud.

Frankly, the latter requires international action. It is no use all of us sitting on the sidelines and just hoping that things will not get worse. We are in a position—indeed, I believe that the Security Council is actually discussing South Africa today—where the international community can say,"We want to examine the situation here and see what can be done in order to enable this particular country to become a true democracy," and so fulfil its full potential. We must also encourage the neighbouring territories to play their part because the area is one of great potential which, if fully developed, can not only feed and clothe itself but can also help many of the areas further north.

Therefore, I hope that one of the consequences of our looking at this disaster is that we will seriously consider political action which will prevent a recurrence. At the same time—the point has been mentioned many times—we must consider the economic causes; indeed, the matter of debt has been much mentioned. But it is not just the debt; it is the whole way in which those territories have had to use their resources not to feed or develop themselves but in order to meet the demands of other people. We need to ask ourselves: is it really right that we should go on taking that particular attitude to those territories? Is it really right that we should go on taking from those countries all that we can get while failing to help them develop?

The truth is that if we were to put back into those countries what we have taken from them—not all of it, but enough of it—the consequential development would enable both them and us to prosper. Therefore, we need to be looking at those issues in this way. Over the years we have adopted a selfish attitude; namely, one of what is in our best interests rather than what would help the community as a whole. We have always done so. We have always ended up with gainers and serious losers. It is the consequence of always doing that rather than the other round that leads us into problems.

In my rambling way, I hope that I have brought to the House a realisation of the wider aspect of the problem. It is not only in southern Africa that we have droughts about which we ought to have been warned and about which we ought to have done something but have not; it has happened elsewhere and will happen again. What we really need is a new philosophy, a new approach or a realisation that we can help and that, by helping, we can also benefit. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept what I have said.

7.47 p.m.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey)

My Lords, perhaps I may first thank the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for tabling the Motion for debate this evening. It is absolutely right that we should debate the drought and the impending famine in southern Africa. I am very pleased that the House has had that chance. Despite the increasingly sad but welcome media reports which are now appearing with increasing frequency, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, said, the severity of the crisis is not yet as widely appreciated as it should be.

As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, knows, I saw the new Director General of Oxfam together with our colleague Simon Hughes from another place immediately upon their return from southern Africa. I have today received a further report from the Save the Children Fund on what is happening. The work that is being done by the British NGOs, side by side with local Churches to which the right reverend Prelate referred, is first class. But they cannot do it all themselves. We know that, and that is why we are giving them as much backing as possible.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that insufficient priority is being given in some countries to the forwarding of grain and the commitment of money to appeals. But I can tell him that right from the outset, Britain has ensured that we put our efforts right up front so that people knew what was in the pipeline. We have not ceased to do that. We have also sought to use every piece of scientific evidence possible to guide us in meeting the needs of those people.

Most noble Lords have painted, rightly, a stark picture of the situation in southern Africa. The debate has, however, ranged far wider than the impending famine in southern Africa. Before I concentrate on that topic I want to try quickly to put into context two other issues: first, the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, made about the attention which the former Soviet Union and central and eastern Europe, especially the former Yugoslav Republic, and the tragedies of Bosnia Herzegovina, are attracting at the moment. Yes, I know, because I too am working for Africa, how infuriating it is not to be able to get into the headlines with this desperate famine. Other measures also need to be tackled. As the noble Lord made that comment I looked up into the Gallery to see how many members of the press were there. My heart sank once again. We must hope that the combined efforts of the appeals from the United Nations, the NGOs, and what we say in this House and another place, will alert the public to just how bad is the situation. It is as tragic, in numbers, as anything we shall ever see. We hope that we shall never see anything like it anywhere else in the world.

The second issue with which I must deal before turn to the debate on the famine relates to political matters in South Africa—a subject to which the noble Lords, Lord St John of Bletso, Lord Monkswell, Lord Hatch of Lusby and others referred. I am glad that today in New York the Security Council is discussing South Africa. It is at the moment hearing directly from most of the parties directly involved with South Africa. I hope that as a result of that debate the international community will send a strong signal that negotiations among all the parties in South Africa must resume as soon as possible, and that the violence must end.

When in New York last week I ensured that every effort was made to bring people together on that issue. Since I returned from a further discussion in Washington we have done everything that we can to ensure that we build upon the work that is already being done to stop the violence and to build up local peace committees. The House may be interested to hear that in that respect it is a British expert (Dr. Waddington of Reading University) and two British police officers who were sent at our expense to Judge Goldstone's inquiry into Boipatong some two weeks ago. We believe that we can help further in South Africa, if all parties wish us to do so. That is why I have said on many platforms in the past two weeks that Britain is ready to respond positively to any proposal within the international framework that has the backing of all the parties in South Africa, whether it come from the EC, the Commonwealth or the United Nations. As friends of peace and of progress and a non-racial democracy in South Africa, we must do all that we can to assist.

As I told the European Parliamentary Development Committee in Brussels this morning, I greatly hope that the European Ministers' troika will be able to visit South Africa as soon as will be helpful to bring about further steps to end violence and enhance negotiations. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for having departed from the text of the debate, but South Africa has been mentioned so often that I felt it right to respond.

In terms of the drought and the impending famine, we have never seen anything so severe as that now faced by southern Africa. For a region which, taken as a whole, is more or less self-sufficient in the production of food grains, that is disastrous. Food production has been at less than half the normal level, and up to 18 million people are at serious risk. I say to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that that figure of 18 million people at risk comes from the United Nations and the southern African Development Co-ordination Conference. They are not our figures. They are internationally accepted.

The food imports needed are, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, in excess of 11 million tonnes. That is already placing an enormous strain on the region's fragile economies and on its transport infrastructure and distribution systems—a subject to which I shall return in a moment. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, that Britain has not sat on the sidelines. We have been active from the earliest moment, as I shall describe shortly. There is a further problem, and that is the drastic shortage of water. It has led to the widespread slaughter of livestock and the loss of already threatened wildlife resources. The water shortage has further resulted in an increased incidence of diarrhoeal and infectious diseases, to the loss of industrial production and even threatens the viability of major cities such as Bulawyo. I hope that those outside the House will realise from those remarks just how seriously we view the drought in southern Africa.

The noble Lords, Lord Hatch and Lord Pitt of Hampstead, talked about having been able to foresee the drought. Your Lordships may wish to know that my own Natural Resources Institute at Chatham has already done great and good work in studying how, through remote sensing technology, one can foresee as much as possible. But I am told that we cannot foresee more than six months or so ahead. As regards the current drought, the valuable work that was done by the United States Aid Administration and the World Food Programme drew our attention to the scale of the problem in the early part of the year. That is how I came to respond with the first £10 million in the first 10 days of March this year.

We are using all the technology we have. We shall be working further with the World Meteorological Organisation to extend the monitoring that is already going on which alerted us this year to the situation. However much monitoring there is, and however much warning there is, I am afraid that we shall never be able to avoid the full effects of a drought such as we now face. The threats it poses for 18 million people go much wider. That is why the international community must act with all speed and determination to counter them.

As I said, this country did not wait for any second warning. Britain has, throughout the disaster, taken a leading role in trying to cajole others to make efforts similar to ours. Not only were we the first to respond, since March I have approved a total of £48 million of bilateral commitments of aid to southern Africa. This has taken the form of food aid, balance of payments support to help ease the financial burden of additional food imports, technical assistance for various aspects of drought management and support for the activities of British and local voluntary agencies.

The European Community, too, has responded to the crisis. At the Council of Development Ministers on 4th May we approved a special food aid programme which is making available an additional 800,000 tonnes of food aid this year. Over 370,000 tonnes of this will go to the countries of southern Africa and Britain will be contributing more than £11 million towards the cost. So, in total Britain's contribution to date this year to southern Africa to help alleviate the effects of the drought is nearly £60 million.

The response of the other bilateral donors has been positive. But it was not early enough in a number of cases. I am grateful to my officials around the world for following the lead I gave some months ago that we must persuade other countries to do as we have been doing. I was at least glad to be present in Geneva at the drought appeal conference where 600 million US dollars were pledged. However, I was very sad to find that I was the only European Minister present; there were few from other parts of the world. As has already been said, the amount pledged fell short of the 854 million dollars appeal target.

I am glad to tell the House that since that date there have been significant commitments from a number of major donors, including the United States of America and Japan. Others, including Holland and Canada, have announced substantial extra funding since the conference, and indeed we have made other announcements since then. But resources are still needed and we shall take every opportunity in the various international fora to urge others to join us in responding to the need.

I must mention the speed with which the machinery of co-operation has been put in place within the region. A ministerial meeting of the southern African development co-ordination conference in April established a regional task force to oversee the response to the crisis in liaison with national emergency co-ordinators and the relevant UN agencies. Six corridor groups have been established to supervise the importation of food through the main regional ports and associated road and rail systems. A logistics advisory centre has been established in Harare, with the close involvement of the World Food Programme. Together, they will help smooth the flow of food imports and ensure that the best use is made of available transport capacity.

I pay tribute to the Minister of Transport from Zimbabwe who helped to break a deadlock which we faced at one time, with the importation of food through South Africa, mainly because I am afraid one or two countries did not want to receive the food through South Africa. When there is a guerrilla warfare going on in Mozambique one has to use whichever ports are available. But more of that later.

I must say that I am heartened now that the co-operation has transcended political differences. The South African Government have also played a key role in this logistical exercise and that should not be forgotten. The port and railway authorities in South Africa, in close concert with their counterparts in neighbouring countries, have responded to the challenge of coping with more than four times the normal level of food imports.

I wish to say a word to those who I know were worried that old wagons were being used from South African railways to take the food up to the landlocked countries. This was sensible, because the wagons could remain as storage places in those countries when there was no other warehousing available for the food which might otherwise have been in a worse state when it reached the people in the far off villages. So there was a good reason for using the old South African stock.

Throughout the debate we have heard a number of comments about structural adjustment affecting our ability to help people through this drought period. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, commented that it was food or paying your debts. Others made less extreme comments. Perhaps I may make it clear to the House that the implications of the drought for economic reform in the region have been a key subject in discussions over the past few months and last week in my discussions with the World Bank and the IMF. I am convinced of the willingness of the World Bank and the IMF, if they find there is a problem, to deal with it promptly and flexibly. Both institutions are making substantial extra resources available for the countries worst affected by the drought.

It is important that the progress we have so far made under economic reform programmes should not be reversed. That is one of the reasons why we have increased the level of our balance of payments support for the reform effort in Zambia and Zimbabwe, so that they should not be knocked off course and they can at the same time help those badly affected by the drought.

There is no conflict between structural adjustment and food security. Indeed, more realistic producer prices and improved arrangements for agricultural marketing should be helpful in this respect. But the experience of the drought has caused us to ask the fund to make more explicit its consideration of the food security issues when it is designing further stages of structural adjustment. We have not faced this situation before. We learn that if we can be flexible—whether it be through the bank, the fund or bilateral donors—the people in these countries will end up the better.

Many noble Lords, particularly the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Worcester, referred to the debt situation. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, paid tribute to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. As the House knows, Britain has taken a leading role in debt reduction in recognition of the burden which accumulated debt represents for many developing countries. The Trinidad Terms are not, as we had proposed, a two-thirds reduction in the debt, with the balance being repaid over 25 years, but 50 per cent. of the payments falling due over an initial agreed period, usually three to four years, and the balance rescheduled over 25 years.

The British Government have already recognised the particular problems in Zambia. As an immediate measure of support for the new government we have rescheduled all the debt service payments falling due this year—a sum of about £4 million. Next week, in the Paris Club meeting,. we shall give our strong support to the application of the Trinidad Terms to the remainder of Zambia's official debt.

Zimbabwe is in a slightly different position in that it does not have the same debt repayments to be made, but we are taking what steps we can to help.

There were several comments in the debate about the Community's commitment to the whole process of alleviating the effects of the drought. Not only did we give approval on 4th May to a substantial programme of additional food aid, but we have been emphasising to the Commission throughout that the timely delivery of the food aid is equally important. Nearly half the Community's total food aid programme for this year has been shipped or was about to leave the docks by the end of June. Therefore, there is a great deal which is already getting there. Some of the food aid that we gave went rather earlier.

We know that there is a need to help arrange the delivery in-country and that is why Britain is supplying computer know-how to the SADCC secretariat which, with the World Food Programme, has set up the logistics advisory centre in Harare. It is being run by a Briton who has much experience from his time in Ethiopia of assisting in the onward delivery. That worried a number of your Lordships.

The drought is not confined to the front line states. The noble Lords, Lord Hatch of Lusby, Lord Rea, and Lord St. John of Bletso asked me about the drought in South Africa. South Africa is badly affected by the drought. The cereal production will be around 30 per cent. of the normal level. That means that exporting to the rest of the region is simply not on. The country itself will need 5.5 million tonnes of imported cereals this year.

The South African Government have allocated 440 million rand—approximately £88 million—for the nutritional development programme. However, that may not be enough and more may need to be added. One of the main ways in which South Africa has been helping its neighbours has been in the logistics of delivering the aid. Certainly they have waived demurrage fees at docks for transport which we were providing for landlocked countries. They have brought out of cobwebs old railway wagons. South Africa has offered much help in the logistics of delivering the aid.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester wished to make a particular point but did not have the time to do so. If we could bring more people, be they in the Churches or in the population at large, to comprehend the reality of this situation, we would perform a great service. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, referred to that.

The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, talked about the immense amount of work that is being done by the Churches in Malawi and Mozambique. However, it is not just a case of the Churches helping in the affected countries. The Churches in the developed nations need to play an increasing role in this respect. Both the right reverend Prelate and I wish to draw the attention of the nation to the role that the Churches in the developed nations can play in this respect. There is an awful lot of talk but not an awful lot of "do". I believe our own Churches can do even better in this matter.

The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, asked me about Malawi. He gave the House some heartrending facts that had been sent to him by the Archbishop of Malawi and Mozambique. I would say to the noble Lord and all other Members of the House that we are in no way stopping humanitarian aid, even where we have decided that because governments are not following a path of good government and not respecting human rights we should cease further programme aid. Malawi is a case in point, but the prevailing situation in that country has not stood in the way of our providing humanitarian and food aid. I hope we shall never stop providing that aid. That is why we have been working alongside the non-governmental organisations who can deliver where there is no government-to-government aid programme.

It is right that we should pay tribute to the role of the NGOs. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned the difficulties that sometimes occur when food aid reaches the last leg of its journey to the villages. That is one area where NGOs have an outstanding record. I have so far approved a total of £3.5 million for the provision of technical and transport assistance and support to help NGOs in their task. We are working through our High Commissions and embassies in southern Africa to ensure we are in contact with those on the ground. However, if any NGOs feel there is more to be done I hope they will make contact with me.

At my main meeting with the British NGOs working in southern Africa I stressed to the staff of those bodies that they must let me know if they encounter any kind of difficulties in making deliveries. I am following up that matter on a regular weekly basis and I shall hold a further meeting with the NGOs before my visit to six countries in the southern African region in September.

The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, and others, referred to transport. The House should know that we have been giving support for the rehabilitation and development of ports and inland transport routes for some considerable time. Over £17 million has been given for the development of Maputo Port in Mozambique and more than £5 million has been given for the repair of Tanga port in Tanzania. Our assistance for inland transport includes more than £30 million for the rehabilitation of the Limpopo and Nacala railways in Mozambique and £14 million for the northern transport corridor linking southern Malawi with the port of Dar es Salaam. If good transport infrastructure is vital in a time of drought it is no less so for the economic development of the region in the longer term. While I cannot discuss the longer term tonight, I expect our involvement in this sector to remain substantial as it is so greatly needed.

The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, referred to using food surpluses in drought affected countries. I must caution your Lordships somewhat on this matter. I know the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will support my following remarks. We find that some of the products which we may have in surplus in European countries are simply unsuitable for food aid purposes. We will use food aid from intervention stocks where we can, but it is much better to use food aid funds to purchase food locally where it is available within the same region, or even in other developing regions, because that encourages the regional trade these countries need and it helps to ensure that the food supplied is in line with local preferences. It also avoids distortion in local markets.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester asked me about IFAD and the question of a second special programme for Africa. We have considered this matter many times. When we agreed the first £7 million in 1986 it was on the understanding that that was a one-off exercise. It is perfectly true to say that a number of other donors did not even contribute at that stage. Therefore, the programme did not have quite the same role as the aid we are discussing although it was quite successful in its own way. Given that some of the other donors would not contribute again, and given that we believe IFAD's work in Africa should be funded on the same basis as its work elsewhere, we believe we can use the money more efficiently not through a special programme but by adding to other programmes that are being implemented. This is a difficult issue and I shall not go into it further, but I assure your Lordships that it does not mean we shall be spending any less. It means, I hope, that we shall he spending more effectively.

An enormous amount of rehabilitation and recovery will be needed in the years ahead in those countries affected by drought and famine. We are not waiting to do that until we are through this crisis. We are already planning for the years ahead. Comments have been made about the provision of seeds, but we must also consider the provision of livestock. Much of the livestock in those countries has been slaughtered as it could not be fed due to the shortage of grain. Therefore, it will be a major task to replace that livestock. I have already considered that matter.

Tonight I had hoped to say that agreement had been reached to establish peaceful land corridors that we could use to deliver food in Mozambique. Discussions are continuing in Rome and they will continue into the night. I am hopeful that we shall reach some agreement because until there is peace in Mozambique there is no hope of feeding not only the people of Mozambique but also the people of the landlocked countries such as Malawi, Zimbabwe, and even Zambia, to the extent that is needed. Above all, peace is needed in Mozambique. We shall continue working, as we have done over a long period, to achieve that peace.

Southern Africa is facing its greatest hardship this century. We will do everything in our power to make sure that we help the countries of southern Africa through this crisis. We shall also ensure that we take the necessary action to help prevent such a crisis occurring in the future. We must ensure that we develop an ability to deal with these crises more effectively in the years ahead.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, as we have a few minutes to spare I hope the Minister will clarify what she had to say about seasonal climate forecasting. Does her department support and help to finance that forecasting because, if the geologist I referred to is correct in his forecast, the preparation for the drought could have started six months earlier? Can she tell the House, and if she cannot do so now will she write to me to let me know, what is the position of her department on seasonal forecasting?

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

My Lords, we are already helping in the way the noble Lord described. I shall write to him in some detail. I find that some of what he said in his contribution does not accord with the information which has been given to me by well-experienced scientific officials. I believe that we have done much, irrespective of whether or not we had had earlier warning.

8.20 p.m.

Lord Judd

My Lords, I am sure that everyone who has participated in the debate will want to thank the Minister for the characteristically constructive and conscientious way in which she replied to the points that have been made. I believe that two features have always marked her work in this sphere. One is that she listens and the other is that she cares. It is particularly to be noted that she made a special effort to return from her international responsibilities to be with us this evening. We appreciate that.

I should also like to thank those who participated, because it has been a deeply concerned debate. In thanking them I should like to say that I am glad that the Minister referred to the NGOs, because I believe that we heard the NGOs very clearly, both directly and indirectly, in this debate. We are grateful to them for their insight and professionalism. I support what the Minister said. It is also important to remember that those who work very bravely and consistently with those organisations and the countless thousands of British citizens who support them with record sums in the midst of recession do not do so in place of a national commitment but as a spur to a national commitment. Therefore, the very success of that work is a reason why we look unashamedly to the Government to do more. We support the Minister in all the battles which we know she has on that score.

I am glad that in the debate she mentioned frankly the political dimensions of South Africa as well as the development issues, because the debate has brought out very clearly the interrelationship of the two. In thanking her for her response I believe that we would all say that she will have powerful support from all parts of this House, and certainly from this side of the House, if she takes as an absolute priority now the immense humanitarian urgency of the situation in southern Africa, leaves no stone unturned to get the EC collectively mobilised as well as the international community, and does not mince her words in arguments with colleagues in this Government about the resources that are needed to do all that is necessary.

I conclude with this thought. As has been said, we live in a media age. This country has had it if we as political practitioners succumb to the ghoulish priorities of the media. News is so often where the cameras are, and the cameras too frequently are where the dying occurs. I believe that all those working in the media, and all news editors, have to ask themselves why it is, if they want a place in civilisation, they cannot put equal emphasis on preventing the crisis before it occurs as distinct from covering the death and disaster once we have failed to act in time. As the right reverend Prelate said, we stand or fall together. I believe that if we do not respond to what we know is happening in southern Africa we undermine the moral fabric of our own society. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.