ScraperWiki Classic is now read-only.

But don’t worry! You can transfer this scraper to if you want to continue editing it.

Transfer to
It looks like this scraper is broken!

On its last run it generated the following error: #<ScraperWiki::CPUTimeExceededError: ScraperWiki CPU time exceeded>

Fix this scraper

Current status

Idle – next run ASAP

Last run Failed!

1 week, 1 day ago

Scraped 3 pages from

About this scraper

This scraper has no description.

This scraper is public

Anyone can see this scraper, and any registered user can edit it.

Users who have contributed to this scraper:

url date_scraped text body permalink minister_name title given_on department where
/video/817 2011-02-14 22:32:11 Play Mouse Genetic Models of Schizophrenia Maria Karayiorgou May 7, 2010 Science Medicine None None None None None None None
/video/919 None Play Welcome and Opening Remarks, History Victor Zue, F. (Tom) Leighton, Ed Lazowska and Patrick Winston April 11, 2011 Technology Innovation/Invention Engineering None None None None None None None
None None None <p class="date">12 April 2011</p> <h3>International Development Minister Stephen O’Brien’s speech to the National Federation of Women's Institutes – Women Reaching Women Conference, Tuesday 12 April 2011</h3> <p>At a recent debate in the House of Commons to celebrate the centenary of <a href="/Media-Room/Features/2011/International-Womens-Day-2011/">International Women’s Day</a>, I was delighted to celebrate the great strides which have been made in the recognition and promotion of women’s rights over the last one hundred years.  </p> <p>Yet despite these advances we are still faced with enormous challenges. Every year over a third of a million women die from avoidable deaths in pregnancy and childbirth.  Globally, 10 million more girls are out of school than boys.  And as we face new and increasing challenges of climate change and the global financial crisis, it is girls and women in the poorest countries who are hit the hardest.  </p> <p>Girls and women continue to bear the disproportionate burden of global poverty. Yet evidence shows us that investing in girls and women makes sound economic sense and is critical to achieving the MDGs. Better educated women earn more, have lower fertility rates and healthier children - benefiting girls and women themselves, their families, communities and economies. </p> <p>We must seize each and every opportunity as it arises.  New opportunities such as the innovative use of mobile phones and the internet are now playing an important role in enabling girls and women to do business more efficiently, get the skills and information they need and hold decision makers to account.  </p> <p>The creation of UN Women is an important step in enabling the international system to deliver for girls and women.  At the launch of UN Women on 24 February, the UK Government welcomed the agency and set out its high hopes for this new body.  We are already providing transitional support to make sure it gets off to the strongest possible start. </p> <p>We are all part of the global Big Society and it is as much in our interests as it is our moral duty to get involved in tackling the tremendous challenges which face girls and women in developing countries.   I’m delighted that so many of you are doing this through participating in the Women Reaching Women project. </p> <p>I know that many of you, in partnership with Oxfam and the Everyone Foundation, have been involved in developing learning resources and leading or taking part in training days. Crucially, you have also been learning what actions you can take to contribute to improving the lives of some of the world’s poorest women, and sharing this knowledge with your communities.  </p> <p>My Department has put girls and women at the front and centre of all of our business. On International Women’s Day last month we launched a new Strategic Vision for Girls and Women to drive forward action that will bring transformational changes to the lives of girls and women in the poorest countries.  We’ve identified four areas where we want to see dramatic changes.  We are committed to: </p> <ul> <li>Delaying first pregnancy and supporting safe child birth, </li> <li>Getting girls through primary and secondary school, </li> <li>Getting economic assets directly to girls and women, and  </li> <li>Preventing violence against girls and women.   </li> </ul> <p>In all of our work, we are giving new priority to adolescent girls.  We know that if girls have choice and control over decisions during adolescence, their life chances improve – they are better able to delay pregnancy and marriage, complete school and gain life skills.  This creates  a virtuous circle that helps to prevent the transmission of poverty from one generation to the next, driving lasting change within societies. </p> <p>Tackling violence against girls and women is a top priority for us and for the whole of Whitehall. Here in DFID, we have produced a strategy for tackling this issue at home and abroad.  Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has appointed Lynne Featherstone as the Government’s Ministerial Champion for Tackling Violence Against Girls and Women Overseas – an indication of our commitment at the highest levels to tackle this abhorrent human rights abuse.  </p> <p>Our strategic vision also highlights our commitment to delay first pregnancy and support safe child birth.  I am pleased to receive copies of your Mum’s Matter campaign petition. You can be sure of the coalition government commitment to improve maternal health. We are determined to tackle the scandal of women dying in childbirth. </p> <p>In December last year, following the Millennium Development Goals Review Summit, we launched, a Framework for Results for improving reproductive, maternal and newborn health, called “Choices for women; Planned Pregnancies, Safe Births and Healthy Newborns”. </p> <p>The framework sets out how we will:</p> <ul> <li>save the lives of at least 50,000 women during pregnancy and childbirth and 250,000 newborn babies by 2015</li> <li>enable at least 10 million more women to use modern methods of family planning by 2015, including up to 1 million young women</li> <li>prevent more than 5 million unintended pregnancies</li> <li>support at least 2 million safe deliveries, ensuring long lasting improvements in quality maternity services, particularly for the poorest 40%.</li> </ul> <p>We recognise that to achieve these results we also need to increase the power of girls and women to make informed choices and control the decisions that affect them. We need laws that protect their rights, and we need to increase the value given to girls and women by society and by the boys and men around them.  For example, in Uganda our support to the Centre for Domestic Violence Prevention has resulted in 1000 men joining together to prevent domestic violence through forming action groups to promote girls’ and women’s rights.  </p> <p>We also need to work directly with girls and women to understand the difficulties they face.  DFID is working with the Nike Foundation, through an innovative partnership called the Girl Hub, to provide adolescent girls with a means to communicate what matters to them and to support decision makers and donors to do more for girls and to do it better.  </p> <p> In Rwanda, Nigeria and Ethiopia, the Girl Hub has undertaken research to learn more about girls' ambition and the realities of their lives.  This research is helping the Girl Hub in Ethiopia to work with the BBC World Service Trust to bring girls' stories to audiences across the country, and to build a national conversation about the issues faced by girls.<br>My Department will also work with all UK-funded multilateral organisations to step up progress for girls and women. And we will keep a close eye on the implementation of the European Union commitments on gender equality and women's empowerment in development. <br>How will we know when we’ve succeeded?  We will know we have succeeded when girls are routinely going to secondary school in the countries we’re supporting.  When maternal mortality rates and the age at which adolescent girls and women first give birth are falling. When girls and women have access to economic assets, including land, and are able to make productive use of them.  When fewer women suffer violence.  And, most importantly, when women and girls themselves tell us that their lives have improved.</p> Stephen O’Brien Women Reaching Women Conference 12 April 2011 Department for International Development National Federation of Women's Institutes – Women Reaching Women Conference
None None None <p class="date">22 March 2011</p> <h3>International Development Minister Stephen O’Brien’s speech to the All Party Parliamentary Group on Global Tuberculosis meeting on TB and HIV in Africa, Tuesday 22 March 2011</h3> <p>I would like to thank the APPG for organising this event and for their review, which the Government welcomes.</p> <p>I think it makes a compelling case for action. We need to make still greater progress against HIV and TB co-infection - and the double cruelty it can represent.</p> <p>Every year there are 9 million new cases of TB, including one million cases amongst people living with HIV.  Alarmingly, we are seeing half a million cases of multi-drug resistant TB.  And every year there are nearly 2 million deaths.  <br>Likewise, AIDS is one of the leading causes of death of women of reproductive age globally and there are still more than 7,400 new infections every day. 10 million people are not getting the treatment they need.  Only 140,000 TB patients living with HIV received ART in 2009.</p> <p>We have made progress on both these fronts.    Incidence of TB has been declining slowly since a peak in 2004, and there is an 86% treatment success rate when the WHO recommended approach is used.  HIV infection rates are also levelling off globally, with over 5 million people now accessing AIDS treatment, which is a 10-fold increase over five years.  </p> <p>Front line challenges for tackling TB include drug resistance and the need for more research and better drugs and diagnostics.  On the HIV side, we need to scale up successes in prevention and find sustainable ways meet the need for treatment, care and support in an accessible and affordable way.  </p> <p>These challenges are compounded by co-infection.  Tuberculosis is the leading cause of death among HIV infected people.  In 2009, cases of co-infection accounted for 23% of all TB deaths and 22% of all deaths among people living with HIV.  Nelson Mandela made it clear back in 2004: “We can’t fight HIV unless we do much more to fight TB.”</p> <p>As is so often the case, people in Africa bear the brunt of both diseases, as is also too often the case, a double dose of stigma and discrimination as well, which in turn inhibits people getting tested and seeking help.  But both TB and HIV are global problems, and both disproportionately affect the most vulnerable and marginalised of society.  For example, TB amongst injecting drug users, or prisoners, in the concentrated HIV epidemics is of particular concern.  <br>That is the problem.   What are we going to do about it?</p> <p>I am proud to serve in a Coalition Government that, even in tough times, has protected the aid budget and the pledge to reach the target of 0.7% of Gross National Income spent on development.  I’m also proud to serve in a Parliament where we have cross-party consensus that this is the right thing to do.  Our Secretary of State has said we will not balance the budget on the backs of the worlds poorest.  That includes those living with HIV and TB.  </p> <p>We are equally clear about the responsibility that comes with these resources, the responsibility to spend taxpayers’ money well; to deliver aid that is accounted for transparently; to ensure our support delivers value for money and gets where it is most needed.  </p> <p>That is why on 1 March we published ‘UK Aid – Changing Lives, Delivering Results’- setting out the results of our Multilateral and Bilateral Aid Reviews, which we commissioned immediately after we took office.   </p> <p>This document builds on our commitment to put the health of women and girls front and centre of our development effort – and, specifically, to scale up improvements in the areas of reproductive, maternal and newborn health and malaria.  The results we will deliver in these two areas are set out in two Frameworks for Results, published in December. </p> <p>The results as summarised in ‘UK Aid – Changing Lives, Delivering Results’ are necessarily high-level.  The detail will follow as DFID country offices develop their operational plans for taking results forward.   We have also committed to set out our objectives on HIV and TB by May.   </p> <p>But I can tell you today we remain committed to the global goal of halving deaths from TB by 2015 through delivery of the revised Global Plan to Stop TB.  And to the goal, which was reiterated at Muskoka, to come as close as possible to universal access to HIV prevention, AIDS treatment care and support. </p> <p>To address TB- HIV co-infection, I think we need to drive forward progress in three areas:</p> <p>The first is to increase access to and use of effective diagnosis and treatment of TB, including TB-HIV co-infection.  DFID will do this through our bilateral and multilateral support, as well as through our investment in research and product development into more effective treatment and vaccines.</p> <p>DFID invested £10.7 million on TB-related research through our bilateral research programme alone in 2009/10.  UK government research support includes a focus on developing drugs and vaccines for HIV and AIDS, TB and malaria and other diseases that most affect poor people. </p> <p>We support TB research through multilateral and bilateral research programmes – for instance the Tropical Disease Research special programme to gain better evidence about how to best combine therapy for HIV and TB co-infection, which is receiving £14 million UK government funding for 2008-13.   The government is also providing £20.5 million for 2008-13 to the Global Alliance for TB Drug Development, which has the largest single portfolio of potential TB compounds ever assembled, with two drugs in late stage clinical development.  </p> <p>The TB Alliance is developing new drugs which can be used by people who are also infected with HIV with minimal drug-drug interaction for people and who are on anti-retroviral treatment.  The Alliance is also developing novel methods to test combinations of new TB drugs, rather than testing each drug individually.  They have identified a few regimens that are better than standard therapy and should be active in treating drug resistant TB.  </p> <p>The first clinical trial to test multiple new TB drugs was launched in November 2010 and the preliminary results are expected later this year.  They offer promise in treating both drug-sensitive and drug-resistant TB, potentially making scale-up of Multi-Drug Resistant treatment worldwide much cheaper and easier than anything available to date.   </p> <p>A new, improved TB vaccine is an essential part of the global strategy to curb the epidemic of TB and TB/HIV co-infection and disease.   DFID is supporting Aeras and its partners (with £10.5m for 2009-2014) to test vaccines to see if they are safe and effective in preventing TB in HIV positive people.  </p> <p>So I’m delighted that this year’s World TB Day focuses on innovation in research and delivery.  This Government is committed to finding innovative solutions to challenges in development, including harnessing the creative energy of the private sector.  </p> <p>Secondly, we need to support health systems, including in particular, the integration of HIV and TB services.  Coordination between the services for the two diseases is improving, but much remains to be done.  Improvements in prevention and treatment of HIV and AIDS will benefit TB control. We will continue to focus on both HIV and TB, and on strengthening the underlying health systems in order to improve the way health services diagnose and treat illnesses, including TB and TB-HIV.   </p> <p>Strengthening health systems in DFID partner countries helps to support and deliver TB programmes by building the long term capacity across health services in partner countries to enable them to identify and address TB, especially in poor areas.  We do this through supporting national health plans directly or through support to multilateral organisations such as the World Bank. </p> <p>Finally we need to address the underlying poverty and social drivers that put people at risk of infection and once infected of becoming sick: poor housing, poor working conditions, drug use and poor nutrition.  Integration of nutritional support with HIV services is also essential.  We also need to address the factors that make people, and women in particular, vulnerable to HIV, including harmful gender norms and gender based violence.   </p> <p>We are already contributing to this agenda in a number of countries.   <br>For example, DFID is working with the Government of South Africa to expand the quality and access of public sector services including tuberculosis control, and increasing the speed with which new ART/-TB drugs get registered as they become available elsewhere. In South Africa, reducing the levels of HIV and improving the quality and reach of public health services are key objectives of DFID support. They are central to reducing the burden of TB in the country<br>Our support for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis (TB) and Malaria will also be important to reaching a range of countries most in need.  </p> <p>In the Multilateral Aid Review, the Global Fund was assessed as providing very good value for money for UK Aid. Our future funding will still be conditional; we want to see evidence of progress against a suite of reforms designed to improve the way the Fund does business and maximise its impact, and we want to see these reforms implemented with pace and urgency.  The UK will also encourage other partners to meet their commitments to the Fund.</p> <p>The UK government has made a 20-year commitment to UNITAID of up to €60 million per year. UNITAID aims to triple access to rapid test for multi-drug resistant TB and reduce the price of drug resistant TB medicines by twenty-five percent.</p> <p>I see our partnership with civil society as the final piece of the jigsaw.  The commitment of people in this room to keeping both HIV and TB high on the international agenda is invaluable.  It would be all to easy to say that the progress we have made is the best that can be achieved; that it is time to turn to other priorities.   Instead, in partnership, let us finish what we have begun.</p> Stephen O’Brien TB and HIV in Africa 22 March 2011 Department for International Development All Party Parliamentary Group on Global Tuberculosis meeting on TB and HIV
None None None <p class="date">01 March 2011</p> <p>Mr Speaker, with permission I should like to make a statement about the Government’s Bilateral and Multilateral Aid Reviews, which are published today. </p> <p>The Coalition Government’s decision to increase the UK’s aid budget to 0.7% of national income from 2013 reflects the values we hold as a nation.  It is also firmly in Britain’s national interest. But this decision imposes on us a double duty to spend this money well. </p> <p>On my first day in office I took immediate steps to make our aid as focussed and effective as possible.   I commissioned reviews of DFID’s bilateral programmes in developing countries, and of the UK’s aid funding to international organisations.   These Reviews have been thorough, rigorous, evidence-based, and scrutinised by independent development experts.  They will fundamentally change the way aid is allocated.</p> <p>Recent events in North Africa and the wider Middle East have demonstrated why it is critical that the UK increases its focus on helping countries to build open and responsive political systems, tackle the root causes of fragility and empower citizens to hold their governments to account. It is the best investment we can make to avoid violence and protect the poorest and most vulnerable in society.  </p> <h3>Bilateral Aid Review</h3> <p>The Bilateral Aid Review considered where and how we should spend UK aid. Each DFID country team was asked to develop a ‘results offer’ setting out what they could achieve for poor people over the next 4 years. Each offer was underpinned by evidence, analysis of value for money and a focus on girls and women.  The results offers were scrutinised by over 100 internal technical reviewers and a panel of independent experts. Ministers then considered the whole picture deciding which results should be prioritised in each country.  Consultation with civil society and other Government Departments was undertaken throughout.  </p> <p>As a result of the Bilateral Aid Review:</p> <p>We will dramatically increase our focus on tackling ill health and killer diseases in poor countries, with a particular effort on immunisation, malaria, maternal and newborn health, extending choice to women and girls over when and whether they have children; and polio eradication. </p> <p>We will do more to tackle malnutrition which stunts children’s development and destroys their life chances; and do more to get children – particularly girls – into school. </p> <p>We will put wealth-creation at the heart of our efforts, with far more emphasis on giving poor people property rights and encouraging investment and trade in the poorest countries.</p> <p>We will deal with the root causes of conflict and help to build more stable societies, as people who live amidst violence have no chance of lifting themselves out of poverty.</p> <p>And we will help the poorest who will be hit first and hardest by the effects of climate change - floods, drought and extreme weather.</p> <p>As a result of the Review we have decided to focus UK aid more tightly on the countries where the UK is well placed to have a significant long-term impact on poverty.</p> <p>By 2016 DFID will have closed significant bilateral programmes in 16 countries. This will be a phased process honouring our existing commitments and exiting responsibly. The countries are: </p> <p>China, Russia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Moldova, Bosnia, Cameroon, Lesotho, Niger, Kosovo, Angola, Burundi, the Gambia, Indonesia, Iraq and Serbia.</p> <p>This will allow us to focus our bilateral resources in the following 27 countries:</p> <p>Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria, Occupied Palestinian Territories, Pakistan, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Uganda, Yemen, Zambia and Zimbabwe.</p> <p>Together, these countries account for three quarters of global maternal mortality, nearly three quarters of global malaria deaths and almost two thirds of children out of school.</p> <p>Many of them are affected by fragility and conflict so we will meet the commitment made through the Strategic Defence and Security Review to spend 30% of UK aid to support fragile and conflict-affected states and to help some of the poorest countries in the world address the root causes of their problems. </p> <p>We will also have three regional programmes in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean, and an ongoing aid relationship with 3 aid dependent Overseas Territories namely St Helena, the Pitcairn Islands and Montserrat.  </p> <h3>Multilateral Aid Review</h3> <p>The Multilateral Aid Review took a hard look at the value for money offered by 43 international funds and organisations through which the UK spends aid. </p> <p>The Review considered how effective each organisation was at tackling poverty. It provided a detailed evidence base upon which Ministers can take decisions about where to increase funding, where to press for reforms and improvements, and in some cases where to withdraw taxpayer funding altogether.  </p> <p>The 43 multilateral agencies have fallen into four broad categories.</p> <p>First, I am delighted to tell the House that nine organisations have been assessed as providing very good value for the British taxpayer. These include UNICEF, The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation - GAVI, the Private Infrastructure Development Group, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. We will increase funding to these organisations, because they have a proven track record of delivering excellent results for poor people. </p> <p>But of course there is always room for improvement and we will still require strong commitments to continued reform and even better performance.</p> <p>Funding for the next group of agencies – those rated as good or adequate value for money, such as the United Nations Development Programme and the World Health Organisation - will be accompanied by specific pressure from the UK for a series of reforms and improvements we expect to see in the coming years.     </p> <p>We are placing four organisations in “special measures” and demanding they improve their performance as a matter of urgency. These organisations are UNESCO, the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the development programmes of the Commonwealth Secretariat and the International Organisation for Migration. These organisations offer poor value for money for UK aid but have a potentially critical niche development or humanitarian role which is not well covered elsewhere in the international system or contribute to broader UK Government objectives. We expect to see serious reforms and improvements in performance. We will take stock within two years and DFID's core funding may be ceased if improvements are not made.    </p> <p>The Review found that four agencies performed poorly or failed to demonstrate relevance to Britain’s development objectives.  The Review therefore concluded that it is no longer acceptable for taxpayers’ money from my Department to continue to fund them centrally.  So I can tell the House today that the British Government will withdraw its membership of the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation, and that DFID will stop voluntary core funding to UN HABITAT, the International Labour Organisation and the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. This will allow over £50m of aid money, to be redirected immediately to better-performing agencies. </p> <p>We are working closely with other countries to build a coalition for ambitious reform and improvement of all the multilateral agencies. </p> <h3>Conclusion</h3> <p>As a result of these Reviews, over the next 4 years, UK aid will:</p> <ul> <li>secure schooling for 11 million children – more than we educate throughout the UK but at 2.5% of the cost</li> <li>vaccinate more children against preventable diseases than there are people in the whole of England</li> <li>provide access to safe drinking water and improved sanitation to more people than there are in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland combined</li> <li>save the lives of 50,000 women in pregnancy and childbirth</li> <li>stop 250,000 newborn babies dying needlessly</li> <li>support 13 countries to hold freer and fairer elections </li> <li>help 10 million women get access to modern family planning</li> </ul> <p>I believe that these results – which will transform the lives of millions of people across the world – will make everyone in this House and this country proud.  They reflect our values as a nation: generosity, compassion and humanity.   But these results are not only delivered from the British people; they are also for the British people.  They contribute to building a safer, more stable and prosperous world which, in turn, helps keep our country safe from instability, infectious disease and organised crime.  </p> <p>Aid can perform miracles but it must be well spent and properly targeted. The UK’s development programme has now been reshaped and refocused so that it can meet that challenge.</p> <p>I commend this statement to the House.<br></p> unknown Statement by the Secretary of State for International Development: the Bilateral and Multilateral Aid Reviews 01 March 2011 Department for International Development House of Commons
None None None <p class="date">16 February 2011</p> <p>Ladies and gentleman. Your Excellencies. Fellow colleagues [from the House of Commons and Lords].</p> <p>It is a pleasure to be with you this evening and learn about WWF's work. As my colleague [the Right Honourable] Malcolm Bruce [is aware] [has mentioned], the Department for International Development  is a "WWF supporter", one of the many across the world.</p> <p>So it's been a wonderful opportunity to hear from David Nussbaum, Denise Hamu from Brazil and Jo Fox about what Brazil has been doing to promote the sustainable management of forests in partnership with WWF, Sky and other partners, like HSBC. </p> <p>This has given us a taste – with a Brazilian Amazon flavour -  of what can be done in reality on the ground to protect and manage forests for the benefit of poor people.</p> <p>It seems that success needs us to take two approaches. </p> <p>The first focuses on the underlying causes that drive illegal logging and illegal conversion of forests to other uses –  with "legality" based on the sovereignty of each forest nation. </p> <p>The second, is to strengthen the positive and direct market incentives for people who depend upon and manage natural resources so they can improve their lives. </p> <p>Brazil is in the vanguard on both. </p> <p>On the first, tackling the underlying causes of illegal logging and deforestation.</p> <p>Brazil has assigned clear responsibilities amongst different agencies and levels of government -Federal, State, Municipal - for forests, for enforcement of forest laws and for monitoring their compliance, including, as we have heard, in the State of Acre. </p> <p>Acre's "System for Incentives for Environmental Services" - the SISA law - came into force last October. It lays out clearly what new institutions  will be required for regulating, rewarding and monitoring  enterprises that sustainably manage forests  -with the water, carbon and biodiversity services that forests provide. </p> <p>However, to implement this system <u>effective</u> institutions will be key. This means insitutions with technical capacity, but <u>also</u> which involve private sector and forest-dependent people in some way. </p> <p>And for a system of incentives like this to <u>benefit</u> poor people, clarity on who has exclusive rights over which natural resources will also be important. </p> <p>People that depend on forests  for rubber or asai fruit or fish often find their livelihoods are at risk because production of commodities like soya bean, palm oil and beef drive deforestation.</p> <p>However, Brazil has taken great strides in tackling this problem and is rolling out its forest monitoring and transparency system, which in turn should ensure that poor people living in and around forests are not deprived of their livelihoods.</p> <p>I am happy that DFID's support to WWF has contributed to work in this area.</p> <p>On the second approach, bringing people to markets and markets to people. </p> <p>This can be tricky for poor people living in remote forest areas far from market centres. </p> <p>But by helping rubber tree tappers improve their practices and make better quality sheets suitable for local shoe sole manufacturing, the WWF partnership has helped Amazonian peoples regenerate their livelihoods. </p> <p>Markets <u>are</u> changing – locally and globally. Buyers markets in particular. Consumers in Europe and elsewhere wish to know that the products they purchase comply with sound  business practice and are from sustainable and legal sources. </p> <p>The new European Illegal Timber Regulation that recently came into force in December is a case in point. It makes first sale in the EU of timber that has been illegally harvested elsewhere, an offence. This will give consumers confidence that the tropical wood they buy is not from dodgy sources.  </p> <p>Making life better for the poor people who live in and around forests – 1.2 billion of them – is about <u>more</u> than development policy. It is also about trade and market incentives whether for rubber, timber or carbon.</p> <p>So - congratulations to WWF, its partners and supporters in UK.</p> <p>It has been a wonderful evening of lessons from the Amazon - a "Brazilian cocktail" of experience.</p> Stephen O'Brien WWF 50th Anniversary: Viva Amazonia 16 February 2011 Department for International Development WWF 50th Anniversary 'Viva Amazonia' event at Portcullis House
None None None <p class="date">15 February 2011</p> <p>Good afternoon. </p> <p>It's a great pleasure to speak here today at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, an organisation that has long been at the forefront of informed global debate. And a particular pleasure to come to Chatham House, formerly home to two previous Prime Ministers, one none other than William Pitt the Elder.</p> <p>Pitt was no stranger to change – so it's appropriate that it's here in his old home that I explain why I believe this is a time of great change for international development – of change and of potential. A seminal moment when our generations can reach out across the world. When the UK can help to broker an age of cooperation where countries unite in new alliances to tackle shared challenges. </p> <p>A moment when we can begin to build a different style of international development. One that is based not on rigid structures but on dynamic partnerships which reflect the networked world in which we now live. I believe the UK has a major role to play in ushering in this new era. Indeed, given our very public commitment to poverty alleviation, I suggest that people across the world rightly look to us to be at the forefront of that change.</p> <p>I don't make this assertion from any misplaced belief that the UK has some unique right to lead. No, my argument is that, having demonstrated our development credentials, having built and supported many of the alliances that were so important in the past, we now have a responsibility to help and shape the relationships that will be important in the future.</p> <p>So today, I want to suggest how we might go about advancing that goal. I will:</p> <ul> <li>Examine how the world has changed over the last twenty years. How we've moved from the old bipolar axis to a place where emerging economies are becoming ever more influential</li> <li>Suggest how we might work with these new powers in tackling poverty amongst their own people</li> <li>Explore how together we can create the partnerships that will allow us to help reduce poverty in the poorest countries faster than ever before</li> <li>I'll argue that we can use those same relationships to tackle some of the biggest issues affecting today’s world </li> <li>I'll propose some basic principles that will define our new partnerships and; </li> <li>Finally, I'll set out how we will take this vision from theory to reality.</li> </ul> <p><strong>Changing World</strong></p> <p>I am not the first - and I won't be the last - to say that in the space of a few short decades the world has become a different place. A new order of power has asserted itself or – for the historians amongst you - re-asserted itself. Broadsheet headlines proclaim the rise of the BRICS, the Asian Dragons, the Tiger economies, the Gulf Giants. Indeed, it has been said that the growth of these economies is as significant for Africa as the fall of the Berlin Wall was for Europe twenty years ago.</p> <p>The statistics bear out the rhetoric. China is now the second largest economy in the world, with some predicting that it will overtake the US by 2027.</p> <p>As the economic stock of these countries grows, so too does their political power and their ability to influence world affairs. As the Foreign Secretary has said, politics today are shaped not by the old players and their cosy clubs but by the many informal and non-traditional groupings that have emerged.</p> <p>Anyone who thinks otherwise need only look to the G20 - or the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change - or the Doha trade round. Not only have the rules of the game changed, but so too have the players.</p> <p>And of course, these changes are reflected in the way we do business in government. You can't shake just one bit of the kaleidoscope and expect everything else to stay the same. The Trade White Paper, published last week, explicitly refers to the need to engage emerging economies. So too does the National Security Strategy.</p> <p>For international development these changes mean a picture that has become more complex and more crowded. Historically, the global debate on poverty was dominated by the rich, OECD donors. Today, it's an issue that's often championed by emerging powers.</p> <p>Take China. According to the Financial Times, China's Development Bank and its Export-Import Bank committed more loans to developing countries over the last two years than the World Bank. Or Saudi Arabia – the second largest bilateral donor to Pakistan in the aftermath of last year's floods. </p> <p>There's a similar trend at the global level where emerging powers are now indispensable players on the big issues, including trade, conflict, climate change and financial stability. </p> <p>The development community has also changed. What was once a small elite, where like talked to like, has become a truly global conversation, involving: faith groups, companies, local NGOs and community leaders.</p> <p>Chinese investors, Brazilian social entrepreneurs and Indian bloggers now rival Oxford and Oxfam in setting the development agenda.</p> <p>Faced with such an array of talent, we have an unparalleled opportunity to seek out new partnerships, to create dynamic new alliances, both formal and informal. This is a completely changed landscape in which to galvanise our efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and to drive yet harder the eradication of global poverty.</p> <p>Now, there are some who feel distrust, even trepidation at the prospect of working with new partners, arguing that we risk diluting the core principles of democracy, human rights, accountability and transparency. I disagree. Let me be clear. We will always stand up for human rights and for these fundamental values. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't put our global heads together, work for development and where we agree, cooperate.</p> <p>In summary, I believe that the fact that the world is changing is a cause for immense celebration not regret. For the first time in recent history more countries than ever are seeking solutions to the most pressing questions of our age. This is an incredibly exciting time, a time when we can marshal that collective energy and – together – begin to change history.</p> <p><strong>Working in Emerging Powers to Achieve Development Outcomes</strong></p> <p>This is also the perfect time for us here in the UK to reconfigure our development efforts. We have nearly completed the root and branch review that I commissioned on taking office, and we will be announcing the results at the end of this month. So we start with a clean sheet of paper. One of the themes of our new narrative will be a relentless focus on results. We owe that to the hard-pressed British taxpayer - and to the people for whom our aid is intended. Our energies and resources will therefore be concentrated where we believe we can make the greatest impact for the world's poorest people.</p> <p>So, where it's appropriate, we'll change the way we work with countries as they make the transition to economic stability. Next month, for example,  DFID's aid to China will be finally wound down. China is a country that over the past 25 years has achieved growth that has been truly staggering.  The richer world has been right to support China – indeed, it has been one of the main beneficiaries of China's success. But after several decades of dramatic progress we must now focus our efforts elsewhere.</p> <p>Now, we should never be tempted into assuming that emerging powers share a common economic history. Each has achieved growth in different ways, some, in part, through deregulation, or a freer market economy or stronger governance. They have mixed the growth cocktail in a way that worked for them. But, crucially, having achieved growth and having succeeded in bringing so many of their people out of poverty they are well-placed to share their experience with those countries that are still developing.</p> <p>Of course, we can't ignore the fact that many of these emerging powers, despite recent growth, still contain significant levels of extreme poverty themselves. In many of these countries we will remain partners in poverty reduction, recognising that our mandate is to create opportunity for the world’s poorest people.</p> <p>The nature of these partnerships, however, will change. Relationships will become less rigid and more equal. We will focus on what works –and we will be creative about how we achieve it. Aid will be but one of our tools. We will trade in ideas and in expertise too, and we will broker political support and create coalitions to tackle specific issues.</p> <p>Nowhere will our partnership be more multi-dimensional than India, as the Prime Minister's extremely successful visit there last year made clear. The world's largest democracy and one of the world's great civilisations, India is now at the top table in world affairs. Its views carry an enormous amount of weight on issues such as climate change, trade and better governance in international institutions. This reflects the changes in India over the last decade: growth lifting people out of poverty and generating the resources to pay for some of the world's largest and most successful anti-poverty programmes, like the primary education scheme that has got 60 million children into school since 2003.</p> <p>Some people - in both the UK and India – have been asking whether the time has come to end British aid to India. In my view, we are not there yet. The whole rationale for my Department is, eventually, to work ourselves out of a job. But having discussed this with the Government of India, I believe that, for the next few years, it is in both India's interest and in Britain's interest for us to continue our highly successful collaboration on development, not least so we can support the Government of India’s own successful programmes in the poorest priority areas.</p> <p>The pace of India's transformation to date is remarkable. But India's poorest states – each of them larger than most African countries – still face huge development challenges. More than half of girls in Madhya Pradesh don't yet go to secondary school; more than half of the young children in Bihar are undernourished.</p> <p>India values our support. And my department's work in India is some of the most effective I've ever seen. I saw for myself the difference our support can make – helping India's poorest states to improve their schools and clinics, upgrade their slums, and get electricity to their villages.  And helping particularly vulnerable groups – like the remarkable group of Dalit women I met in the village of Kothri in Madhya Pradesh, who had recently banded together to stand up against caste discrimination.</p> <p>I am convinced that India's economic transformation means that we need to transform our development relationship too. We need to bring our development partnership up-to-date, reflecting the huge changes India has seen in the last decade. We are discussing this with the Government of India and I envisage a new approach – one focussed much more tightly on India's poorest states and poorest people. We will help these States to unlock more funds from the private sector and reinforce the impact of India's own programmes. Our goal will be to help the poorest women and girls get quality schooling, healthcare, nutrition and jobs as the key to breaking the cycle of poverty for the next generation.</p> <p>India commands respect around the world for the impact of its economic reforms. But India's private sector miracle has not yet reached some of its poorest areas.  Over the next few years we want to help unlock the potential of the private sector to deliver jobs, products, infrastructure and basic services in areas which desperately need them. We have already been supporting poor women to get access to loans – women like Omvati Bai, whom I met last year in the slums of Bhopal. Her life was transformed by a loan of £70, which helped her set up a flourishing fruit and vegetable stall. Before the loan she was worried about feeding her children; now she can send them to school as well. But I think we need a much bigger vision of how we can work with India to support this kind of wealth creation and entrepreneurship; and I want to see a serious and steadily-increasing proportion of our aid used to support entrepreneurs willing to take the risk of starting and scaling-up private investment. We want to work in close partnership with the Government of India on how best to achieve this. </p> <p>The next few years will see further transition.  With all the countries I have mentioned today, our aspiration over time is to transition from aid-based development relationships into meaningful and mutual partnerships for global development.</p> <p><strong>Working with Emerging Powers to Achieve Development Outcomes</strong></p> <p>If the first dimension of our changing relationship is about working with emerging powers to tackle their own poverty, the next is to work with them to reduce poverty in other developing countries.</p> <p>We will approach this not with any preconceived notions of superiority but with due humility. It took Britain more than 150 years to reduce poverty by 50 per cent. China cut the proportion of its people living below the poverty line from 84 per cent to 16 per cent in just 25 years. South Korea has gone from aid recipient to OECD donor in one generation. The Gulf states have been providing 1 per cent of GNI as aid for decades, with little, if any, public recognition from the West. There is no monopoly on success, neither is there any blueprint. Every country has its own experience. What unites them is the fact that they have introduced policies that generated growth and poverty reduction and then used the proceeds of that growth to drive social progress.</p> <p>By sharing those experiences and by learning from the innovation that newer economies have pioneered, we can achieve life-changing results. Take social protection, where for example, great strides have been made by Brazil, Mexico and Chile. The Bolsa Familia programme in Brazil now covers around a quarter of the entire population and has contributed to lifting some 20 million people out of poverty. Building on their success we are now working with Brazil to share expertise with Kenya - one of a number of African countries which is establishing its own programme.</p> <p>India again, has been equally creative in piloting a publicly-funded insurance scheme that allows patients to access healthcare at any accredited health centre. Its near neighbours are now showing a real interest in adopting this model. Just pause for a moment to consider the impact that could  be made by sharing these ideas with countries in Africa, Asia and other places where endemic poverty still exists. Or what we  might achieve by pooling our respective skills, policy experience and resources. Let me give you just a few examples of what is already happening.</p> <p>Together with India, the UK is working with the Clinton Foundation to help local businesses to improve the availability of low cost, high quality drugs for AIDS and malaria across the developing world and particularly in Africa. Last year, this initiative helped to improve the lives of more than two and a half million people.</p> <p>DFID is seconding a member of staff to the Islamic Development Bank to work on results and aid effectiveness. The Bank has an annual spend of around 7.5 billion dollars.</p> <p>In DRC, China and the UK are supporting a vast road-building scheme. China is the biggest investor in the physical infrastructure, while DFID's funding is not just building roads but is also helping the government of DRC to introduce important social and environmental  safeguards. Three countries – one very successful outcome. Comparative advantage at its best.</p> <p><strong>Working with Emerging Powers to achieve Global Outcomes</strong></p> <p>But the trajectory doesn't stop there. If we can make these sort of gains by working in partnership in emerging and developing countries, then imagine what can be achieved by taking this approach to a global level. This, I believe, is the logical conclusion, the answer to many of the problems that we have struggled with for so long. The really big strategic issues that don't readily lend themselves to single country solutions. Because the truth is that there are few, if any, big development challenges that we can hope to tackle without the help of new partners. Polio will never be eradicated without Nigeria's support. Food security will remain an aspiration without India's  buy-in. We'll never solve climate change without China.</p> <p>But it really doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to see how we could achieve these strategic goals. Countries like Brazil, India, China, the Gulf States are already making very significant contributions.</p> <p>On conflict, Brazil leads the UN peacekeeping mission in Haiti. South Africa has been central to the peacekeeping effort in DRC. Qatar has played a key role in opening channels of communication between the government of Yemen and the Houthi rebels in the North.</p> <p>On wealth creation, South Africa is playing a key role in championing intra-Africa investment for the North-South transport corridor, a project that the UK is supporting financially and technically. China is building infrastructure in Asia and Africa. The impact of these emerging powers opening their markets to goods from poor countries will have a transformational effect on entrepreneurs in Asia and Africa.</p> <p>And there's a huge amount of activity on climate change. India and the UK are jointly funding research into solar energy technology. South Africa is hosting the next United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference later this year. China plans to implement one hundred new clean-energy projects across Africa. Korea is hosting a Green Growth Institute to support the development of a low-carbon economy for the world. Brazil is a world leader in forestation and climate-resilient agriculture. If this is the sort of work that's already happening, how much greater the impact if we were able to harness that drive and energy coherently in a new peer partnership?</p> <p>These emerging powers, Ladies and Gentlemen, are natural allies in pressing for long overdue reform of international institutions. The five BRICS will have a seat on the UN Security Council this year as Brazil, India and South Africa join China and Russia. This should be just the beginning. We want to see a range of institutions whose membership and ways of working reflect the world in which we live today not the world that we lived in fifty years ago. They should be fair, transparent and accountable. We need them just as we need our existing bilateral relationships. Our new partnerships will complement existing arrangements not replace them. So, in future, meetings with the Swedes and the World Bank, for instance, are now likely to include Brazil, South Korea and South Africa too. It's through these grittier, more inclusive alliances that we will build the consensus the world so badly needs.</p> <p><strong>A Partnership Contract</strong></p> <p>So, what might these partnerships look like? What are, the rules, if you like, of engagement?</p> <p>First and foremost, our partnerships will be based on mutual respect and added value. What matters will be the experience and expertise that colleagues can bring to the table. However, I'm not too shy to say that working with the UK on development should be an attractive proposition. Why? Because we're one of the world's most important centres of innovation, creativity and scientific discovery. Because we respect country priorities. Because our government is one of the most open and accountable – and is taking transparency to a new level in everything we do. Because we are members of the Security Council, the G8, the G20, the EU and the Commonwealth, as well as having seats on many governing bodies and executive boards of development agencies. Because we are known and respected for our very public commitment to international development – including keeping our promise to spend 0.7 per cent Gross National Income as aid from 2013  - to be enshrined in legislation. Because of all these things and more, I believe the UK is a natural partner, a development hub in the global network.</p> <p>In return, we will seek a shared commitment to the Millennium Development Goals. We remain 100 per cent committed to our core values. And we expect the same of others. I'm not just referring to emerging powers, here. I'm referring to some of those donors who have talked the talk when it suited them but have proved themselves somewhat reluctant to walk the walk once out of the media spotlight.</p> <p>Trust and respect are qualities that will be writ large in our new partnerships. As I've said, there are so many areas where we have worked successfully with emerging partners. We will combine our talents, whether money or skills or ideas – a human jigsaw of different but complementary pieces.</p> <p>Yes, there will be occasions on which we will disagree. What partnership doesn't? And where those disagreements challenge core British values we won't compromise our beliefs. For as the Foreign Secretary has said "it is not in our character as a nation to have a foreign policy without a conscience." He described that foreign policy as one that "seeks to inspire others with our values of political freedom and economic liberalism, that is resolute in its support for those around the world who are striving to free themselves through their own efforts from poverty or political fetters." So, when we are faced with human rights abuses or with public uprisings such as we saw recently in the Middle East, we will hold fast to those values.</p> <p>But in cases where our disagreement is rooted in detail rather than fundamental values we will be pragmatic - a peaceful and prosperous world is in all of our interests.  Rather than turn our back and walk away we must be prepared to face these challenges head-on and to find a way of dealing with them.</p> <p>And to those who are waiting for me to address the issue of raw materials in Africa, I say that engagement is surely sensible and logical. When we work with people, we promote openness and, in a modern world, we all learn very quickly that everyone benefits from transparency and accountability.</p> <p><strong>Looking Ahead: How will we Take this New Agenda Forward?</strong></p> <p>How then, do we turn the theory of closer partnership into reality? First, we're matching our words with some internal changes. In future, there will be a dedicated team responsible for ensuring that my department, together with colleagues in the Foreign Office and other government departments, works much more closely with the emerging powers on development. The new team will coordinate DFID's input into the G20 but it will also draw together our work with China, Brazil, India and others on the key global challenges that I have outlined today. I expect the most senior members of staff across my department to contribute to the work of this team so that it is, from the outset, a quintessential part of the department's DNA. I want this team to be pioneers of reform, charting new territory and with a mandate to take bold decisions.</p> <p>Secondly, we will harness our new relationships to achieve results on the ground. </p> <ul> <li>We'll work with the G20 to ensure that Africa and the Least Developed Countries gain more from trade</li> <li>We'll host with the OECD, a conference of Arab donors this summer, to agree how to improve the results and impact of our collective aid resources</li> <li>We'll ensure that the innovation of the private sector, whether here in Britain or in emerging powers, is used to help reduce poverty </li> <li>We'll invest in the agriculture that will help end famine and in the green growth that will leapfrog a generation in the creation of clean energy</li> <li>And we'll cement relationships with think tanks, academics and NGOs in the emerging powers; and</li> <li>We will launch an advocacy fund later this year to help the very poorest developing countries participate in international negotiations on trade and climate change.</li> </ul> <p>Thirdly, we will continue to make the case for reform of international institutions, a cause which Britain is proud to champion. We stand for governance that is fair and inclusive, in which everyone has a voice. It is these principles that have defined us as a nation and it is these principles that should define us as a world. </p> <p>Fourthly, we will extend our reach across government in Britain. The fact that DFID has a seat on the National Security Council means that it is hard-wired into the Whitehall architecture. We will work with colleagues in the Foreign Office, in the Ministry of Defence, in the Department of Energy and Climate Change and with an array of other partners to make sure that our new alliances are truly diverse and representative of all our interests.</p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, in conclusion, I believe that these new partnerships that I have described today can drive a change throughout DFID and throughout Whitehall. They will be about commitments, not committees; about what is working on the ground, not who is in a working group; about delivery not doctrine. Because the defining characteristic of these emerging partners is that they're not just talking about changing our world, they're actually doing it. I want Britain to be part of that change, to be a beacon of influence for rich and poor alike.</p> <p>By working together, by pooling our respective strengths and experience, we can do more to reduce poverty in the world in the next 50 years than we have in the past 500 years.</p> Andrew Mitchell Emerging powers 15 February 2011 Department for International Development Emerging Powers and the International Development Agenda at Chatham House
None None None <p class="date">09 February 2011</p> <p>Ladies and gentlemen – it is a pleasure to contribute to today's Dialogue on Forests, Governance and Climate Change. From Dr Arvind Khare's summary, it sounds as if it was a lively debate. </p> <p>Before I add a few words of my own, I wish to reiterate the warm welcome extended this morning by my colleague, Greg Barker, Minister of State in the UK's Department of Energy and Climate Change. I know that many of you have travelled very great distances to be here, and I am grateful for all of the effort that has gone into making the Dialogue a success.</p> <p>Today's Dialogue comes at a key time with the launch last week by Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon of the International Year of "Forests for People". This year, of all years, will give us the opportunity to demonstrate how forests matter – domestically and internationally. </p> <p>The discussions today and the new report launched by the Rights and Resources Initiative, are yet further evidence of the importance of forests – not just to the people who live in and around them – but to all of us.</p> <p>Arvind's summary points to (a) the need to focus on what is really happening on the ground and base our decision on that reality; (b) that forest governance is key, and (c) we need to fill some of these gaps before the next climate meeting in Durban.</p> <p>The Dialogue sets us two challenges as we move into 2011. </p> <p>First, can we find new ways to reconcile the many competing demands on forests – for wood, for food, for fuel, as well as for biodiversity and reduced emissions from deforestation.  </p> <p>And second, as forests and forest land increase in value, how to ensure that poor, forest-dependent indigenous and local communities are not at risk of losing out?</p> <p>Communities successfully manage forests in many places. In Guatemala, as the Director General Juan Manuel Torres Rojo of Mexico is aware, the Peten is the largest area of sustainably certified tropical forests managed by communities in the world. They - the Peten-dwellers - have clear rights over valuable forest resources – wood, ornamental leaves, fruits, gums – and they trade these with international business partners. Because the forest has a daily value, the communities also protect the forest's biodiversity from fire, illegal logging and deforestation. </p> <p>And they protect the carbon it stores, with management practices that are preserving the forest's potential to absorb more carbon from the atmosphere. </p> <p>The Peten-dwellers form part of a huge "corridor" of forest communities stretching from Central America down to the Amazon, who have organised together to take advantage of the benefits forests can provide, including from the scheme for Reduced Emissions from Degradation and Deforestation – REDD+</p> <p>But protecting forests where rights over resources are insecure or unclear is a risky business.  </p> <p>I come from a private sector background my self, and was in the manufacturing industry before becoming a politician. I was born in Tanzania and raised in Kenya so I know that clear property rights provide certainty for enterprises and poor communities in developing countries. This is important when it comes to accessing finance or making investments that generate returns over the long run – and forests will generate significant returns if they are well managed and under secure tenure.</p> <p>The Dialogue today has covered important issues about risks. I would like to focus our attention jointly on tackling the underlying causes of risk.  That way we can sustain progress. </p> <p>There are three key areas on which we need jointly to focus our attention.</p> <p>One is improving the way forests are governed, to bring greater opportunities for those that depend on forest resources for a living. </p> <p>For example, in Nepal 40% of households are members of well organised forest user groups and, as a result, have increased their incomes by over 50% over the past 5 years. </p> <p>The UK has supported this effort. Sustained commitment over two decades by the Government of Nepal and the user groups has also been critical to success.</p> <p>The second area of focus must be legal systems: it is only when forest laws are coherent, clear and publicly disclosed that they can be understood by all. But they will only be complied with, if all stakeholders understand what laws mean for them.  </p> <p>If compliance with forest laws is independently monitored, with mechanisms for resolving disputes, this creates conditions that are good not just for forest communities, but also for business. </p> <p>In Indonesia the UK is supporting independent forest monitoring or "legality assurance" by civil society as well as government. </p> <p>If the laws that regulate the use and clearance of forests are not clear, then it is difficult to establish projects or enterprises to sell forest carbon, timber or tourism. This constrains livelihood opportunities. It leads to illegal logging and forest clearance. It means governments, local as well as national, lose out on revenues and taxes from legal forest enterprises. </p> <p>A recent report by Chatham House shows that as illegal logging reduced $6.5 billion tax revenue was saved in countries with cash-strapped exchequers where forest governance has improved. Reduced illegal logging has also reduced greenhouse carbon emissions.</p> <p>The UK has been in the vanguard of efforts to build forest governance. We are working in Ghana, Liberia, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo and Indonesia to help them strengthen their forest governance. We are looking to expand our support further.</p> <p>This is because improving forest governance is a cost effective way of cutting greenhouse gases. At a cost of £2 or less per tonne of carbon, it is one of the cheapest methods. Forest governance will be the keystone to delivering all kinds of benefits from forests – including, as my colleague Greg Barker from DECC indicated this morning, successful reductions in emissions from deforestation and degradation.</p> <p>This brings me to the third area where we all need urgently to be focusing attention – trade.  In 2011 progress on forest issues will not just be about development policy or about forest nations it will also, crucially, be about trade. Consumers will play a role. Buyers' markets are changing and demanding standards. They wish to be confident that the products they buy are legal; that they are not produced using dodgy and damaging practices; that they do not undermine the rights and livelihoods of indigenous and local communities; and that they are sustainable and do not drive deforestation. </p> <p>To this end, the UK is working, not just with the timber trade, but also international companies investing in paper, palm oil, soy, beef and leather, to review the business practices that drive deforestation. </p> <p>The new European Illegal Timber Regulation that recently came into force in December makes first sale in the EU of timber that has been illegally harvested elsewhere, an offence. </p> <p>The UK is supporting Indonesia to develop a Timber Legality Assurance System –TLAS – that will reduce the risks that any timber it exports is illegal. The palm oil sector is looking at what lessons it can apply from this approach.</p> <p>By tackling underlying causes we "safeguard" the livelihoods of local communities who depend on forests for their food, fodder, fuel, wood and medicines. </p> <p>We also ensure that investments, domestic as much as foreign, whether in agriculture or forest conservation or REDD+, are based on the principles and standards of sound business. </p> <p>Not  risky business.</p> <p>We are far from the forests here. Dialogue brings those of us with a stake in forests together, to freely exchange views and information, and build understanding across different parties.  </p> <p>Today's event is part of an ongoing Dialogue that will allow us to focus on all the areas which require urgent attention, if we are to protect the world’s forests and improve the livelihoods of communities that rely on forests. </p> <p>I'll end here, and thank you all again for your contributions. I'm looking forward to a successful 2011 – the International Year of Forests for People – something this Dialogue has been all about.</p> <p>Thank you.</p> Stephen O'Brien Dialogue on Forests, Governance and Climate 09 February 2011 Department for International Development 9th Rights and Resources Initiative Dialogue on Forests, Governance and Climate change
None None None <p class="date">27 January 2011</p> <p>Ladies and gentlemen - it is a pleasure to make some opening remarks at the launch of the Forest Footprint Disclosure Review of 2010.</p> <p>Let me start by giving some context for today’s discussion.</p> <p>Forests are fundamental for the jobs, incomes and livelihoods of 90% of the one and a half billion people who live in extreme poverty around the world. </p> <p>About 17% of all carbon emissions are caused by deforestation in the tropics and subtropics – more than from the whole of the global transport sector. </p> <p>In the past 50 years, the world has lost a third of its tropical forests, and continues to lose some 13 million hectares each year - an area larger than Switzerland, the Netherlands and Denmark combined.</p> <p>I used to live and work in places like Tanzania and Indonesia and have seen the damage at first hand.</p> <p>And we know that the pressure on forests worldwide is not lessening, it’s actually increasing. </p> <p>The challenge we face today is to find new ways to reconcile the competing demands for wood, for food, for fuel, as well as for biodiversity conservation and reduced emissions from deforestation.</p> <p>Crucially what can we do to prevent the global demand for cheaper food and fuel from driving unsustainable agricultural expansion?</p> <p>What role can investors and the private sector play? </p> <p>What role can we play, as consumers, in reducing the demand for goods which rely on deforestation for their production?</p> <p>And what is my department also doing to help make a difference directly on the ground in developing countries?</p> <p>As we go forward, there are, I believe, four key areas on which we need jointly to focus our attention.</p> <p>First, we need more secure rights governing who can control, use and benefit from forests.<br>Unclear rights are bad for business and, when this leads to forest clearance, bad for the local communities who depend on forests. It is also bad for global climate change. </p> <p>Civil society groups in Indonesia, for example, have demanded a halt to all new palm oil plantation deals until their forest land rights are protected in legislation. </p> <p>The Government of Indonesia has recently placed a moratorium on further conversion of peat forest to palm oil as part of its efforts to reduce its carbon emissions from deforestation and help tackle climate change.</p> <p>We, governments and private sector, can work with local communities to help them get back control of their livelihoods and improve their access to markets, while making strides in investment and in contributing to the broader good. <br>For example, the UK is supporting the international Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI) which seeks to advance regulatory reforms in the forest sector. </p> <p>Second, protecting forests is actually hardest where governance is weak.</p> <p>That is why we are building the capacity of producer countries to formulate and enforce better laws and regulations – this will help protect forests and also create a better climate for investment and sound business practice.  </p> <p>Only one percent of tropical forests in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Oceania have been certified as sustainably managed since the early 1990s.  Most of the 320 million hectares of the world’s forests that have been certified are in Europe and North America.</p> <p>So clearly we also need to take that certification process a lot further.</p> <p>UK is supporting producer countries like Ghana, Liberia, Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Indonesia through the Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade programme (FLEGT) to develop better regulation and law enforcement of their forest and natural resource sectors. </p> <p>For example, helping them put in place “chain-of-custody” systems that trace timber as it is transported from forest to port. This reduces opportunities for trafficking. It builds transparent and accountable government by shedding light on who cuts forests and how forest revenues are collected and used. It provides evidence on whether timber is from legal sources - an essential first step to achieving sustainable management of forests. </p> <p>A report last year by Chatham House showed that every £1 we are investing in tackling illegal logging results in £6 of additional revenue that can be used for the public good by countries with cash-strapped exchequers.  </p> <p>And improving the way forests are governed also results in reduced carbon emissions and helps fight climate change. The same report mentions reductions in deforestation and degradation that avoid 14.6 billion tonnes of carbon emissions - that is two and a half times the UK emissions over the same 10 year period.</p> <p>Emerging economies are also taking action. Brazil reduced its rate of deforestation in 2009/10 compared with the year before. It brought more of its Amazon area under clearer jurisdiction, in particular for traditional communities living directly from forest resources. It monitors the use of its forests. Furthermore, the City and State of São Paulo have, like the UK, established procurement policy which favours certified timber products. </p> <p>UK is looking at expanding its support to countries beyond law enforcement and governance on timber to other commodities that drive deforestation. For example, we are supporting Indonesia in reviewing the laws it has for governing its palm oil sector. This means developing laws, policies and incentives that are less bureaucratic and facilitate market access for businesses, smallholder producers and workers. That help businesses meet sustainable and legal standards - standards for safer working, based on more sustainable ways of farming, on clearly titled land.</p> <p>This brings me on to the third area I wish to highlight.  The buyers’ market in the UK and Europe, and elsewhere, is also changing. </p> <p>New regulation at home will reduce the risks for consumers, as well as for buyers.  UK is one of the world’s biggest importers of tropical timber, for example. The European “Illegal” Timber Regulation (ITR) came into force last December. This will make first sale in the EU of timber and wood products that have been illegally logged, an offence. </p> <p>Similarly last April the USA amended its Lacey Act, making it unlawful to import plants and a range of wood and plant products illegally obtained in the country of origin. Japan, China and Australia are considering similar action.  </p> <p>This kind of risk-based regulation provides some guarantee to consumers. It will inspire them with greater confidence that the wood products they purchase are sustainable and legal. </p> <p>The fourth area where we need to focus attention, is due diligence in the private sector.</p> <p>I will be interested to hear today how businesses are becoming more informed and discerning about their impact on forests, and what actions they have taken over the past year to reduce their forest footprint. </p> <p>Improved due diligence for forestry investments by banks such as JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Bank of America has already had a significant influence on investment in the pulp and paper sector in Asia through tighter lending conditions that are based on the sustainability of supply chains.</p> <p>Marks and Spencer launched its Plan A – Doing the Right Thing – four years back. It committed to sourcing all its palm oil, soy, cocoa, beef, leather and coffee only from the most sustainable sources by 2015 and all its timber products from the most responsibly managed sources by 2012.  I hope we will hear more about progress with initiatives like this.</p> <p>Unilever and other members of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) have committed to using only palm oil from sources that are certified as being sustainable. </p> <p>British Airways is committed to helping partner companies reach “One Destination” - the name of BA’s responsible air travel endeavour - and is the first airline to declare its forest footprint.</p> <p>I hope great progress is being made against all these commitments!</p> <p>The UK government backs the Forest Footprint Disclosure project. It is an innovative initiative. It helps companies identify more clearly the implications of their investment and their marketing decisions on deforestation. But not just on forests. In the end it is about the billion or so poor people that depend on forests for their livelihoods. Being part of this initiative means we can work together – business, government and non-government organisations – and make a difference to the indigenous and local communities who live at the sharp end of poverty and climate change.</p> Stephen O'Brien Forest Footprint Disclosure Review 2010 27 January 2011 Department for International Development launch of the Forest Footprint Disclosure Review
None None None <p class="date">15 December 2010</p> <h3>The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Andrew Mitchell):</h3> <p>I would like to update the House on the Pakistan floods and the UK Government’s response to the ongoing emergency relief and early recovery needs of the critically affected population. </p> <p>Four months after the onset of the floods, the situation remains deeply challenging.  The majority of the 14 million people who were displaced by the floods have returned to their areas of origin, apart from in Sindh Province.   But with homes, farms and villages badly damaged, they will need humanitarian relief for months to come and help to restore livelihoods and basic services, particularly education and health, in the affected areas.</p> <p>The situation in Sindh remains critical.  Up to 350,000 families remain displaced by protracted flooding on the right bank of the Indus in northern Sindh.  These people are hard to reach and will need humanitarian relief well into next year – especially shelter, with winter setting in across Pakistan.</p> <p>In this context, I am pleased to inform the House of further UK Government support for relief and recovery efforts since I last updated the House on 12 October. These include:</p> <ul> <li>Providing safe drinking water, sanitation services, basic healthcare, basic household items and shelter to some 305,000 people in Sindh and Punjab through Handicap International, Oxfam, and CARE for a total cost of £5.5 million.</li> <li>Providing emergency shelter for 180,000 people in the worst affected areas of Sindh, through a £1.7 million grant to Concern. </li> <li>Assisting 25,000 people in Sindh to build permanent homes to replace those destroyed in the floods, through a £1.8 million grant to UNHABITAT.</li> <li>Supporting a disease early warning system and provision of essential health services to over 500,000 people in the areas worst affected by the floods for the next six months, through a contribution of £2 million to the World Health Organisation’s most recent appeal.</li> <li>Helping 200,000 children to resume education, through programmes costing £10 million involving Save the Children, Plan International and Hands.  This will involve rehabilitation of damaged schools and provision of temporary facilities where schools have been destroyed while longer term reconstruction is implemented.</li> <li>Supporting agricultural livelihoods and the wider rural economy that will benefit approximately one million people.  The programme will provide work opportunities, cash grants, materials, tools, seeds, skills training and technical expertise over the next nine months, through the Consortium of British Humanitarian Agencies at a total cost of £20 million.</li> <li>Helping over 28,000 families to acquire and look after domestic animals such as poultry, goats, and donkeys to improve nutrition and support their incomes. <br>All of these interventions have been appraised in detail by my Department to ensure value for money and a focus on results.  </li> </ul> <p>The overall DFID humanitarian programme for the flood affected areas is proceeding well. I can report that, as of 1 December, UKAid has achieved the following; approximately:</p> <ul> <li>971,390 people have been provided with drinking water </li> <li>254,480 people have had access to latrines and/or washing areas </li> <li>867,900 people have received hygiene kits or hygiene education </li> <li>453,860 people have had access to basic healthcare </li> <li>712,590 women and children have received supplementary or therapeutic feeding for malnutrition </li> <li>540,560 people have received emergency goods packages typically including blankets, cooking equipment, jerry-cans, and plastic sheeting. </li> <li>504,450 people have received emergency shelter; and </li> <li>71,925 people have benefited from seeds and fertilisers </li> </ul> <p>These results are provisional estimates from ongoing operations where the eventual total number of beneficiaries will be significantly higher.  </p> <p>As a result of UK and other interventions, the risk of disease has been contained so far. But there is no room for complacency. Millions of people will remain highly vulnerable and dependent on external assistance until homes, basic services, economic infrastructure and livelihoods are re-established. My Department plans to maintain a dedicated Flood Response team on the ground in Pakistan for the next six to nine months, actively monitoring the situation and our programme of humanitarian relief and recovery.</p> Andrew Mitchell Written Ministerial Statement on Pakistan Floods 15 December 2010 Department for International Development unknown
None None None <p class="date">14 December 2010</p> <h3>Speech by PUSS Stephen O’Brien to launch DFID/FCO “How to Note on Electoral Assistance”</h3> <p>Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, </p> <p>I am very glad to be here to launch this joint DFID and Foreign Office ‘How to’ Note on Electoral Assistance.</p> <h3>Democratic Politics and Development<br> </h3> <p>Democratic politics play a vital role in the fight against poverty. It is politics that determine how a society makes choices, how competing interests are mediated and how resources are allocated. That is why the UK puts support to inclusive, democratic politics at the very heart of our development efforts. <br> <br>Part of the definition of being poor is to have no power – <br>no power to shape your own life; <br>no power to make sure government policy meets your needs; <br>no power to hold your leaders to account for what they do. </p> <p>Moreover, people want democracy. In a recent poll, for instance, four out of five Nigerians chose democracy over military government or religious system as the best form of government for their country.</p> <p>But democratic politics help deliver other development objectives too. <br>The economist Paul Collier has found evidence that regular, free and fair elections lead to better policy and governance. Morten Halperin, in his book the ‘Democracy Advantage’, sets out convincing evidence that citizens of democracies live longer, healthier, and more productive lives than those in autocracies. And Amartya Sen has shown that democracies also tend to have more macroeconomic and political stability and are better able to respond to devastating disasters, such as famines. </p> <p>Inclusive politics are also vital in post-conflict situations. Lasting peace and stable states cannot be built if the problems of political exclusion and the legitimacy of governments are not considered.  </p> <p>The parties to a political settlement need to be the right parties. That’s why, after the conflict in Nepal, we put so much effort into broadening the social compact by ensuring that excluded groups had a voice at the table during the peace process and that the percentage of female members of parliament rose from six to thirty-three. </p> <p>In Sierra Leone we see another example of the vital role that elections can play after conflict. Although the conflict lines still exist, the 2007 elections allowed a peaceful change in the governing party without rending the fabric of society.  </p> <p>For all these reasons, the UK government is committed to strengthening its work to empower citizens to hold their governments to account through democratic elections. </p> <h3>Governance and development</h3> <p><br>Support for democratic politics is just one part of our efforts to strengthen governance in our partner countries. </p> <p>As the Prime Minister said his speech on ‘One World Conservatism’ in July, “Countries are pulled out of poverty by a golden thread that starts with the absence of war and the presence of good governance, property rights and the rule of law, effective public services and strong civil institutions, free and fair trade, and open markets.” </p> <p>Or as Kofi Annan’s Africa Progress Panel said this year: “Good governance and accountability will determine Africa’s future. The quality of governance is a key determinant in political and social stability, equitable economic growth, and poverty reduction.” </p> <p>Governance is a complicated concept which is used to mean many things. Let me set out what I mean by governance. First, I mean the critical institutions which help people hold their governments to account and which strengthen the legitimacy of the state in the eyes of the people – the parliament and the judiciary, auditors and ombudsmen. Second, I mean the institutions that enable a state to deliver for its people – to provide a stable and predictable environment for the private sector, to deliver health and education whether directly or through non-governmental providers, to provide policing and security for everybody.  Third, I mean the underlying structures and relationships which govern the way citizens interact with the state and with each other and which are so critical to the opportunities they have to lift themselves out of poverty. </p> <p>Without the development of these governance institutions and underlying structures, we will not see significant wealth creation and we will not see sustainable progress towards the Millennium Development Goals.</p> <h3>The Elections ‘How to’ Note</h3> <p><br>Now let me return to elections in particular. The ‘How to’ Note we are launching today sets out how the UK will support elections in our partner countries drawing on lessons of experience. I commend it to you. Let me just pick out a few of the key principles that will guide us. </p> <p>First, understanding of the context – historical, social and political. The UK will never impose any particular model of democratic governance on another country. All we can do is support processes that are already at work within a country. We will seek to work with the grain, helping others to nudge forward change. We need to be pragmatic. In countries where the economy is growing fast without full democracy it makes sense to build on this progress while working to strengthen accountability. Economic development can help democracies to emerge and be sustained.</p> <p>Second, we will take an electoral cycle approach, providing long-term support to democratic processes not just for short-term election events. And, as Jeremy Browne has stressed, we will work with a broad range of partners – parliaments, political parties and civil society groups, as well as electoral management bodies. We also recognize that democratic practice takes a long time to develop. In the UK it’s taken us some 800 years to get where we are today - and we are still learning – about coalition government for example! </p> <p>Third, we will take what Andrew Mitchell, the Secretary of State, has described as an “integrated approach”. We will work across government to make the best use of our development and diplomatic resources. That is why DFID and the Foreign Office produced this ‘How to’ Note jointly and that is why Jeremy and I are up here together. But the integrated approach is also about working in broader partnerships: with governmental and non-governmental actors, with other development agencies, and with important bodies such as the African Union.<br> <br>Fourth, we will put greater emphasis on identifying the potential risks around elections and working to mitigate them. The Kenyan Finance Minister estimated that the violence around the 2007 elections cost his country’s economy about one billion dollars. And the direct human cost was also huge with over 1,000 deaths and more than 300,000 people displaced from their homes. So, for example, in Nigeria we are working with national and regional authorities to identify potential hotspots of violence in the vital upcoming elections. </p> <p>And fifth, the Note emphasises a theme that now runs through all of our development efforts – demonstrating value for money. Let us not pretend that this is straightforward – building a democracy is not the same as building a road. But we owe it to the British taxpayer to improve the way we demonstrate the efficiency and the effectiveness of our support to elections. </p> <p>We are making progress already<br>Let me assure you that we are already making progress. Over the past four years, DFID has provided support to elections in 25 countries with a combined electorate of over 600 million.  And we have seen the benefits: in increased voter registration and election turnouts; greater acceptance of results; and a trend towards wider public support for democracy. For example, in the ten years since the first round of Afrobarometer surveys in 1999, the level of engagement in political discussions has increased 11%, the number of citizens who know who is their MP has increased 21%, and the number of people attending community meetings has increased by 17%.</p> <p>Let me give you some examples of the different types of support that the UK has provided, support that has made a real difference to the lives of some of the world’s poorest people. </p> <p>In some cases, we provide support for democratic processes themselves. In Bangladesh, for example, DFID was part of a major international community effort to support the 2008 elections. DFID support focused on improving voter registration and we directly helped around 14 million people to get the chance to vote. Voter turnout was around 85% in a free, fair and credible process.</p> <p>In many countries we also provide support for democratic institutions. In Uganda we are pioneering a Deepening Democracy Programme which is an example of the electoral cycle approach in action. Working with other donors, we provide support to: <br>• the Electoral Commission, to improve competence and greater independence; <br>• parliament, to strengthen it as an institution, enabling it to hold the executive properly to account; <br>• political parties, to build capacity and improve internal democracy; <br>• and the media, encouraging balanced and fair reporting.</p> <p>Finally, we are increasingly helping citizens to engage in public life. Take Ghana, for example. Here, we funded a project in advance of the 2008 elections to raise the profile of gender issues with political parties. A televised meeting of party leaders discussing their gender policies galvanised widespread media coverage and public interest. Several hundred women leaders were trained to campaign on gender issues. This project supported a movement which led to some impressive results. For the first time a women was elected Speaker of the national parliament. Of 32 ministerial portfolios, 8 are now headed by women. And crucially, the benefits are already evident with a stronger government focus on maternal mortality and girls.</p> <h3>Going forward</h3> <p><br>Guided by this Electoral Assistance ‘How to’ Note we will strengthen our efforts to improve democratic governance in our partner countries. We want our practice to continue to evolve. We have posted this Note on our external websites and we would welcome your comments and suggestions. We are also working with other donors in the OECD to try to improve the impact of the overall international efforts to support elections and democracy. </p> <p>Before closing, let me echo Jeremy’s thanks to you all for being here today and to ERIS for sponsoring the launch of the How to Note. This agenda lies right at the heart of the coalition’s commitment to help citizens in the developing world take control of their own lives. </p> <p>I am honoured to be part of this effort to which DFID, the Foreign Office and many of you in this room are dedicated. This is a difficult, complicated agenda but the rewards of success will be great - a better life for millions of people and a safer, more prosperous world for Britain. </p> <p> </p> Stephen O’Brien How to Note on Electoral Assistance 14 December 2010 Department for International Development launch DFID/FCO “How to Note
None None None <p class="date">02 December 2010</p> <h3>Speech by International Development Minister Stephen O'Brien at APPG on HIV &amp; AIDS/ Stop AIDS (RED) on World AIDS Day </h3> <p>Thank you. First of all I would like to thank the All Party Parliamentary Group on AIDS and RED for inviting me to make some short remarks and for organising such a fantastic event to mark World AIDS Day 2010. Today we pay tribute to the millions of people who have lost their lives to AIDS, to those living with HIV and to people from all levels of society, who have fought relentlessly for action against the epidemic.  </p> <p>Let me say at the outset that the Coalition Government remains 100% committed to this fight. Yes, we have new priorities as well – such as malaria. But that in no way diminishes our commitment to this agenda.</p> <p>The <strong>APPG</strong> likewise plays an important role in the UK's response to the epidemic by bringing together members of parliament across the political spectrum and working with our strong civil society network to sustain UK taxpayers' support for tackling AIDS. They hold us to account for what we promise to deliver. I would also like to commend <strong>RED's</strong> efforts to raise funds through private-sector partnerships to address AIDS in Africa. The UK believes that the private sector has a vital role in a sustained response. </p> <p>I would like to say a few words on two issues – first about how the UK government will contribute to end mother to child transmission and secondly how we intend to move forward in response to the epidemic over the months and years ahead. But let me first reflect on the progress we've made in the response so far.</p> <p><strong>We have seen enormous progress</strong> - over 5 million people on treatment (13 times more the number of people that had access in 2004!); an epidemic that has stabilised in most regions; a 19% reduction in the number of new infections since 1999.  And there’s more good news in the Global Report that UNAIDS published last week.  In 33 countries HIV prevalence has fallen by more than 25% between 2001 and 2009 – many of these countries are in sub-Saharan Africa.  And HIV prevalence has also fallen by more than 25% among young people in 15 of the most affected countries as young people have adopted safer sexual practices – showing prevention messages are getting through and saving lives.</p> <p>But there is bad news too. More than 7,000 people get infected with HIV every day and an estimated 10 million are in need of treatment, but not getting it. And UNAIDS report that in five countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, where the epidemic is driven amongst marginalized groups, HIV prevalence has risen by 25% since 2001. We now see two epidemics – that in sub-Saharan Africa, with a female face, and that elsewhere, where we increasingly need to reach men who have sex with men, sex workers, prisoners and drug users. That is why we must continue to defend the rights of marginalised groups to protect themselves from HIV for example through supporting harm reduction programmes that ensure drug users get access to clean needles. The APPG has a proud record in this area. The UK Government, too, will continue to be an advocate for these groups.  </p> <p>But let me turn to the matter that concerns us today – <strong>an estimated 370,000 children contracted HIV through mother to child transmission in 2009</strong>.  This is a significant reduction from 500,000 in 2001 – but this level of entirely avoidable infection is still unacceptable. These numbers tell us that there is still much to do to eliminate paediatric AIDS. </p> <p>As you know, the UK Government have committed to allocating 0.7 of our Gross National Income for overseas AID by 2013 and have ring-fenced our budget.  This is a historical commitment. We have also put <strong>women and children's health</strong> <strong>at the heart</strong> of our international development agenda and we expect that our Commitments made on women and children's health will contribute to the survival of at least 50,000 more women in pregnancy and childbirth and 250,000 newborn babies and to provide <strong>10 million more couples with access to comprehensive family planning</strong>.</p> <p>The UK Government wholeheartedly supports the call for the virtual elimination of paediatric AIDS and we are working with others to scale up prevention of mother to child transmission services. To reach this goal, we need to<strong> adopt the comprehensive approach</strong> recommended by the World Health Organization, and we are committed to doing so by focusing where we have comparative advantage. This is on <strong>primary prevention of HIV among women of child-bearing age</strong>, and on <strong>prevention of unintended pregnancies among women living with HIV</strong> through our investments in family planning.</p> <p>Prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV is not just about provision of anti-retrovirals. <strong>Making choices through family planning</strong> is a key element of the package- but many women do not have access to modern methods of contraception and cannot choose whether and when and how many children to have,  let alone choose to do this safely. And we know that the <strong>unmet need for family planning among HIV positive women is higher than among HIV negative women</strong> (as high as 51 to 90%). Most paediatric infections occur in Sub-Saharan Africa, which accounts for more than 91% of all pregnant women living with HIV. We expect to make a significant contribution to the goal of eliminating paediatric AIDS  in Africa  through our investments in family planning and commitment to double the numbers of mothers and babies lives saved. </p> <p>There are real challenges here. How do we change behaviour? We know this is not easy – but I'd suggest it's largely through giving people – particularly young women like Esnart who will shortly be telling you her story – the right information and supporting them to make real choices about their health and their lives by addressing factors that influence behaviour. We know that programmes that do this do work but we also need to make prevention programmes more effective, particularly in generalised epidemics. To do this, we need to strengthen the evidence by rigorously evaluating what we do.</p> <p>The UK government is strongly committed to <strong>empowering women and girls</strong>, by focusing on their sexual and reproductive health and rights, and addressing the underlying drivers of the AIDS epidemic such as gender inequality, gender based violence and poverty. The latest UNAIDS report tells us that young <strong>women aged 15-24 in Sub-Saharan Africa are as much as 8 times more likely than men to be HIV positive</strong>. This is alarming, and clearly, we must do better to protect women and girls. This is why we will test and support innovative approaches such as cash transfers to reduce women and girls' HIV risk – as well as getting more girls into school, something this Government is determined to support.</p> <p>We will use the <strong>Reproductive, Maternal and Newborn Health Framework for Action (which we will publish later this month)</strong> as the Coalition Government's key mechanism to prioritise the health of women and children. The Framework will support service delivery across the continuum of care needed to improve the health of women and children, including Prevention of Mother to Child Transmission. And we will continue to support the implementation of the UN Secretary General Global Strategy for Women’s and Children's Health which is based on delivering a comprehensive, integrated package of essential interventions and services. </p> <p>Of course – we can't do this in isolation. I'm proud of the UK's success in working through coalitions and alliances – of punching above our weight by persuading others of the case for action. That is something I'm keen to build on.</p> <p>So I want to close by renewing a commitment. This World AIDS Day marks the close of 2010 - the target the world set for universal access to HIV prevention, AIDS treatment, care and support. In June at Muskoka, the G8 reaffirmed its commitment to come as close as possible to this goal. Progress against these targets will be reviewed at a UN General Assembly special session in June next year. The Coalition Government will play its part in taking this forward. We have not given up.</p> <p>As many in this room will know, we have been clear that the detail of our future plans depends on the outcome of the Multilateral and Bilateral Aid Reviews – which the SoS commissioned to ensure that every pound of UK aid buys 100 pence of value.</p> <p>We will set out the UK Government's position on HIV in the spring, in the light of the findings of these reviews. As part of this we will need to articulate where the UK can add most value to the global response to HIV. This will inform our position at the UN special session in June. Input from the APPG, and other stakeholders, will be key to getting this right and I am asking my officials to work with you, as we develop and confirm our thinking over the coming months.</p> <p>Thank you all for your continued support.</p> Stephen O'Brien World AIDS Day 02 December 2010 Department for International Development APPG
None None None <p class="date">22 November 2010</p> <h3>The Secretary of State for International Development, Andrew Mitchell: </h3> <p>I wish to update the House on my visit to Sudan between 8-11 November 2010. During my visit to Khartoum, El-Fasher and Juba, I met with: Vice President, Ali Osman Taha; President of the Government of Southern Sudan, Salva Kiir; Presidential Adviser on Darfur, Ghazi Salah Al-Din Al-Atabani; other Government Ministers; a range of Sudan’s political leaders; the Chairman of the Southern Sudan Referendum Commission (SSRC) Professor Ibrahim Khalil; and members of civil society. I also met with: visiting UN Under-Secretary Generals, Baroness Amos and Alain Le Roy; UN Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) Special Representative Haile Menkerios; UN / African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) Joint Special Representative Ibrahim Gambari; members of the UN Country Team; humanitarian actors; and NGOs. In Juba, I opened the new HMG Office, which will house staff from DFID, the FCO, the Stabilisation Unit and the Ministry of Defence.</p> <p>In North and South Sudan, I stressed the importance of the referendum being credible, peaceful and on time. I delivered messages on the importance of both parties agreeing the outstanding Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) issues such as Abyei, citizenship and the border. The UK is actively supporting the referendum, including through financial support to the UN Development Programme Basket Fund for the referendum process which will provide voter education, civic education, pratical assistance and technical support. We are also providing technical assistance to the talks on border demarcation and security arrangements.</p> <p>I made clear to the Governments in the North and South that the UK is committed to the longer-term future of both North and South Sudan whatever the outcome of the referendum. Through successful completion and implementation of the CPA and progress towards peace and justice in Darfur, the North has an opportunity to change its political relationships with the international community. The Government of Southern Sudan must set out a vision for the future with which its citizens can engage, including making appropriate investments to support diversification of the economy into non-oil activity. The UK has a substantial development programme in South Sudan, an area where thousands of adults are illiterate and women and children are more likely to die in childbirth than complete primary education. Amongst other benefits, this programme has already provided basic services for over 1.8 million people so far. We remain committed to supporting the long-term future of Southern Sudan, and working with the Government to help improve the lives of those who live there.</p> <p>I found the situation in Darfur much changed since the Prime Minister and I visited in 2006, but in discussions with Government Ministers and Advisers, I underlined my concern about the security situation in parts of the three states. I called for the immediate and unconditional release of the four European nationals currently being held hostage (1 Hungarian UNAMID peacekeeper and 3 Latvian World Food Programme pilots), and stressed the need for the full and unhindered access for humanitarian workers and Peacekeepers. I urged all sides to refrain from military escalation in Darfur, and to engage constructively with the AU/UN Mediation to work towards an inclusive and sustainable peace agreement for Darfur. I reiterated the UK’s support for the International Criminal Court and urged the Government of Sudan to engage with the Court.</p> <p>I underlined to senior UN representatives that the international community could not be caught short in its preparedness to respond to a referendum-related humanitarian crisis in Sudan. I stressed the need for the UN and its agencies to have comprehensive contingency plans in place to address any potential future challenges. </p> <p>The UK is determined to help improve the lives of the Sudanese people. But only if peace is kept and conflict avoided, will development succeed and those lives truly be improved. </p> Andrew Mitchell Ministerial statement on Sudan 22 November 2010 Department for International Development unknown
None None None <p class="date">18 November 2010</p> <h3>Speech by Andrew Mitchell, International Development Secretary, at a Climate and Development Knowledge Network event at British Council on 18 November 2010.</h3> <p>Good morning. In making this speech I am delighted to be sharing a platform with two such climate and development luminaries as Nick and Simon.   </p> <p>Nick is surely one of the UK’s best-known and most respected authorities on these issues and I am extremely grateful to him for making time in his busy day to be with us here today. </p> <p>And of course, I must also pay tribute to Simon who, in his imitable and ever-opportunistic manner has been encouraging me to give this speech almost since the day I became Secretary of State for International Development. We are lucky to have someone of your intellect – and enthusiasm - chairing the Climate Development Knowledge Network and I am grateful for all that you do to further our understanding of this subject. </p> <p>The more observant of you may have spotted that by dint of careful planning we find ourselves in the Prince of Wales Suite. His Royal Highness has supported the cause of forests and we should acknowledge his contribution today. And on the subject of our location, I must also thank the British Council for hosting this event – I know that climate change is high on their agenda.</p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, I want this morning to lay before you three arguments:</p> <ul> <li>First, that while climate change is undoubtedly a massive threat to poor countries it also presents real opportunities </li> <li>Second, that in climate change, the world has a real chance to take a new approach to solving global problems and seizing global opportunities </li> <li>Third, and most importantly, that we must get on with it. Whilst we work tirelessly towards a global deal we must not be paralysed into inaction on the ground.  Helping developing countries adapt to the impacts of climate change – and to grow in a low-carbon way - will not only save lives but will also build the very confidence that can make a deal a reality.</li> </ul> <h3>Consensus on the Case</h3> <p>I don’t intend this morning to dwell on the science behind climate change. Those arguments have already been well-made by the Royal Society and many others. </p> <p>Despite these arguments there will always be those who remain un-persuaded of the science. Not least, because this is an issue of probability and risk. But I don’t believe it’s the job of politicians or policy makers to second-guess scientists. As others before me have said, if 99 out of a 100 doctors tell you your child has measles, you don’t wait for the hundredth to change their mind before doing something about it.</p> <p>The private sector certainly isn’t waiting around. Decisions are being made every day on where to locate, on investments and on insurance premiums. These decisions are based on the business reality of climate change. HSBC, in launching its Climate Change Fund said that it saw climate change as one of the biggest investment themes for the foreseeable future. </p> <p>The sad truth, well-known to this audience, is that the poorest people in the poorest countries are already suffering from climate change – and are suffering the most. Tragically, they will suffer even more in the future. Left unchecked, climate change will cruelly impede our progress towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals – disproportionately so in the case of women - and will jeopardise our existing gains. </p> <p>Add to this, massive population shifts, severely depleted resources and the consequent tensions and grievances that can so easily lead to unrest – and the picture is not a bright one. At a time when this Coalition Government has proudly led the world in being the first G20 country to live up to its commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of GNI as aid from 2013, we are in danger of turning on the tap with one hand while removing the plug with the other. </p> <p>Yet, there is a solution. It is possible to tackle climate change while also addressing development. It’s just that it’s a different sort of development, one that marries good development outcomes with low-carbon, climate-resilient growth. </p> <h3>Climate change as an opportunity for developing countries</h3> <p>This brings me to my first argument. We should in no way underestimate the havoc and destruction that can come from climate change. But I think the time has come to recognise first that if we act now we can manage, or even avoid, the most severe impacts. And second that tackling climate change now is not only cheaper than dealing with its impacts, but actually opens up huge opportunities. </p> <p>Yes, the challenge is great. Current projections show that without action, the population will grow to 9 billion by 2050. To avoid catastrophic climate change we need to reduce average emissions to less than 2 tonnes per head. That’s less than a tenth of what some rich countries emit today. </p> <p>But there are things we can do now that will make a real difference and do not cost the earth. We could cut carbon emissions by 2020 by as much as a third simply by avoiding unnecessary deforestation. And more than 70 per cent of the energy-related emissions savings we need to make in the next ten years could come from using energy more efficiently – saving money in the process. Admittedly, achieving substantial cuts in other areas will be tougher, but the technologies exist to help us deal with it – provided we work together. </p> <p>Of course, we have to face facts. The carbon that is already in the atmosphere means that adaptation presents a far tougher challenge, bigger than any we’ve seen before. And there are some areas where no amount of action on our part will save us from the deepest impacts. The risk to small islands, for example, is immense. </p> <p>Waiting around to tackle climate change, however, will be both expensive and painful. On Nick’s figures, action today will cost us 2 per cent of global GDP a year. Now, no-one is suggesting that this isn’t a huge sum but contrast it with the 20% of GDP that our inaction could cost us in years to come.  And Nick has said that the Stern Review may even have under-estimated those costs.  We must summon the political will to act now rather than leaving our children and grandchildren to pick up the bill – a much bigger bill – later. </p> <p>The challenge we face in international development is this. Can countries continue to grow and prosper in a way which uses energy and resources in a different way? Can energy be used more sparingly? Can cleaner ways be found to generate it? Can agricultural techniques, building designs, social support systems, insurance packages - be developed to help the world’s poorest people cope with more extreme weather and natural disasters? Can governments develop the incentives that could unleash the transformative power of the private sector? </p> <p>This should be the most inspiring, exciting and overwhelming series of challenges to today’s generation of bright, young people. As well as to wise, experienced, older hands. We are at the threshold of nothing less than a new industrial, agricultural and technological revolution. </p> <p>We know from previous industrial revolutions, that investment flows to where the leadership is. Whichever country seizes the opportunity presented by low-carbon growth, will reap the economic reward. The same is no less true of companies and citizens. </p> <p>Our Coalition Government has been alive to this from day one. Our spending review was the greenest ever. We are positioning the UK to be a world leader in off-shore wind. And, together with Norway, the United States, Australia and China, we are investing in carbon capture and storage. On the global stage, the UK has led the way by committing to cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.   </p> <p>But crucially, there’s a massive opportunity here for developing countries too, an opportunity that will help them to pull in low-carbon investment, placing them firmly on the front foot. Some are already acting. Costa Rica has led the world in making forests worth more alive than dead. Brazil is now attempting to do this on a massive scale, using satellite technology to track progress. Ethiopia has pledged zero net carbon emissions by 2025. The Maldives aims to be carbon-neutral by the end of the decade.</p> <p>Then there’s the immense potential of natural resources – sun, wind, rivers, tides - that developing countries often possess in abundance. By exploiting these resources, they can sell carbon credits and develop exciting new technologies. Imagine North African countries exporting solar power to Europe. Or those with significant hydropower - from Nepal to Mozambique - exporting to neighbouring countries such as India and South Africa.</p> <p>Or take adaptation, where early action is not only cheaper but also opens up yet more opportunities. Let me give you a couple of examples. Vietnam saved over £4 million a year on maintaining its dykes simply by planting 12,000 hectares of mangrove forest. The cost? Less than a £1 million. Some developing countries are currently replanting their mangroves to protect themselves from tsunamis – and in so doing are supporting biodiversity and fish nurseries. In Bangladesh, poor farmers are using “scuba rice” which can survive underwater for up to two weeks. In Sub-Saharan Africa, some countries are developing new agricultural techniques, including drip irrigation and low-till planting, to save water and reduce emissions.</p> <p>Of course, just because opportunities exist, it doesn’t automatically follow that developing countries will be able to exploit them.  I will return to this theme later by suggesting ways in which richer countries can help them to do so. </p> <h3>Tackling climate change presents a chance to work in a new way globally</h3> <p>I come now to my second argument: that this vision of a new revolution will not – cannot - be achieved without global leadership and co-operation. Companies and citizens can only do so much on their own. Ultimately, they need a stronger, more long-term signal from their government. In turn, governments find it hard to show that vision, unless they see other governments making matching commitments. </p> <p>I won’t dwell here on the fact that we need an ambitious, fair and effective global deal. Or on what we expect from Cancun.  Chris Huhne, my colleague, spoke on this eloquently, only yesterday. </p> <p>I must however, take a moment to highlight those elements of that deal which will make it truly fair for developing countries. It is a blatant injustice that those who have contributed the least to climate change will be affected the most. </p> <p>A deal must be ambitious enough to keep the world’s temperature below a 2 degree rise, with effort fairly shared out. Those who are historically the highest emitters must do the most and the newly-high emitters the next most. <br>A deal should build trust by including commitments to be transparent. We need to be able to hold each other to account, not only for emissions reductions, but also for the finance we provide. The UK is leading the way on transparency and has promised to report openly on our Fast Start commitments. In common with other EU states we have already provided the latest information online.  The Government’s UK Aid Transparency Guarantee was a testament to our determination to be open and transparent about how we spend taxpayers’ money and we are abiding by that promise. </p> <p>A deal must include sufficient finance to support developing countries on a low-carbon and climate-resilient development path. Through the Copenhagen Accord, richer countries committed to securing 100 billion dollars a year from 2020, from public and private sources. Now the Advisory Group on Climate Finance has shown that this target, while challenging, is achievable.  Indeed, it suggests that developed countries could collectively mobilise some 50 billion dollars – or even more – from new public sources. It goes on to say that private finance could take us considerably beyond this sum. And let me make clear that I hope we can make progress at Cancun towards establishing the Green Fund that was called for in the Copenhagen Accord. </p> <p>Carbon markets are a key piece of the financing jigsaw and another area where leadership is needed. To create viable markets, we first need developed countries to sign up to ambitious emissions reductions targets. The UK is pushing for the higher cut in EU-wide emissions of 30 per cent by 2020. Tough targets will help set a carbon price that is sufficiently high and stable - the AGF talks about 20 to 25 US dollars per tonne -  to create incentives for innovators and investors to develop low-carbon solutions. But, ladies and gentlemen, we want carbon markets to be really effective. We need to reform the way the market works. In particular, this must include improving access for poorer, developing countries so that it is not just the more advanced countries that are able to benefit from carbon market finance. </p> <p>If we are to achieve a fair global deal, if we are to succeed in opening up the carbon markets, indeed, if we are to make any real progress on climate change – we have to accept that the old style of bargaining won’t work any more. The days of the zero-sum game must come to an end. It’s simply not good enough for countries to talk to each other only when the spotlight of the world’s press is on them. We need the quiet diplomacy as well, the diplomacy that builds relationships rather than tests them. And we need new relationships, with new partners as well as old friends. </p> <p>We also need a more even playing field. Michael Howard called for this some years ago in the context of trade negotiations. I think we should do the same for climate change. So today, I would like to announce our support for a Climate Advocacy Fund.  The Fund will provide access to legal, technical and logistical support to the poorest and most vulnerable countries – countries whose full participation is essential if we are to achieve an equitable deal. I hope this will provide valuable help to those countries that have previously suffered such an unfair disadvantage.  </p> <p>We will also strengthen our relationships with emerging economies. Under the Foreign Secretary’s leadership, Coalition Cabinet colleagues will develop a more strategic approach to these partnerships. Within DFID, I intend to set up a Partnership Secretariat that can build common cause with key emerging economies on global justice issues, including climate change. It’s worth remembering, that leadership needn’t come from the richest countries. China long ago recognised the potential of green growth and is now showing others the way.</p> <p>Then there’s the wide range of progressive and vulnerable countries from the Maldives to Mexico and Malaysia, from Bangladesh to Brazil and Burkina Faso. Yes, we may have to find new ways of working – we have no template - but we will find an approach that works. And in this new era, that approach will include networks of civil society, alliances working across borders, the private sector not just governments. And let me say here and now - we will use the tremendous network that is the Commonwealth. We all have a mutual interest in securing an ambitious, fair and effective deal.</p> <p>If we do all this, if we embrace new ways of working together in order to solve this most global of global problems – then we will be in a good place to tackle food security, water security or whatever other shared challenges may lie ahead.</p> <h3>Action on the ground</h3> <p>I come now to my third and final point. It’s essentially a very practical point about action on the ground. It is here that we need to roll up our sleeves in three key areas: adaptation, low-carbon development and forests. By building confidence in our ability to respond to these difficult issues, we will also help to lay the foundations for a deal on climate change. </p> <p>Making sure that development is climate-resilient and that developing countries are equipped to adapt to the inevitable consequences of climate change is central to everything we do. After all, adaptation is simply development in a harsher context. That’s why Chris Huhne and I believe that a substantial amount of climate finance should be spent on adaptation. There’s absolutely no reason why we can’t make progress on adaptation before a global deal is done.</p> <p>We’re already discovering what works and what doesn’t. In Malawi, we are helping farmers to withstand extreme climatic events by investing in drought-resistant crops. In Bangladesh we have made it possible for some 90,000 homes to be raised on earth platforms in order to protect half a million families and their livestock from seasonal Monsoon floods. We will need to strengthen our support for Disaster Risk Reduction, an approach which we know delivers results and value for money. </p> <p>Getting on with the job also means being prepared to learn and to take risks. That’s why it’s so important that we develop a strong evaluation framework to measure the success of our investment.</p> <p>On low-carbon development, we will give greater emphasis to partnering developing countries to help them attract private investment, a subject upon which I touched in my wealth creation speech at the London School of Economics last month. We will pioneer innovative approaches, working with the City, the multilateral development banks and with individual companies. But we should never ask developing countries to sacrifice short-term growth in the interests of making that growth green. Instead, we will support the investments that deliver green growth for those who need it. </p> <p>We want to stimulate investment in the renewable technologies that can be life-changers for the world’s poorest people. We have had some small-scale successes in the past. The Lighting Africa programme has helped six private companies and social entrepreneurs to develop solar-powered LED lighting products for the African market. These sell for as little as £15 each and could be sold even more cheaply if carbon finance were available. </p> <p>We want to build on examples like the Lighting Africa programme to promote the kind of creativity that public money is uniquely-placed to stimulate. As I speak, there are one and a half billion people across our world who lack any means of accessing energy. We can make it possible for them to get new forms of energy in new ways, freeing them from dependence on governments and on monopolies.  </p> <p>We will also explore how innovation prizes might be used to reward fresh thinking on inclusive technologies, working alongside the X-Prize Foundation and others with experience in this field. We will support Climate Innovation Centres in countries such as India and Kenya, so that local entrepreneurs can turn ideas and technologies into viable businesses.</p> <p>I want CDC, the UK-owned development finance corporation, to start investing more of its assets in innovative projects, taking risks and delivering real and sustainable benefits for the world’s poorest people. We are currently consulting on how this might be achieved and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that climate-related initiatives could feature in its portfolio. I will also urge the Multilateral Development Banks to do even more to support a shift to climate-smart investment and lending. Alongside this I will expect the substantial resources we have provided through the Climate Investment Funds to deliver transformational change. These promise impressive results. </p> <p>We’re also working on two new public-private partnerships that will target low-carbon and adaptation investments in Asia and large-scale renewable energy in Africa. They will use public money to leverage private finance and direct it to where it is most needed, securing up to £9 of private investment for every £1 of public money spent. </p> <p>If successful, the Asian initiative could, over 25 years, create up to 5 gigawatts of new renewable energy, generating massive opportunities, including 60,000 jobs, and removing 150 millions tonnes of CO2. In Africa, we are exploring a cash-on-delivery mechanism with a view to delivering enough electricity for over 4 million rural households, avoiding emissions of up to 900,000 tonnes a year. We hope to launch these partnerships next year.</p> <p>Meanwhile, the Government’s Capital Markets Climate Initiative is bringing key players from the City of London together with financiers and policy-makers from across the world. And where better to site a global hub for green finance than in the Square Mile, a centre of global trade since Roman times? There are massive opportunities here for British businesses to show the entrepreneurial flair of which we are so justly proud.</p> <p>The Coalition Government is committed to ensuring that UK Trade and Investment and the Export Credits Guarantee Department become champions for British companies that develop and export innovative green technologies around the world, instead of supporting investment in dirty fossil-fuel energy production. </p> <p>Finally, I want to say something about forests. Time and again, I have been struck by how much potential there is here. In Nepal, British aid is helping more than half a million households to make a living from the local forests. In just five years, this has contributed to an increase in the average household income of some 60 per cent as well as helping  to save an estimated 1.2 million tonnes of carbon a year. </p> <p>As the Environment Secretary said when she helped to secure a deal at Nagoya, reducing deforestation can also increase biodiversity, protecting fragile habitats and endangered species. It is also a large and relatively low-cost part of the solution to climate change, representing 17 per cent of emissions but, at around four dollars per tonne, the low-hanging fruit in terms of the difference we can make. </p> <p>We want to agree urgent on-the-ground action here too. 1.2 billion people depend on forests for their livelihoods. We already have a good model emerging, in the REDD+ Partnership which is currently being pioneered in Brazil and in some other Rainforest Nations. Through REDD+ – REDD stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degredation – you can see why we use the acronym – through REDD+ we help countries to lay the foundation for a system that rewards forest-managers for keeping trees standing. </p> <p>The action we want to agree might focus on helping developing countries to reach agreement on land rights or to improve controls over illegal logging. Or it might be about the development of crucial monitoring systems. Once these blocks are in place, public funding can leverage the private finance that enables countries to offer a set price for every tonne of avoided deforestation. At the same time, we are therefore helping to facilitate the longer-term entry of forests into the carbon market. </p> <p>Last but not least, the Coalition Government has an important job ahead of it, in giving force to the new EU Legislation – which came into being very recently – and which seeks to prevent the import of illegally-logged timber. By working with the private sector and with those governments that play by the rules – in other words those paying taxes on legal timber – we’ll be able to weed out those employing dodgy and damaging practices. It also means that we can help cash-starved developing country exchequers to collect the taxes that are due to them. Over the last ten years alone, our efforts have brought in some 6.5 billion US dollars.  We will ensure that the UK is in the vanguard of this effort. We will press others to follow our lead and we will explore how we can extend this approach to palm oil and agricultural techniques. </p> <h3>Looking Ahead</h3> <p>Viewed from the perspective of poor countries, the distinction between adaptation and low carbon development interventions is ultimately meaningless. As we look ahead, our role – in partnership with developing countries - must be to find a solution that tackles the challenge of climate change, while meeting development goals and facilitating long-term growth. CDKN calls this climate-compatible development. We saw this inter-relationship neatly captured in the Nepal example where one really good plan managed to cut emissions, give people a living and promote long-term economic growth. </p> <p>We need more of these solutions, solutions that work today but that will last beyond tomorrow. It’s not beyond our wit to do this and I firmly believe that the UK, with its very public commitment to development and climate change, is well-placed to lead the way. </p> <p> To achieve those solutions we will need to demonstrate strong leadership at a global level while also taking a climate-smart approach to development.   </p> <p> We have already shown the strongest of leadership on finance. The Coalition’s commitment, even in the face of great financial hardship, to spend 0.7% of national income as ODA from 2013, has enabled us to create an unprecedented £2.9 billion International Climate Fund that will not only meet our Fast Start pledge but will enable us to ramp up our funding up to 2015. </p> <p>This position gives us the credibility to: press other donors to meet their own 0.7% commitments; to press them to make more resources available for tackling climate change; to press the multilateral development banks to continue increasing and strengthening their climate lending; and to press for that vital agreement on new and innovative sources of finance, as set out by the Advisory Group on Climate Finance. Our focus will, above all else, be on results.  </p> <p>We will also provide leadership through the sharing of expertise. The UK has a vast reservoir of knowledge and skills and we will continue to make this available where it is wanted. We will invest more in building that knowledge so that we can have a better understanding of how countries can adapt to the consequences of climate change, scale-up their access to clean energy and protect forests and water-resources. CDKN will play a key role here, and on this point, let me say how pleased I was to learn that the Dutch government has now joined the UK in funding the CDKN. </p> <p>Finally, we must show leadership in terms of the UK’s own low-carbon and climate-resilient development. I outlined earlier some of the ways in which the Coalition Government might do this and indeed, Chris Huhne spoke on this very theme yesterday. </p> <p>In doing this, we will not forget about the day-job, where we can be leaders on the ground. We will build up our own experience of which interventions work best and where, and we will apply our increased aid budget in a way that is consistently climate-smart. So that when we lay a road, when we build a school, when we plan a programme – we will take climate change into consideration. That is why in DFID’s new business plan, I have asked every country office to carry out a strategic review of its entire portfolio so that climate change is taken into account in everything it does. And I want to see all the multilateral agencies that DFID supports making sure that their operations are climate-smart too. We will use the UK’s leverage on their boards to achieve this. </p> <h3>Conclusion</h3> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, if we fail to act today then we will pay the price tomorrow not just in pounds and dollars but in human life. As in so many other areas of international development, the moral case is a clear, overwhelming and compelling one. But – and again this theme runs through so much of our work – action is very much in Britain’s interests too. We cannot have food-security, water-security, energy-security – or any form of national security without climate security. </p> <p>It’s for these powerful reasons that this government must, and will, play a progressive role in pursuing the global deal we so badly need. History has shown us that whenever there’s an industrial revolution, it is always those who are prepared to embrace change who win through. It’s time that all of us – governments, civil society, private sector and individuals put our shoulders to the wheel and got on with the job. Only then can we secure a future for this planet and a better, safer and more prosperous life for all who live on it. </p> <p>Thank you.</p> Andrew Mitchell Climate change 18 November 2010 Department for International Development British Council
None None None <p class="date">15 November 2010</p> <h3>International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell's speech to the Pakistan Development Forum in Islamabad on 15 November 2010</h3> <p>Mr Prime Minister, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentleman</p> <p>I am delighted to be here today. This is the 4th time that I have visited Pakistan this year: the first was in January while I was still in opposition; the second was in June as my first overseas visit in Government; I visited in August during the dreadful floods and today to pledge my support to the future development of Pakistan. </p> <p>The UK has a long and close friendship with Pakistan. But I know I speak for the entire international community when I say what happens in Pakistan matters for the rest of the world. And I want to acknowledge here Pakistan’s sacrifices in the struggle against terrorism. We all want to see a vibrant future for this country. </p> <p>Pakistan can realise that goal. It sits at the crossroads of South Asia, Central Asia, China and the Middle East. It is the sixth most populous country in the world. And in my visits here, I have always been struck by the vibrant entrepreneurship of the Pakistani people, the importance they attach to education and the spirit of zakat.</p> <p>The question for us all here at the Pakistan Development Forum is how we support Pakistan to realise that potential and support the Minister of Finance and his excellent team.</p> <p>Pakistan faces enormous challenges. Economic growth needs to reach 8% just to keep pace with population growth. The Millennium Development Goals are off-track. Half of the adult population is illiterate. Women are particularly disadvantaged. And security and corruption are pressing and immediate concerns.</p> <p>On top of these challenges, as I saw in August, is that the floods have left millions of people destitute and homeless. Through the massive and commendable joint efforts of the Government of Pakistan and the international community, we are slowly moving into the recovery phase. But as we have seen from the Damage and Needs Assessment, the losses are approaching ten billion dollars. And it will take years to rebuild the lives and livelihoods of those who have been affected. </p> <p>So we cannot underestimate the desperate needs of those affected by the floods. But nor can we ignore the plight of millions of others trapped in poverty and hopelessness. Underlying this is the urgent need to lay the foundations of an economy that can sustain economic growth above 8%.</p> <p>Last month, the UK published its Comprehensive Spending Review which set out our plans to make significant cuts in our public spending. The UK Government has had to make difficult and unpopular decisions. But it was absolutely essential to address the deficit so that we can build our economic potential. Having taken these decisions, we are now on the road to recovery.</p> <p>Pakistan is at a similar crossroads. To realise its economic potential, it will have to implement some difficult, short-term reforms, to gain real long term benefits. Three key issues stand out for me.</p> <p>A stronger tax base that does not balance the books on the backs of the poor. The Federal Board of Revenue and its provincial equivalents must be strengthened to implement existing tax laws. But in the short term, to stave off a crisis, the General Sales Tax must be implemented. British taxpayers can’t be expected to support your development if the wealthy in Pakistan don’t pay their dues.</p> <p>Second, the need to reform state-owned enterprises and tackle corruption to get the best value for public money.</p> <p>And third, the need to reform the energy sector. Government subsidies are using up valuable revenues while power outages cripple business and leave millions of people sitting in darkness. But more reliable power means higher prices. </p> <p>I know progress is being made in these areas. The Government has taken tough decisions to increase electricity prices by 2% a month and has tabled the General Sales Tax before Parliament. Ultimately, it is the Pakistani Government that must own and drive these reforms with the support of the international community. We cannot and should not impose change but we can support your efforts, providing assistance in step with your readiness to take the brave decisions that are needed. I am pleased that the Government has called on the IMF and World Bank to support them in delivering these reforms. Their support is critical. I am pleased also that the UK has played a leading role in the EU’s initiative to cut tariffs on key Pakistani exports. The EU will shortly be asking the WTO for a waiver and I hope that all countries will support us in ensuring this is approved quickly. </p> <p>As a politician and friend of democratic government, I know that these reforms are unpopular and difficult. The same is true for any government. But that is exactly when we politicians earn our pay. Not just those of us in Government but those in opposition as well. We need to provide a long-term vision if we are to ask people to accept the need for painful reforms. </p> <p>I want to reassure Prime Minister Gilani and his team, as well as the Pakistani people, that they are not alone in facing these difficult decisions. The international community will stand by them. </p> <p>That means in the short-term we must support reconstruction. For our part, the UK is prepared to support the Family Compensation Scheme, which the Minister of Finance mentioned in his speech, provided we can ensure the funds reach those most in need. And we will aim to ensure our education programmes in the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkwa support the rehabilitation and reconstruction of schools that have been damaged by the floods. </p> <p>But over the medium-term, donors must get better at supporting the Government of Pakistan. I look forward to co-chairing the Aid Effectiveness session this afternoon and to agreeing how we – as donors – can commit to concrete improvements in the way we work, inclduing better donor co-ordination and clearer prioritisation. </p> <p>Ladies and Gentleman, let me conclude my remarks by saying these are challenging times for Pakistan. But I know I speak for all of my international colleagues when I say we are determined to ensure we play our part in supporting that difficult transition.</p> Andrew Mitchell Pakistan Development Forum 15 November 2010 Department for International Development Pakistan Development Forum in Islamabad
None None None <p class="date">09 November 2010</p> <h3>Speech by International Development Minister Stephen O'Brien at the HIV Care and Support: A Roadmap to Universal Access by 2015, International Conference, hosted by UK Consortium on AIDS and International Development.</h3> <p>First of all I would like to thank the UK Consortium on AIDS and International Development for organising this conference. It is great to see so many partners from around the world here today.   </p> <p>The Consortium brings real value to the issues we all care so passionately about.  Part of their strength is the way they bring together so many different organisations to work towards a world free of AIDS. Of course, I am a part of a coalition as well, so I know how creative and energising collaboration like this can be.    </p> <p>I’d like to spend a few moments on the Coalition Government’s approach to International Development before I turn to the specifics of HIV and the care and support of those affected.</p> <p>We’ve just seen a historic moment.  As part of the Spending Review announcement, the Chancellor set out how we will spend 0.7% of our Gross National Income on overseas aid from 2013, helping the billion people in the world who live in extreme poverty.  I am proud that - even in these difficult times - the UK has chosen not to balance the books on the backs of the world’s poorest.   I hope you are too.  </p> <p>Against the backdrop of the deficit, this ring-fenced budget puts a huge responsibility on Government to spend the money wisely.  As we ask people to made hard choices at home, we have to be able to demonstrate that our aid programme represents the most effective use of taxpayers’ money.  That’s why we have recently established the IACI, which will provide rigorous independent evaluation of our aid programme and ensure accountability and transparency in what we do.  Now more than ever we need to be focused on where we add value and on what delivers results – and account for every penny we spend.  </p> <p>That is why our Secretary of State has instigated a series of reviews of the DFID aid programme to determine how we can achieve best value for money for the British taxpayer and accelerate progress towards the MDGs.   I know that many people in this room have already fed views into this process and thanks you for the contributions you have made.   </p> <p>This is not a new agenda for people in this room.  People living with HIV – and the organisations working in this area – have led the way in mobilising communities and holding Governments to account.  Now I hope other parts of the international development community can learn from your experience and success.  </p> <p>Because we have seen success.  A decade ago, who would have imagined that we would have over 5 million people on treatment?    Or that the epidemic would have stabilised in most regions, with a 17% reduction in the number of new infections in 2008 compared to 2001?  Or that the price of first line AIDS drugs would have fallen by 99% from 2000 to 2008.  That is testament, in part, to the efforts of people in this room.   </p> <p>But there is - of course - also a tremendous way to go: over 33 million people are living with HIV.  Globally, AIDS is one of the leading causes of death among women of reproductive age - and a major cause of maternal and child mortality and ill health in high prevalence settings. More than 2.1 million children are infected and, under new WHO treatment guidelines, at least 14.6 million are now in need of treatment.  In Sub-Saharan Africa, the epidemic has orphaned more than 14 million children. </p> <p>That is why the Coalition Government has made improving the health of poor people in developing countries - including curbing the spread of HIV and AIDS - a top priority.   In June at Muskoka, the G8 reaffirmed its commitment to come as close as possible to universal access to HIV prevention, AIDS treatment, care and support.   Progress against these targets will be reviewed at a UN General Assembly special session in June next year.  The Coalition Government will play its part in taking this forward.    </p> <p>I know that many of you want to know what the Coalition government is going to do on HIV and AIDS; whether we will continue to show the international leadership on this issue that UK government and organizations have become renowned for.   Well, we will review the UK Government’s forward approach to HIV and AIDS in the light of findings from the bilateral and multilateral aid reviews.   But today, I want to suggest three areas where efforts must undoubtedly focus:</p> <p>Firstly, we should focus on empowering people - especially marginalised groups and women and girls - to protect themselves from HIV and to access the treatment, care and support they need.  The Coalition has been clear that women and children's health are at the centre of what we do.  As well as being disproportionately vulnerable to HIV in sub-Saharan Africa, women and girls bear much of the burden of care and support, usually unpaid. This intensifies poverty. Gender inequality and gender based violence are significant factors fuelling the epidemic. </p> <p>Women and children affected by HIV and AIDS will benefit from the Government’s prioritisation of reproductive, maternal and newborn health.  The UK is committed to doubling the number of lives of women and babies saved through UK aid by 2015. As a result, at least 50,000 more women and 250,000 babies will survive pregnancy and childbirth and 10 million more couples will get access to family planning.  DFID is developing a new business plan, which will set out how the UK will achieve its contribution towards achieving MDG 5 to improve maternal health.  This will also make an important contribution to reducing child mortality (MDG 4) – particularly through improving the survival chances of newborn babies.  We have had a fantastic response to our public consultation. Thank you to those of you who contributed. Later this year we will publish a summary of responses of all the feedback submitted.</p> <p>Second, we have to focus on the underlying drivers of the epidemic such as poverty, gender-based violence and inequality, stigma and discrimination.  Here as elsewhere we need greater evidence on which interventions have impact, and more imaginative ways of measuring that impact.  </p> <p>Finally we should be innovative – both in leveraging resources for the response and in ensuring the money we spend reaches those in most need.  For example cash transfer programmes have been shown to be highly effective in reaching vulnerable children, including those affected by HIV, and promoting their access to basic services. In Kenya for example, the National Cash Transfer Programme for Orphans and Vulnerable Children reached around 70,000 households by the end of 2009. And in Malawi, cash transfers targeted to help girls stay in school reduced the risk of HIV infection.  That’s why my department will explore using cash transfers more often, where appropriate, combined with a stronger focus on evaluation. </p> <p>Care and support has for too long been the neglected sister in the universal access family.  In order to achieve MDG 6, more focus is needed on the broader care and support needs of adults and children living with, and affected by, AIDS.   This includes prevention of, and treatment for, opportunistic infections; nutrition; palliative and home-based care; as well as broader support services.   Quality care is important to maintain the health of a person living with HIV before they require treatment, and to secure the benefits of treatment once they are on ARVs – including minimising the risk of them developing resistance to their drugs. </p> <p>The impact of AIDS, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, is enormous and individuals, families and communities need to be supported to be able to cope with its consequences.  And an effective response to HIV and AIDS must include the protection of human rights, action on stigma and discrimination, support for orphans and vulnerable children, wealth creation and community-wide responses to the epidemic.</p> <p>Home-based caregivers and community organisations led some of the earliest responses to HIV in many countries, and continue to play a key role in settings where health services are overstretched or unavailable.   Palliative care should be an integral part of the AIDS response – not only the best possible end-of-life care, but also relief from pain. That is why DFID is currently supporting efforts to improve access to pain control medicines.</p> <p>This is a complex agenda - we should be wary of anyone who offers us a silver bullet.   The way forward is harder than that.  We will keep making the case for prevention as the sustainable response, but we will also continue to push for increased access to treatment and, crucially, for the care and support that will remain necessary for years to come.  And this must be underpinned by innovative approaches, allowing those affected by HIV to take charge of their health, their lives, their future.  </p> <p>That’s the way to an AIDS-free world.   I look forward to working in partnership with you as we continue to work towards it.</p> Stephen O'Brien HIV care and support 09 November 2010 Department for International Development HIV Care and Support: A Roadmap to Universal Access by 2015, International Conference
None None None <p class="date">01 November 2010</p> <p><strong>Speech by the Right Honourable Alan Duncan MP, Minister of State for International Development at the Chatham House Yemen Forum Conference on 1 November 2010</strong></p> <p>As a personal Friend of Yemen for more than 20 years I’m grateful to be speaking at this timely and important event today, albeit I regret the deteriorating security backdrop to our discussion of this important country.  It doesn’t take me to tell you that there has been a huge increase in international attention to Yemen during the last year or so – this has been in parallel with an increase in Yemen’s fragility and the potential impact of this not only on Yemeni citizens, many of whom are amongst the world’s most vulnerable, but also on global security. We have seen only this weekend how its impact reaches across the world. The threat we face from Al Qaeda is global and it is inter-connected. This most recent plot encompassed Yemen, the UAE, Germany, the UK and the US – and as such requires a collective response.</p> <p>Politically, Yemen presents us with difficult choices. Many think that the window of opportunity for preventing State failure in Yemen is closing and there are perhaps two schools of thought on that:  either the country is heading for collapse or somehow it will muddle through as it always has done.  Whichever you think is the case, I don’t think either Yemen or the international community can afford to sit around to ‘wait and see which prediction is right’.  </p> <p>For Yemen’s sake, we must not take the risk of doing nothing, hoping that things will just muddle through: dancing on the heads of snakes has had its day.  Any effort spent on preventing state failure now is a million times better than the effort that would be needed to cope with any state failure later.  Yemen on the brink therefore presents us with a pioneering opportunity.  So let’s see for once if early intervention can secure a fragile state’s future. We’ve got to try to secure Yemen’s future before it’s too late.  In short, we must hope for the best, but assume the worst. </p> <p>Yemen paints a worrying picture. It is running out of oil, running out of water and may be running out of time, while the world is in some eyes running out of patience.  </p> <p>From a development perspective we know that Yemen has not and will not meet any of its Millennium Development Goals.  It has the worst figures for the position of women in society in the world; food insecurity and malnutrition are on the rise; its population growth is one of the world’s highest; and its macro-economy has been failing, hitting a budget deficit of over $2 billion at the end of last year.  But these are not its only problems.  Internal conflicts in the north and the south continue to generate cause for concern, and there is some anxiety about the suspected violation of human rights and about Yemen’s 300,000 internally displaced people.  </p> <p>Weak government capacity and its inability in the past to implement key reforms have left much of its population without basic services, without jobs, without security and justice.  All this has the potential to exacerbate local grievances felt by Yemenis and it gives Al Qaeda an easy target for exploitation.  </p> <p>And this is grim. The lesson from other countries is that if we sit around and analyse a country on the edge of collapse for too long, by the time we decide to do anything about it it’s already too late. That may be just where we may be heading with Yemen.    </p> <p>So we must now make a choice.  I think we should follow the precautionary principle which is to act now to be sure of preventing state failure rather than risk it happening.  </p> <p>Yemen is high on the Coalition Government’s agenda.  It is one of the countries of most interest to our new National Security Council, and it is one where we believe the solution must be driven by an integrated approach, with development and diplomacy at its heart.  </p> <p>What we are interested in doing is tackling the challenges of poverty, disease and education in Yemen; we are interested in helping achieve better governance; we are interested in regional and global stability; and we are interested in arresting the rise of terrorism.  </p> <p>In short we are interested in addressing poverty and instability so that Yemen can hold together and prosper. </p> <p><strong>Conflict and development in Yemen</strong></p> <p>Yemen is on the front pages again this week because of terrorism – but terrorism is not the only threat facing Yemen; Al Qaeda look to exploit instability where they can. Let’s for a moment just ask ourselves what a collapsed Yemen could look like.</p> <p>Yemen in collapse could lead to a litany of chaos: no water, no energy, no food, civil strife, Al Qaeda flourishing, increasing radicalisation, and a regional and international threat both to world energy supplies and to many nations’ security.  A country which is off-track in reaching the Millennium Development Goals could go further backwards all the faster.  That’s a frightening prospect, and a serious concern for the wider world. </p> <p>Yemen has all the ingredients for growing difficulty. There is injustice and grievance; a rapidly growing population is scrabbling over diminishing resources and fewer jobs; and there is easy access to weapons.  Declining oil revenues are beginning to hinder the wheels of power.  Yemen is a telling example of the complexity of today’s conflicts, where individual and community grievances - exclusion or unemployment - can interact with powerful regional and global drivers like rising food prices or the global narrative of international terrorism.  When put together it almost guarantees chaos. </p> <p>The warning signs are clear. Conflict is escalating and governance deteriorating.  Tribal clashes continue to become more lethal and difficult to manage, and local and regional issues are increasingly acting as ‘lightning-rods’ for broad-based public discontent.  Security and development are intertwined.</p> <p>There are two ways Yemen’s problems could be approached.  We can either address the underlying causes of poverty, grievance, joblessness and governance, or the international community could begin to start shouting and wave a big stick.  </p> <p>For us in the Coalition Government and DFID, we are going to put development at the heart of an integrated approach for Yemen. </p> <p><strong>Taking action</strong></p> <p>The Coalition Government intends to spend 30% of its development budget on fragile states.  Yemen is a prime candidate for such attention.  </p> <p>Our view is that development is not just there to try and pick up the pieces.  It is that development has a crucial role in stopping a country from falling to pieces in the first place.  We’ve done lots of work on post-conflict interventions but much less on pre-crisis intervention, so we are going to have to be bold and we are going to have to be innovative.</p> <p>We of course need to look at what you might think of as traditional development interventions – building schools and clinics, and all the things that Yemen’s Social Fund for Development does so well.  But we need to look further - to tackle the lack of jobs and the causes of child malnutrition; to support a process of National Dialogue that will lead to inclusive and fair elections next year; to get government working in a way that is more accountable and responsive to people’s needs.  In Yemen, we are smartening the UK’s Aid.</p> <p>Our aim is to give people security, a stake in society, access to basic services such as health and education, and a say in their future.  By adopting this approach, and working with civil society, with local government and with traditional tribal systems, we hope we will address local grievances. We will empower the Government to tackle its challenges and as a result would hope to see a stronger, more stable Yemen.</p> <p>Securing the future of Yemen is not just about what they do internally for themselves any more than it is only about what the UK does for them.  It is about what all Yemen’s friends do and, crucially, how we all act together.</p> <p>In the same way as the Government of Yemen tries to address trouble internally in a piecemeal fashion, so have its international partners tended to act separately and inconsistently.  The fragmented efforts of donors and neighbours have almost certainly been as much a hindrance to Yemen as a help.</p> <p>There have been attempts in the past to get together to help Yemen but, for instance, very little of the $5bn pledged to the country in 2006 has been taken up and directed into much-needed infrastructure projects, and most of the  funds received for other purposes have tended to be bilateral and unpredictable.</p> <p>This approach from the international community risks adding to the fragmentation of the government, and it weakens everyone’s development efforts because, above all, effective development – in its ability to plan and deliver programmes that make a real difference - requires consistent and reliable funding flows.</p> <p>So whatever we do, we must to do it together.  Better donor coordination is essential, but it remains a huge challenge. Fragmented donor flows have contributed to the fragmentation of Yemen itself. And to avoid the risk of state failure we must improve our own behaviour now.  As I said in New York at the recent Friends of Yemen meeting, we as Yemen’s Friends must co-ordinate and communicate, we must all be present on the ground in Sana’a, and we must look for ways to be flexible in how we provide our support – finding common delivery mechanisms.  </p> <p><strong>The Road to Riyadh</strong></p> <p>The thinking I have outlined has been valid for some time now, but its shelf-life as a viable option is in jeopardy.  Last month a British Embassy car was violently attacked and many of our team in Sana’a had to be withdrawn so we could assess their safety. This weekend has seen another seriously worrying development. The security situation jeopardises what we can do in and for Yemen – indeed it jeopardises our very presence there.  If the security situation drives out the help Yemen now needs, things risk becoming very bad indeed.  </p> <p>We should not, however, belittle some of the progress that has been made.  Within Yemen itself, we have seen the implementation of an IMF programme to build Yemen’s economy; an agreement to a ceasefire with Huthi rebels in the north; the launching of a process of National Dialogue; and the agreement by the Yemen Government to publish a prioritised national plan embracing such structures as the Yemen Fund for Development. The Friends of Yemen meeting in New York in September was widely regarded as a further successful step in the right direction.</p> <p>However, we don’t have long. The next Friends of Yemen meeting in Riyadh, is in February, only a few months away.</p> <p>The Riyadh meeting has the potential to be a major turning point – a meeting in the region, hosted by one of Yemen’s most significant neighbours, where tangible progress can be demonstrated.  More than any other meeting before it, the Friends of Yemen meeting in Riyadh is possibly both a golden opportunity and the last chance there will be to address Yemen’s problems before it is too late.</p> <p>The challenge for all of us is to make sure we step up to the mark – the Government of Yemen, NGOs, the UN, donors, Yemen’s neighbours and the rest of the international community – and work together to bring peace and stability to ordinary Yemenis.  </p> <p>We need to appreciate the potency of development as a force for good in underpinning this state.  We need to realise that for both moral and practical reasons it is important to focus on poverty and good governance. We need to combine internationally to approach Yemen in a unified and consistent manner.  We need, as Friends of Yemen, to speak frankly and act practically. We want effective development, we want improved donor co-ordination and we want a really successful outcome in Riyadh.  </p> <p>For me, the dire situation only increases my determination to keep involved.  But what comes next is key.  The next two months in the run-up to Riyadh are crucial.  And the rhetoric we’ve all been hearing must now become reality.</p> Alan Duncan Yemen: Political dynamics and the international policy framework 01 November 2010 Department for International Development Chatham House Yemen Forum Conference
None None None <p class="date">13 October 2010</p> <p>The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): </p> <p>I wish to inform the House of the Government’s decision to reconfigure CDC in order radically to increase its development impact. </p> <p>CDC has the potential to be the jewel in the crown of the UK’s support to the private sector in developing countries. In the past, when its expertise was more developmentally than financially focused, its record of achieving investment returns was at best uneven. Subsequently, the balance has tipped too far the other way. CDC now needs to reinvigorate its development DNA and marry this together with business know-how and financial discipline. It must strive towards both development and financial gains.</p> <p>As a Fund of Funds, CDC has in some ways been a remarkable success. In terms of financial performance, we applaud the achievement of turning £1 billion into £2.5 billion since 2004. But CDC has become less directly engaged in serving the needs of development. Using public capital CDC pursued the narrowly-defined private sector goals for which it was incentivised and this meant the greatest return for the least risk. This was not consistent with concentrating its efforts in the regions of greatest development need.  </p> <p>We will create a revitalised CDC with a great deal more clarity and ambition over what it does and where it works.</p> <p>Specifically, I shall propose that CDC reduce new commitments to future third party funds and consider the benefits of liquidating some of its existing investments where this can be done on attractive terms. We will not end commitments to new third party Funds since they can be the most appropriate way to mobilise funding in some countries and for some investment purposes. But the Fund of Funds model should make up no more than part of a new, broader and more actively managed portfolio. </p> <p>CDC should regain its power to make investments directly in target countries. This could be done through co-investment with other sources of capital where, by doing so, CDC would make possible desirable investments which could not otherwise be made.  </p> <p>In addition to regaining greater investment control, CDC should be committed to participating through a wider range of vehicles, including investment in debt instruments and the provision of guarantees. Greater flexibility will enable it to build a more diversified portfolio in terms of risk, maturity and liquidity.</p> <p>I should like CDC also to develop a more active approach to portfolio management. Its purpose is to invest in the poorest countries or sectors where capital is otherwise not available – to provide patient capital to finance and kick-start private investment in the most difficult regions. </p> <p>CDC also needs more financial firepower. It needs to try to find liquidity for its investments so that capital can be recycled more quickly to new targets. We are also exploring how CDC could regain its power to borrow. This would give CDC the ability to move more quickly and more effectively.</p> <p>CDC must continue to show that it is improving the way in which firms in the poorest countries operate, and that it monitors and demands improvements in the conditions under which people work. CDC must also continue to demand more effective treatment of environmental issues, more transparency and a rigorous approach to corruption.</p> <p>These reforms will enable CDC to become a distinctive, innovative and differentiated Development Finance Institution, with clearly measurable development impact and additionality, and new commitments targeted throughout Sub-Saharan Africa and the poorer parts of Asia. I want CDC to be more pro-poor focused than any other Development Finance Institution, doing the hardest things in the hardest places.</p> <p>Identifying the sectors on which CDC should focus in future is a complex area. The correlation between investment and poverty-reduction is not straight forward. The Government wants to listen to a wide range of views before taking any decisions. CDC and DFID will commission independent studies which will be made public on the DFID website and my Department is also launching a consultation, outline details of which will be available on Wednesday 13th October.</p> <p>Regaining greater power over the investment of capital needs to be staged carefully, will take time, and will need resources of human capital additional to the dedicated people working for CDC at the moment. CDC must attract people of the highest calibre, who are passionate about pro-poor investment and whose expertise is rewarded by remuneration that is fair and appropriate, but not excessive. As part of the consultation, I will consider what that remuneration structure should be.</p> <p>I shall make a further announcement early next year and CDC will reflect the necessary changes in the business plan which they will publish in the spring.</p> Andrew Mitchell Written statement to the House of Commons on reform of CDC Group plc 13 October 2010 Department for International Development House of Commons
None None None <p class="date">13 October 2010</p> <h3>Secretary of State for International Development Andrew Mitchell's speech on wealth creation at the London School of Economics on Tuesday 12 October 2010</h3> <p>Thank you Paul and Howard and thank you to the International Growth Centre for hosting this event. It is a particular pleasure to speak here this evening at the London School of Economics  an institution whose list of alumni reads like the edited highlights of "Who’s Who" and who yesterday added another Nobel prize winner to their tally. </p> <p>It was one of the LSE’s own founders, George Bernard Shaw, who once described poverty as the greatest of evils and the worst of crimes. A hundred years on I believe that just as we look back with disbelief at the social poverty of Shaw’s Britain, so future generations may yet judge us equally harshly - as passive colluders in global poverty. This government is not prepared to accept such a shameful distinction. </p> <p>That’s why at the UN Summit last month the Deputy Prime Minister led the way in calling for reinvigorated action across all the Millennium Development Goals and announced that Britain will by 2015 save the lives of at least 50,000 women and a quarter of a million newborn babies. We will do everything in our power, use every policy tool at our disposal, bang every head together, if necessary, in our determination to make life better for the world’s poorest. </p> <p>Just a month ago I spent an unforgettable night in the Azernet Berbera district of Ethiopia - 200 kilometres southwest of Addis Ababa. I wanted to see what conditions were like for the millions of Ethiopians living on less than a dollar a day. The family I stayed with were very poor. There were fourteen of us in the hut that night – not counting the livestock. But that family had access to the four key Millennium Goals. Within the last two years they had secured access to clean water, sanitation and basic healthcare. Six of the eight children are in school just ten minutes away (not least due to the good work of ActionAid). But they remain grindingly poor. Each child has only the clothes in which they stand. The battle to secure enough food is fought every day of the year. </p> <p>So, looking at those children, whose life chances contrast so dramatically with my own, I ask myself how their generation can exit from such grinding poverty. I suggest tonight that there are perhaps two key points.  The first is without question their access to education. And the second, as the farmer just up the road has realised; if he can join together with others to market the beans he grows, then he can access that golden thread of wealth creation that is a universal instinct. That story, that instinct, is what this speech is all about. </p> <p>Our generations, for the first time ever, have the huge opportunity to help people to move beyond mere survival. To a place where people and economies can grow. Where the private sector can unleash its immense development potential; where individuals can create their own wealth; and where countries can begin to rely on their own economies and not on the cheques or the charity of others. </p> <p>I do not underestimate the enormity of our task. Despite the progress that has been made since the Millennium Development Goals were set ten years ago we are a long way from eradicating poverty. The figures speak for themselves:</p> <ul> <li>70 million children cannot go to school; </li> <li>Almost 900 million people lack access to clean water;  </li> <li>Nearly a thousand women die every day in childbirth or from pregnancy-related causes; </li> <li>And more than 8 million children will never live to see their fifth birthday. </li> </ul> <p>No-one can listen to those statistics and feel comfortable. We all know there is no single answer to this. But what we do know is that economic growth contributes to development and that the private sector can be the engine of that growth.  Done right it promotes new jobs, new opportunities, new markets, new prosperity. The sinews of wealth creation. As even the former Prime Minister said recently in Kampala: "The job of aid is to kick-start business-led growth and not to replace it”. </p> <p>So I’ve come here to this great university tonight to make three points: </p> <ul> <li>The first is that it is wealth creation, jobs and livelihoods above all which will help poor people to lift themselves out of poverty. Aid is a means to an end, not an end in itself.</li> <li>Secondly, that we will bring a new energy to Britain’s promotion of wealth creation in development and reconfigure within my department to meet this challenge.</li> <li>And thirdly, that we will reposition CDC so that it rediscovers its development mission, and acts as an engine through which the British taxpayer supports inclusive investment in some of the poorest places in the world.</li> </ul> <p>So, let me begin by underlining the case for sustainable growth.  </p> <p>It’s easy to forget that poverty has been the natural state of humankind for thousands of years. It was only when the industrial revolution kick-started our manufacturing economy a couple of hundred years ago that Britain really accelerated its way out of poverty. This same pattern is evident in the history of all developed countries. The starting point might be different but the journey has been the same. Even America was poor once. </p> <p>The power of economic growth, and the importance of the path taken, is incontrovertible.  Compare South Korea and Zambia. In 1960 South Korea had a GDP per capita only twice that of Zambia. By 2009 as a direct result of their different growth paths and policies, South Korea's per capita income was nearly 40 times higher than Zambia’s, while the rate of children dying before their fifth birthday was 5 per thousand compared to Zambia’s 141.</p> <p>And look at China where, during the period of nearly 10 per cent growth per annum between 1990 and 2005, 475 million people were lifted out of poverty.</p> <p>Economic growth isn’t just an abstract process of statistics and percentage points: behind that slightly arcane language lie families and communities. For every extra percentage point of growth more schools can be built, more health facilities developed and more safe drinking water supplied.</p> <p>So - if you’re in the business of helping reduce poverty, you have to believe in economic development and growth.  Growth that is broad-based, inclusive and sustainable; in which all people benefit from the proceeds of prosperity; and in which even the poorest have access to the opportunities and markets that it creates.   </p> <p>What is our role? There is no magic growth cocktail. As Michael Spence said after chairing the Growth Commission, there is no recipe for growth, only ingredients. </p> <p>And we have to be humble. Politicians and bureaucrats don’t have a good track record at trying to pick winners or engineer growth. History is littered with the failures of those who have tried. </p> <p>But we always remember this: no country has grown on a sustained basis in recent times without successfully integrating itself into global markets. For a country to grow it has to be part of the global goods and services market and it must also be able to access global capital.  And it is the private sector that holds the key to that integration. </p> <p>If the private sector is going to deliver its full development potential in this regard, then countries need to get the climate right for both domestic and foreign investment.</p> <p>So, through our development work, we will help to build prudent macroeconomic policies, including monetary and fiscal policies, that support growth, low inflation and sustainable finances. </p> <p>And we will support developing countries as they identify and attempt to tackle the barriers to growth. This might mean helping them to build the legal infrastructure through which property rights and contractual agreements can be enforced, and investors assured that they will be treated fairly in all circumstances. Or it might mean developing the physical infrastructure by which supplies and goods can be transported, the communications infrastructure through which information can be disseminated or the financial infrastructure through which credit can freely flow.</p> <p>Ultimately, domestic investors are just as important if not more so than any amount of foreign direct investment.  If the private sector is to be the real engine of growth in a developing country, and the business leaders of tomorrow are going to emerge and lead the way, we must work with developing country governments to get some critical prerequisites in place:</p> <ol> <li>One: a competitive environment – a level playing field for all investors to enter the market place, without vested interests and other barriers thwarting fair market competition. </li> <li>Two: reduced barriers to market entry and to cross-border trade, which exist everywhere but are especially high in Africa. </li> <li>Three: an appropriate regulatory framework. Developing countries have, in many cases, made good progress on improving business regulations. Last year, out of 183 countries ranked by the World Bank for the ease and cost of doing business, Rwanda rose from 143rd place to 67th.  This meteoric rise has been achieved with their government’s leadership and donor support.  And thinking back to what it all means for individuals’ lives, in Afghanistan, for example, an entrepreneur in Kabul who wants to set up a business today no longer has to spend 3 months doing it as they did 5 years ago: it could be done by this time next week.</li> </ol> <p>Throughout all of this, of course, we must never forsake the local consumer, the local workforce and the local environment. Growth that simply squanders today’s assets at the cost of tomorrow’s, is not growth in the true sense of the word.  Future generations matter too. </p> <p>The importance of sustainable growth cannot be over-stated and I shall return to this theme at greater length next month when I speak on the subject of development and climate change.  But let me say this: over-farmed land, over-mined resources and over-depleted water supplies may yield benefits now but will drive even deeper poverty in years to come. </p> <p>The responsible exploitation of non-renewable mineral and petroleum resources is a case in point and is a topic that Paul explored in his excellent book: “The Plundered Planet”. This should be required reading for all governments.</p> <p>If countries are to invest in the responsible exploitation of non-renewable resources it is essential that they have in place a solid policy and regulatory framework to safeguard profits, collect taxes, regulate investors, ensure transparency and protect the environment. </p> <p>Throughout all of this the UK will lead by example:  </p> <p>Where British businesses invest and operate in developing countries, UK membership of the OECD – and our own beliefs and expectations -  require that they do so in a manner that is socially responsible, environmentally sound and legally compliant.  </p> <p>This Government strongly supports the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative and the OECD Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises. </p> <p>And let me be clear: this Government has a zero tolerance approach to corruption.  The new Bribery Act, passed earlier this year, puts beyond doubt the fact that bribery of foreign officials and office-holders by UK nationals constitutes corruption, and makes it punishable as such through the British courts.  Why it took the last Government so many years to put such vital legislation to Parliament, when the OECD Anti Bribery Convention was ratified as long ago as 1998, I don’t know.  There is no question that this Government supports it 100 per cent.  </p> <p>I move now to my second key point tonight.  It is my intention to recast DFID as a government department that understands the private sector, that has at its disposal the right tools to deliver and that is equipped to support a vibrant, resilient and growing business sector in the poorest countries. To do this we will need to add new types of people with different skills.</p> <p>I want to preface my comments by recognising that it is the state that must guarantee access for all to basic services such as education and health care, that are vital for quality of life and that represent a safety net for the most vulnerable. And it is the state that must get the enabling environment right for investment and growth. But when it comes to wealth creation it is the private sector that must take the lead in creating jobs and opportunities. </p> <p>And let me be clear about the lazy thinking that equates the private sector with some kind of ideological promotion of privatisation. We will support what works and we’ll be completely non-ideological about it. </p> <p>That’s why at the UN Summit last month I joined ten other Development Ministers in endorsing a commitment to strengthen our work with the private sector. And in promising to create a new Private Sector Department within DFID I have sent, I hope, the clearest of signals that I believe business has a vital role to play. </p> <p>This is the stuff of real change. There is already a genuine sense of excitement within DFID about what this new approach can achieve. I want this department to be the place that defines, lives and breathes the new DFID culture of private sector-led development, an example for other development bodies to follow. </p> <p>I want DFID to learn from business.  I want to explore how we might enrich DFID’s own talent pool with a series of short-term secondments from the private sector in order to inject new, business-savvy DNA into the department. </p> <p>I also want the new department to bring together representatives from business in ad hoc, time limited groups, being bold and finding creative solutions to development challenges. That, after all, is what business does so very well.</p> <p>Let me give you just a few examples of the sort of creativity that private sector companies in their core business have already shown.</p> <p>In India, the health company, Lifespring, plans to provide quality ante and post natal care for 82,000 women at some 30 to 50 per cent of the market rate through specialisation in maternal healthcare, optimal use of resources and cost-sharing of ambulances, laboratories and pharmacies. In doing this, it will also help to build capacity in the health system by employing more than four thousand doctors, nurses and outreach workers. </p> <p>Then there is Unilever, which has equipped more than 25,000 women known as Shakti entrepreneurs in India and Bangladesh to sell products such as toothpaste or tea to people living in hard-to-reach areas – in turn, allowing them to afford healthcare for their families and schooling for their children.  </p> <p>And Thomson Reuters, which has developed a text-messaging service that provides up to a quarter of a million Indian farmers with access to information that will improve yields and increase incomes across the agricultural industry. </p> <p>These businesses are prime examples of innovation in action and exactly the sort of thing the new private sector department will champion. </p> <p>We want to do more work with companies like this.  There are already some exciting examples of collaboration between DFID and businesses which have led to the harnessing of technology and business innovation for development goals.</p> <p>Advance Market Commitments have helped incentivise investment by major pharmaceutical firms who might otherwise have steered clear from costly research and development on products much needed in the developing world.  By working with the Gates Foundation and others, DFID has helped to create an international market for a vaccine against pneumococcal diseases – amongst the biggest child killers in the developing world.</p> <p>And let us consider the massive success of M-PESA, the result of a collaboration which saw DFID seed-funding some early product development by Vodafone.  Thanks to this partnership a simple but game-changing product – a mobile-phone based money transfer service – has succeeded in allowing millions of the country's very poorest people to engage in the economy in ways they've never done before. The number of Kenyan adults with access to financial services rocketed by nearly ten million in just three years. </p> <p>Now, building on this success, Vodafone and the local Equity Bank have launched M-KESHO, a facility that is helping people to open savings accounts for the first time in their lives. This has inspired similar initiatives – with nearly 70 mobile money platforms across the world. And the M-PESA platform is now being used to pay policemen in Afghanistan. Something so small transforming lives on a massive scale.</p> <p>And whether in micro-finance, branchless banking, solar energy, or biogas the private sector can be the touchstone for other equally exciting and revolutionary innovations. What will be tomorrow’s M-PESA?</p> <p>It would be remiss of me to talk about private sector innovation without making the point that a successful conclusion to the Doha round of trade talks could transform the economic landscape of the very countries we are all trying to help.  We must not lose sight of the fact that Doha was always intended to be a development round, and if successful could bring gains for poor countries which amount to three times the volume of global aid.</p> <p>Indeed, I hope you will agree that this Government is earning itself something of a reputation as a passionate advocate of free and fair trade. The Prime Minister spoke out forcefully at the G20 in Toronto and will reinforce this point at next month’s G20 meeting in Seoul, including the need for G20 countries to do more for the Least Developed.</p> <p>This Government has consistently pushed in Europe for the extension of GSP + privileges to Pakistan and will continue to do so.  And, following the devastating floods that hit that country in August, it was our Prime Minister who helped secure agreement for the EU to put in place an immediate reduction in tariffs on goods imported from Pakistan. This measure will provide Pakistan and its people with a vital window in which to rebuild its economy. </p> <p>And in Africa, where growth and poverty reduction prospects are constrained because of the high costs of trading, we have helped to set up one-stop border posts and have promised to support the proposed Pan African Free Trade Area across the continent.</p> <p>It is also worth remembering that developing countries represent a huge market that richer economies can tap into, something described by the author and management guru, C.K. Prahalad as the “the bottom of the pyramid”. Open markets are a two-way street that can therefore benefit British businesses as well as bringing much needed revenue, product choice, technology, services and cheaper goods to people in developing countries.</p> <p>I turn now, Ladies and Gentlemen, to the third and final issue I would like to address today: CDC.  Founded in 1948 and formerly known as the Commonwealth Development Corporation, CDC is the Government’s development investment vehicle that – if we get it right – should be a vital ingredient in the work on wealth creation that I have discussed today.  </p> <p>CDC has the potential to be the jewel in the crown of the UK’s support to the private sector in developing countries. But it has lost its way.  </p> <p>CDC has come on a journey.  In its first phase, when its expertise was more developmentally than financially focused, its record of achieving investment returns was at best uneven and its stewardship of public money sometimes seriously deficient.  In its second phase the balance has tipped too far the other way.  If CDC only does what the private financial sector can do, then what is its raison d’être?  </p> <p>The answer is that CDC needs to reinvigorate its development DNA, marrying this together with business know-how and financial discipline. Of course, profitability is important, it is CDC’s profitability that has enabled it to keep investing hundreds of millions of pounds without receiving a penny of tax-payers’ money since 1995.  And CDC should look to invest in enterprises that can be profitable.  It is only when businesses are profitable that they will be sustainable beyond aid, and continue to generate incomes and jobs and taxes when development agencies have moved on.  But CDC must rebalance; it must strive towards both development and financial gains.</p> <p>In its current configuration as a Fund of Funds CDC has, in some ways, been a remarkable success.  In terms of financial performance we should applaud the achievement of turning £1 billion into £2.5 billon since 2004. </p> <p>In turning this profit, it has lately become the target of fierce criticism for enriching its executives – and directing its investment activities at opportunities which were already financeable by the private sector.  It is important to keep a sense of proportion in all of this.  The fact that China, India and Africa can now attract private equity capital in ever-growing amounts should be a source of pleasure and vindication to all those who believe in the power of the private sector. Memories can be short when it comes to recalling how difficult and unlikely some of this seemed 10 or even 5 years ago.  </p> <p>And if some of CDC’s investments have been directed at opportunities which could have attracted capital elsewhere, at least their success has given us a substantially enhanced pool of capital to direct at the smaller group of countries on which this very economic success now allows us to concentrate.  </p> <p>Nevertheless the stinging attacks directed at CDC are not without justification.  In its current form it was poorly conceived and was left largely undirected by Government. It became less directly engaged in serving the needs of development.  The last government announced its privatisation without understanding either the difficulty of executing such a strategy or its likely consequences.  </p> <p>So when it was rebuffed by the markets it resorted to the expedient of keeping the capital in public ownership whilst privatising the management. The consequences were inevitable: using public capital CDC pursued the narrowly-defined private sector goals for which it was incentivised, and this meant the greatest return for the least risk.  This was hardly likely to be consistent with concentrating its efforts in the regions of greatest development need and it was not.</p> <p>Worse, the private equity Fund of Funds structure has sometimes locked it in to the pursuit of investment opportunities where its capital is not needed. </p> <p>Not only is this a wasted opportunity; it is also a waste of spirit, of motivation and of a 50-year tradition of public service motivated by the desire to do something good for others and to create a world-leading development institution of which the British people could be proud. It would be unfair of me to say that this old spirit of CDC has been lost entirely. It is still there in the halls of CDC.  But it has been substantially weakened through the 100% reliance on outside Fund managers. </p> <p>So - the current approach needs a major overhaul.  CDC should provide pound for pound the most effective development effort in the world.   We have to understand where the money is going, know why we have chosen to invest it in that way and have effective mechanisms to monitor whether it had the result we intended.  We need to see a radical change in the way CDC operates, in the instruments it offers and in its internal management structure.</p> <p>In my statement to the House of Commons this morning I said that the Government will reconfigure CDC.  We will create a revitalised CDC with a great deal more clarity and ambition over what it does and where it works.</p> <p>Specifically, I shall be proposing that CDC reduce new commitments to future third party Funds and consider the benefits of liquidating some of its existing investment where this can be done on attractive terms.  I do not propose that we end commitments to new third party Funds since they can be the most appropriate way to mobilise funding in some countries and for some investment purposes.  They can also be effective at mobilising third party capital alongside ours and I do not discount the value of the demonstration effect where they genuinely open new markets to private sector investment.  But the Fund of Funds model should make up no more than a part of a new, broader and more actively managed portfolio. </p> <p>CDC should regain its power to make investments directly in target markets. I envisage that, at least to start with, this would be done through co-investment with other sources of capital where, by doing so, CDC could make possible desirable investments which could not otherwise be made. Its criteria for such investments in terms of geography, sector or purpose could be published and investors in qualifying projects could approach CDC for support. Such investors might be private equity investors, possibly but not necessarily, those with whom CDC is already invested, struggling to find capital for a desirable qualifying project. They could also be local investors, the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation or other development agencies.  It is too big a step to move in one go from where we are now to a fully fledged investment operation managing investments on its own. But I want CDC to start down the road to making its own investment decisions.  </p> <p>In addition to regaining some investment control, CDC should be encouraged to participate through a wider range of vehicles.  I should like it to be able to invest in debt instruments and provide guarantees.  Greater flexibility will enable it to build a more diversified portfolio in terms of risk, maturity and liquidity. Debt instruments and guarantees as part of its offering could make it a more flexible and useful partner to the providers of equity for appropriate projects in the poorest parts of the world.</p> <p>I should like CDC to develop a more active approach to portfolio management. Its purpose is to invest in targeted countries or sectors where capital is otherwise not available – to provide patient capital to finance and kick-start private investment in the most difficult regions - not the most immediately desirable. There is no reason why it should stay around when other capital has become available.  CDC has received much criticism for finding itself invested in projects and places for which abundant private sector capital is now available. This is partly the result of its 100% commitment to an inflexible private equity Fund of Funds model but to be fair it is partly a result of the success of that very model. Where success has been achieved, however, we need at least to try to find liquidity for our investments so that the capital can be recycled much more quickly to new targets. </p> <p>I should also like CDC to develop more financial firepower.  The illiquidity of its investments and its considerable uncalled commitments to existing Funds means that it will take a long time to free up capital for more active and direct investment.  I would therefore like CDC to regain its power to borrow.  This must be constrained within prudent limits but the ability to do so will give us the power to move more quickly and more effectively. </p> <p>And in all it does I shall continue to expect CDC to show that it is improving the way in which firms in the poorest countries operate – and that CDC monitors and demands improvements in the conditions under which people work. I also expect CDC to demand more effective treatment of environmental issues, more transparency and a rigorous approach to corruption.</p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, if we make these reforms, CDC will become a distinctive, innovative and differentiated development finance institution – with clearly measurable development impact and additionality, and a new commitment targeted throughout Sub-Saharan Africa and the poorer parts of Asia.  I want CDC to be more focused on the poorest countries than any other DFI, doing the hardest things in the hardest places. More investment in businesses which would never otherwise have been considered; more capital unlocked to boost the potential of hundreds of new enterprises employing thousands of people and paying their fair share of revenues to their local exchequers.  Economic development stimulated and communities empowered.  The prize is great indeed.</p> <p>Now there are some in the audience, I am sure, who at this stage, will expect me to identify today those sectors where I want CDC to focus in future. This is a complex area. Infrastructure and energy are at the top of my list.  That family I stayed with in Ethiopia: how much better their lives and their local economy would be if there were a better road network to link their products to markets and electricity allowing them to be productive throughout the day and those long hours of darkness. But I want to listen to a range of views before taking any decisions. The correlation between investment and poverty-reduction is not straight forward. </p> <p>So, from NGOs to business, from Oxfam to Lazard, we welcome your views. Views on which sectors CDC should focus in order to generate the highest wealth creation impact for the poor. I have asked CDC and DFID to commission independent studies, the findings of which will be made public through DFID’s website. The Department will also be launching a consultation, outline details of which will be available online tomorrow. I will listen and then make further announcements early next year.  CDC will reflect the necessary changes in the business plan which they will publish in the spring. </p> <p>Regaining power over the investment of capital needs to be staged carefully and will need resources of human capital additional to the often highly-committed and dedicated people working at CDC at the moment.</p> <p>I want people to be proud of working for CDC, to see it as a badge of honour.  I want CDC to regain its identity, its spirit and its energy – to rediscover its developmental DNA.  I want it to inspire at home and abroad as our repository of knowledge of how to make development investing work.  </p> <p>CDC must attract people of the highest calibre, people who are passionate about development investment and whose expertise is rewarded by remuneration that is fair and appropriate – but not excessive.  So as part of the period of consultation, I will consult on what that remuneration structure should be. </p> <p>Let me be clear about this: I do believe that there is a willingness on the part of many qualified people to come and engage in such a vital and exciting enterprise without the need for excessive financial incentives.  I want to appeal to people who are motivated by something other than money, something that our generations for the first time have the ability to do – to drive sustainable growth and development and help people lift themselves out of poverty. They may be young, brilliant and determined to save the world. Or they may be older and experienced, successful and less interested in their own financial reward, seeking instead to leave their footprint in the sand of a truly noble endeavour. We intend to set about the business of mobilising such people and supporting them in every way we can to build an enterprise and a success of which Britain can be proud.</p> <p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p> <p>Ladies and Gentlemen, I have set out this evening my vision for a world where development is embedded through inclusive economic growth, where wealth creation is the route out of poverty and where the private sector is the catalyst. </p> <p>I want to say to you publicly, the leaders of British business, that you have an incredibly important role to play in combating global poverty.  We’re all in this together.  I look forward to working with you.  </p> Andrew Mitchell Andrew Mitchell's speech on wealth creation 13 October 2010 Department for International Development London School of Economics
None None None <p class="date">12 October 2010</p> <p>The Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): </p> <p>I would like to update the House on the humanitarian situation in Pakistan following the floods and on the UK Government’s response. </p> <p>It is now nearly two months since the floods hit. The situation, particularly in Southern Sindh province, continues to be extremely difficult.  7.3 million people there have been affected. Of this total, 2.3 million people are in need of immediate assistance. Significant shortfalls continue in the distribution of relief across all sectors and capacity to respond is stretched. The World Food Programme continues to drop food rations by air and public buildings such as schools still house tens of thousands of people. The full extent of loss and damage may not be known for several weeks as many areas remain under water.</p> <p>In other areas of Pakistan, the situation is mixed. In Punjab, the majority of the 5.3 million people affected have now returned to their home areas and the focus is beginning to shift from emergency relief to early recovery. In Khyber Paktunkwha most of the 3.8 million people affected have returned home and are beginning to rebuild their lives. Approximately 1 million internally displaced persons are gradually returning to Sindh from Balochistan.  The monsoon season is now drawing to a close and snow has already been reported in the northern mountainous regions reflecting the seasonal change to winter. </p> <p>The scale and shifting patterns of both displacement and return means it remains a challenge to achieve the necessary pace and scale of response. The UN continues to build up its surge capacity and improve coordination. NGOs are beginning to improve their reach in Sindh province. The Government of Pakistan is responding through the relevant Provincial Disaster Management Authorities and is still delivering relief through the Pakistan military in Sindh province.</p> <p>Meeting the remaining emergency relief and early recovery needs of the critically affected population remains our immediate priority.  To date UKAid has helped approximately:</p> <ul> <li>900,000 people receive health care services;</li> <li>620,000 people receive clean drinking water;</li> <li>425,000 people benefit from the distribution of over 60,000 hygiene kits;</li> <li>one million people receive hygiene awareness sessions;</li> <li>420,000 people benefit from shelter kits; and </li> <li>36,000 and 48,000 pregnant and lactating women receive nutritional supplements.</li> </ul> <p>Given the changing nature of the situation support is now needed to help Pakistan recover from the floods. On 17 September, the United Nations launched a revised Plan to provide a framework for remaining emergency relief needs, but also to help up to 14 million people get back on their feet and recover from the floods. The total funding requirement stands at just over US$2 billion (£1.3 billion) over the next twelve months.</p> <p>The revised UN Plan was discussed at a High Level UN meeting on 19 September in New York. At that meeting I announced an additional £70 million of funding to help meet remaining emergency relief needs and in particular to support the people of Pakistan to rebuild their lives.  UK funding will help revive agriculture, provide temporary education facilities to get children back into school and help people rebuild their communities and provide short-term employment opportunities. This brings the UK’s total contribution to £134 million, in addition to the £60m raised through the generosity of the UK public through the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) appeal.</p> <p>I would like to emphasis to the House the Government’s commitment to ensuring transparency and value for money.  Funding allocations will continue to be made on the basis of rigorous assessments of needs on the ground, and will be subject to thorough monitoring and evaluation.  None of the resources pledged for relief will be channelled through the Government of Pakistan in line with standard humanitarian practice.</p> <p>My department has already begun to allocate the additional funding. In recognition of the ongoing emergency needs of flood-affected people in Southern Sindh, we are aiming to address the emergency health and water and sanitation needs of approximately 500,000 people through international and local NGOs at a cost of up to £8m. I am also pleased to announce that we plan to help meet the immediate agriculture needs of approximately 850,000 vulnerable people in Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan and the critical winter rabi cropping window in late October/November, at a cost of some £7 million.</p> <p>Our commitment to the people of Pakistan remains a long-term one. The UK will continue to play a leading role in encouraging others in the international community to step up to the mark. The UK was instrumental in securing a commitment at the European Council on 16 September to develop ambitious trade measures for Pakistan, including the immediate reduction of import duties and improved longer term access to EU markets through Generalised System of Preferences (GSP+).  </p> <p>The floods require an exceptional response from the Government of Pakistan as well as from the international community.  At the forthcoming Pakistan Development Forum the Government of Pakistan should set out plans for growth and economic reform as well as reconstruction. The credibility of these plans will determine how donors respond to future reconstruction and development needs.</p> Andrew Mitchell Written statement to the House of Commons on Pakistan floods 12 October 2010 Department for International Development House of Commons
None None None <p class="date">22 September 2010</p> <h3>United Nations Millennium Development Goals Summit </h3> <h3>Speech by Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom</h3> <p>Secretary General<br>President of the General Assembly <br>Excellencies<br>Distinguished delegates<br>Ladies and Gentlemen</p> <h3>Introduction</h3> <p>It is an honour for me to address the General Assembly today for the first time as Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. </p> <p>And it is a privilege to be here with you to discuss how together we can reach the Millennium Development Goals; </p> <p>To make the necessary commitments towards eradicating the problems that blight the world we share: </p> <p>Poverty, hunger, disease, and the degradation of our natural environment. </p> <p>This week we are reviewing progress, assessing obstacles, and agreeing a framework for action to meet our targets.</p> <p>These are the technocratic terms in which governments must necessarily trade.</p> <p>But let us be clear: behind the officialese of summits lies our single, common purpose: </p> <p>To uphold the dignity and security that is the right of every person in every part of the world.  </p> <p>Development is, in the end, about freedom. It is about freedom from hunger and disease; freedom from ignorance; freedom from poverty. Development means ensuring that every person has the freedom to take their own life into their own hands and determine their own fate. </p> <p>The last decade has seen some important progress.</p> <p>That progress has, however, been uneven, and, on a number of our goals we remain significantly off track.</p> <h3>Britain’s commitment</h3> <p>So my message to you today, from the UK government, is this - we will keep our promises; and we expect the rest of the international community to do the same.  </p> <p>For our part, the new coalition government has committed to reaching 0.7% of GNI in aid from 2013 – a pledge we will enshrine in law. </p> <p>That aid will be targeted in the ways we know will make the biggest difference. </p> <p>And I am pleased to announce today that the UK will be stepping up our efforts to combat malaria.</p> <p>In Africa, a child dies from this disease – this easily preventable disease – every 45 seconds. So we will make more money available, and ensure that we get more for our money, with the aim of halving malaria-related deaths in ten of the worst affected countries.</p> <p>The UK government is also proud to be boosting our contribution to the international drive on maternal and infant health. Our new commitments will save the lives of 50,000 mothers and quarter of a million babies by 2015. </p> <h3>The case for development</h3> <p>The UK makes these commitments at a time of significant difficulty time in our domestic economy. </p> <p>The new government has inherited a £156bn budget deficit, so increasing our international aid budget is not an uncontroversial decision.</p> <p>Some critics have questioned that decision, asking why, at a time when people at home are making sacrifices in their pay and their pensions, are we increasing aid for people in other countries? </p> <p>But we make this choice because we recognise that the promises the UK has made hold in the bad times as well as the good – that they are even more important now than they were then. </p> <p>Because we understand that, while we are experiencing hardship on our own shores, it does not compare to the abject pain and destitution of others. </p> <p>Because we take seriously the fact that the new coalition government is now the last UK government able to deliver on our country’s promises in time for the 2015 MDG deadline. </p> <p>And because we know that doing so is in our own, enlightened self-interest.</p> <p>When the world is more prosperous, the UK will be more prosperous. Growth in the developing world means new partners with which to trade and new sources of global growth. </p> <p>And, equally, when the world is less secure, the UK is less secure within it. </p> <p>Climate change does not somehow stop at our borders. </p> <p>When pandemics occur, we are not immune. </p> <p>And when poverty and poor education fuel the growth of global terrorism, our society bears the scars too. </p> <p>Twenty two of the thirty four countries furthest from reaching the MDGs are in the midst of or emerging from violent conflict. </p> <p>Fragile spaces – like Afghanistan – where hate can proliferate and terrorist attacks can be planned, where organised criminals can harvest the drugs that ravage our streets, where families are persecuted, displaced, pushed to seek refuge with us. </p> <p>So we do not see the Millennium Development Goals just as optimistic targets for far away lands; they are not simply charity, nor are they pure altruism. </p> <p>They are also the key to lasting safety and future prosperity for the people of the United Kingdom, and of course, for people right across the globe.</p> <h3>On what we expect of others</h3> <p>We welcome the General Assembly’s agreement to annually review progress made against the commitments agreed at this Summit. </p> <p>The UK will stand up to that test.</p> <p>Today I call on others to show equal resolve. </p> <p>The Millennium Development Goals must be a priority for each and every nation present in this room. Developed nations must honour their commitments. </p> <p>And developing nations must understand that they will not receive a blank cheque. Developing countries and donors must work together – as equal partners – towards securing our common interest.</p> <p>They will be expected to administer aid in ways that are accountable, transparent, and responsible - creating the conditions for economic growth and job creation.</p> <p>Prioritising national budgets on health, infrastructure, education and basic services.</p> <p>Managing natural resources, particularly biodiversity, in an environmentally sustainable way.</p> <p>Improving the lives of women and girls: empowering them; educating them; ensuring healthy mothers can raise strong children. There can be no doubt that women and girls hold the key to greater prosperity: for their families, for their communities, and for their nations too.</p> <h3>Conclusion</h3> <p>If we each step up, we can meet the Millennium Development Goals. </p> <p>We can liberate millions of people from daily suffering, and give them the resources to take control of their lives, and their destinies. </p> <p>So let future generations look back and say that they inherited a better world because – at this critical moment, at this difficult moment – we did not shrink from our responsibilities.</p> <p>Let them say that we rose to the challenge, that we kept our promise.<br></p> unknown Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg's speech to the UN General Assembly 22 September 2010 Department for International Development UN General Assembly
None None None <p class="date">16 September 2010</p> <h3>Speech by International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell at the Royal College of Defence Studies on 16 September 2010 </h3> <p>Thank you Admiral Style. It is a real pleasure to speak at the Royal College of Defence Studies and to engage the class of 2011 in debate. </p> <p>Countless statesmen from the four corners of the world have walked these corridors and I am sure that among this year’s intake there are many future leaders.  It is therefore a great privilege to be able to speak to you today.</p> <h3>Introduction</h3> <p>Today, I want to talk about the causes and the cost of conflict, about the new security challenges that threaten Britain and trap millions in poverty, disease and injustice overseas. </p> <p>I will argue that as part of the government’s Strategic Defence Security Review (SDSR) we must reassess our response to overseas conflict - putting development at the heart of an integrated approach that supports the world’s most vulnerable people and protects Britain from external threats. </p> <p>As you know, the SDSR is still work in progress. I therefore cannot lay out the detail of our plans. But I will set the stage by suggesting that our policy must first and foremost be based on an integrated approach that involves the Foreign Office, DFID and the MoD; that it must look “upstream” to prevent conflicts as much as “downstream” to help countries after war; and that it must be informed by a rigorous assessment of lessons from past interventions. </p> <p>Three things distinguishes this SDSR from recent reviews: first, that it is a cross-departmental exercise where DFID is for the first time fully involved; secondly, that it is being undertaken by a coalition government; and thirdly, and most importantly, that it is being conducted during a major military operation. </p> <p>As I speak, courageous and committed men and women of our Armed Forces are risking their lives in Afghanistan. Their dedication, alongside that of civilian staff, places a special responsibility on us here in London – in the Cabinet and across Whitehall – to do everything within our power to shape and support an integrated effort. </p> <h3>Cost of conflict for the UK</h3> <p>There are those who suggest that giving aid to countries in conflict is pointless. They want money to be spent only on those developing countries that have a stable government and a well-established rule of law. Then there are those who deride the idea of stabilisation, of conflict- prevention - call it what you will – as busy-bodied do-gooderism.  They want the military to quell threats, but see no hope to affect the future of other people’s societies and to mitigate conflicts. </p> <p>More than most, this audience knows the folly of these arguments. You know that the direct and indirect consequences of conflict in the developing world spread far and wide. You have seen with your own eyes how conflict impacts on the most vulnerable people overseas, making long-term development impossible. </p> <p>The Coalition Government is proud of its commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income in development aid from 2013. Helping to address conflicts in the developing world, fighting poverty among those caught in wars and violence, must be central to our aid policy if we are to help end global poverty.  </p> <p>I will say more about this shortly but let me begin by looking at the impact closer to home. Because conflict abroad also threatens our security and well-being here in Britain.  </p> <p>Conflict can create under-governed spaces overseas where terrorists are able to recruit and to plan attacks in the UK or on UK targets abroad. Terrorists can be based anywhere, including here in Britain, but they seek -- and benefit from -- turmoil and chaos overseas.  </p> <p>The fact that weak and under-developed states are often powerless to prevent organised crime from flourishing may seem irrelevant to British interests. But only at first glance. Many countries in West Africa and the Western Balkans, for example, act as hubs for illicit trade. Drugs and guns pass through these countries and end up on British streets. </p> <p>Conflict in the developing world also generates population change. Increasingly, those escaping persecution and violence in their own country, turn to protection elsewhere. And for many, the UK is the preferred destination. </p> <p>More than 80 per cent of asylum seekers in the UK come from conflict-affected countries. Those choosing to stay closer to their homes may still flee in their thousands internally or to neighbouring states – creating new conflicts over limited resources or between different groups of peoples. </p> <p>Finally, conflict overseas poses a threat to Britain’s future prosperity and potential for long-term growth. To take just one example: chaos in Somalia created the conditions for the piracy that preys on global shipping routes through the Red Sea, routes upon which the UK economy relies. </p> <p>In short, when it comes to conflict in the developing world, a philosophy of “out of sight out of mind” is simply naive. The indirect consequences of overseas conflict represent a real and present danger, a danger that cannot be dealt with exclusively by counter-terrorist means. A danger that we cannot hope to address by staying at home, bolting the door and drawing down the shutters. </p> <h3>Cost of conflict for development</h3> <p>Tackling conflict overseas is therefore very much in our national interests - even in a time of financial consolidation.</p> <p>But it is also in the interests of the world’s poor. In too many parts of the developing world prosperity will remain a distant dream unless and until we succeed in tackling many of the conflicts that block development. It is surely no coincidence that no fragile country has yet achieved a single Millennium Development Goal, the UN-agreed lodestars for UK development assistance. </p> <p>Nor is it a coincidence that 22 of the 34 countries furthest from reaching the MDGs are in the midst of – or emerging from – violent conflict. The challenges faced by these countries are immense: </p> <ul> <li>On average, one in three people living in fragile states is undernourished; this proportion is twice as high as in other developing countries</li> <li>Child mortality is five times that of middle income countries, and almost twice that of low income countries </li> </ul> <p>I spoke earlier about migration and its impact on Britain. But this is not only a global and regional problem; it is a developmental one. For when those migrants include the brightest and the best – as they often do – what hope is there for those they leave behind?  Their flight, from conflict-affected countries, which already lack human capital, to more developed countries, is one of the biggest barriers to development. </p> <p>Take Zimbabwe where, in recent times, only around a fifth of university graduates took up employment in their own country. In other words, conflicts are driving away the very people who can advance the cause of peace and promote development</p> <p>Non-governmental organisations such as Oxfam, Saferworld, International Alert, War Child and Save the Children have long known that the Millennium Development Goals cannot be met until we deal with overseas conflict. </p> <p>In its submission to the SDSR, Oxfam argued for using, and I quote, “development resources where there is a real threat of escalating violence”, recognising that the “UK’s long-term interest depends on supporting stability in many parts of the world.” </p> <p>This line of argument also has solid academic foundations. Paul Collier, the renowned Professor of Economics at Oxford University, put it well when he described war as “development in reverse”. He based his reasoning on the fact that, a civil war is estimated to cost a low income country an average of about 64 billion US dollars. In other words, the cost of a single conflict is more than half of the value of annual development aid worldwide. </p> <p>Turn it around, and the same picture emerges: the higher a country’s GDP per capita, the lower the risk of internal war.  A typical post-conflict country with no economic growth has a 42% risk of returning to conflict within ten years. But with 10% growth, the risk declines to 29%. So, each additional percentage point of growth reduces the risk of conflict. Of course there are exceptions – rich countries can fall apart too -- but development clearly begets peace. </p> <p>And let us remember too, that poor people living in dysfunctional states lose out twice over. Once because they are poor and once because of the insecurity and conflict that define their every waking moment. </p> <p>I have talked about the cost of conflict both for the UK and for the world’s poor. But I have left out one key argument; the moral one. In the post-Iraq context, it is commonplace to hear people reject any form of interventionism. </p> <p>Nevertheless, Britain has a proud tradition of standing up for a more equal world where people live in dignity and where they are protected from those who would harm them. As the Foreign Secretary said some time ago:  "it is not in our character to have a foreign policy without a conscience: to be idle or uninterested while others starve or murder each other in their millions is not for us”. </p> <p>He developed that argument yesterday, saying:  “Our foreign policy should always have consistent support for human rights and poverty reduction at its irreducible core.” I totally agree. We have to live up to that tradition and to be proud of our values, by supporting and protecting the most vulnerable. Future interventions - should they become necessary - will have to be what past ones were not - carefully considered, well-planned and properly resourced. But our commitment to help the vulnerable and persecuted endures.  </p> <p>This leads to the more difficult question – how do we help those countries ravaged by warfare, where governments are not legitimate or where they neglect rather than serve their citizens?  </p> <h3>Five lessons for the future</h3> <p>Working in these countries is incredibly difficult, not least because it is often so dangerous. Many of you will know this better than I. When I served as a very junior UN peacekeeper in Cyprus in the 1970s, the situation and tasks we had to tackle were very different from those being faced today. </p> <p>So, as we look to the future, I believe the SDSR must be informed by five lessons: </p> <p><strong>First</strong>, if we are to reap the ultimate reward, the reward of preventing wars before they start, we need to be better at identifying the potential for conflict. </p> <p>Our ‘upstream’ offer on conflict prevention must be as good as the one we have honed for ‘downstream’ during and in the aftermath of war. </p> <p>Spotting problems and knowing when to act on them is, of course, a notoriously difficult business. Even when warning signs have been clear, the international community has too often marshalled its resources and tools only after widespread violence has broken out – as in Kenya, Georgia and, earlier, in Rwanda, Kosovo and Bosnia. </p> <p>The answer lies in making sure that warnings, however faint, are brought to the attention of senior officials and ministers. It means that instead of taking the easy option of sticking with outdated plans or preconceived notions, the SDSR must create cross-government systems and cultures that will compel us to re-examine our policies and programmes, when needed. Systems that help us to understand the often complex causes of conflicts.  </p> <p>By ensuring that -- through the SDSR -- we create such systems, we will hopefully learn the lessons that previous governments failed to heed.</p> <p>Working upstream does not, of course, mean treating every conflict the <br>same. Not all conflicts have equal resonance for the UK, nor do we  have the resources, historical ties or the ability to prevent them all.  So it is important that when we in the National Security Council look at the many conflicts that may arise, we concentrate on those countries and regions that are at greatest risk; those that are of greatest interest to us; and those where the UK as a whole is likely to have the greatest impact. </p> <p>The <strong>second</strong> important lesson is that we must be willing to question important assumptions both in the military and in the development community. </p> <p>Take, for example, the commonly-held assumption that strengthening states is an end in itself. </p> <p>Now, I accept that no country has achieved lasting peace and development without a basic functioning state – that is, without a system to guarantee property rights, resolve disputes, and address inequalities. </p> <p>However, in some countries the state may well be part of the problem - especially where those in power show no interest in being held to account by their citizens or in delivering basic services like healthcare or clean water, not to mention security and justice. The formal trappings of statehood can often benefit a small, self-serving elite, but do little for the poorest people. I think particularly of Burma in this connection. </p> <p>Building an accountable state means putting the development of inclusive politics at the very heart of our response. In this new politics, the poor and marginalised are not just “vote blocks” for powerful land-owners or local warlords.  They are present – as elected representatives, as ministers, and even as officials – in the corridors of power.  In Nepal, for example, where many challenges still remain, there has been huge progress in increasing representation of marginalised groups in the Constitutional Assembly.</p> <p>I am not advocating old-style, externally-driven democracy promotion.  As the Foreign Secretary said in his speech yesterday, “elections alone do not create a free and democratic society”.  No, I am talking about the sensitive promotion of a political system that supports society and empowers citizens to hold their own leaders to account.  A political system that means citizens’ basic needs are met, a system that gives the poorest a stake in the way their country is run, and a say in their own development. </p> <p>This leads me to my <strong>third</strong> lesson: we must be realistic about the role that we, as outsiders, former colonial powers, even as one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, can achieve. </p> <p>To an international audience like yourselves, international cooperation is logical, but it bears underlining that no single donor or international player can hope to rebuild a country or address a long-simmering conflict. One supremely powerful nation or a small group acting in concert can win a war. But winning the peace takes many nations, working with international agencies, NGOs and others. </p> <p>In Kenya, we saw the unique pressure that regional organisations can bring to bear when former United Nations’ Secretary General, Kofi Annan – working on behalf of the African Union – successfully brokered a cessation to the post-election violence.  </p> <p>So, tackling conflict in today’s world means working harder with old partners and reaching out to new ones. The Foreign Secretary has talked about a "networked world" and about the foreign policy tools that will influence states which will come to dominate our times. </p> <p>Development policy must be similarly networked. We must engage multilateral and bilateral donors not only through established mechanisms but through innovative collaborations with new partners - like India and China, Indonesia, South Africa,  Turkey, Mexico and Brazil – partners whose reach is crucial if we are to tackle conflict and promote development. I will say more on this subject later this year; it is an important area and one where I want to see DFID charting new territory. </p> <p>My <strong>fourth</strong> lesson is that addressing the conflicts that mar the development process is no easy or quick feat. Building things up takes much longer than pulling them down. That is true not just of buildings, of homes, of bridges, of power stations but of the institutions of state –police forces, independent judiciaries,  bureaucracies, legislatures, free broadcasters and so on. But changing attitudes takes perhaps the longest time.  </p> <p>So, in Northern Uganda, DFID’s investment in youth today will yield dividends in generations to come.  In military-speak, this means that we need to show “strategic patience” if we are to see a return on our policy. By educating a generation of girls in Pakistan, we will be making a significant contribution to that country’s development in the years ahead.  But let’s be clear that this is a very long-term vision and it will take time for the results to show.</p> <p>The <strong>fifth and final</strong> lesson is that we must look for fresh ways of drawing together all the development, diplomatic and defence tools at the UK’s disposal. The wars of the future will not be the wars of the past. But some things we have learnt from past and ongoing wars will remain valid – the need for greater MoD, DFID and FCO cooperation is one of them.</p> <p>In Sierra Leone, for example, we saw the benefits of close civilian-<br>military cooperation. Here, peace depended not only on establishing     <br>basic security (in part, through military force) but also on addressing the underlying causes of conflict, such as corruption, youth unemployment and the exclusion of key social groups.  DFID’s ability to understand, and support the provision of security and justice from the perspective of the poor and vulnerable has been crucial in this success.</p> <p>I want to see DFID working even more closely with the MoD and the FCO, focused on preventing warfare and tipping the scales from conflict to peace in the world’s hotspots. I want to see not just a “comprehensive approach”, but what I think could be the next logical step, an “integrated approach” that brings the FCO, DFID and MoD together from the beginning to the end, from planning and execution through to the evaluation of our interventions. </p> <p>Of course, the level of policy and resource investment from different departments will vary widely in individual countries. The DRC is not Helmand. But it is surely right that wherever different departments have an interest, they work in a fully cooperative and integrated manner. Here, I hope we can use the SDSR to flesh out further details. </p> <p> But let me be clear: this is not a case of DFID being coerced to use its aid programme to meet others’ objectives. Nor is it a case of DFID officials simply handing over cash willy-nilly. Some of the stories that are currently doing the rounds in some newspapers are as absurd as they are ill-informed. Our aid will stick to development principles and to the OECD/DAC definition of what constitutes aid. We want the best possible outcomes for those living in fragile or conflict countries. </p> <p>Just as the military has doctrine – policy distilled through years of experience – so the development community has the DAC guidelines. In these guidelines, we have codified what works and, like the military uses doctrine, we use our guidelines to make sure our developmental efforts are as effective as they can possibly be.  </p> <p>But to get those best outcomes DFID must make sure that the development case is part of the Whitehall mix when decisions are being made so that we can do what is right for our national security and right for those who are suffering the direct consequences of conflict. And let’s be realistic about this: taxpayers expect us to be able to do both.</p> <h3>Looking ahead</h3> <p>My visit to Afghanistan in July – alongside the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary - reaffirmed my view that well-spent aid is in our national interest.  Whilst the military is there to bring much-needed security, lasting peace will only be achieved through political progress backed by development. </p> <p>I therefore decided to expand our aid programme in Afghanistan by 40 per cent specifically to allow the UK to intensify its development work, improving outcomes and results on the ground, and accelerating progress to a more stable country.</p> <p>I have also taken great pains to underline my commitment to closer DFID-MoD cooperation</p> <ul> <li>In Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and in other countries, hundreds of DFID staff have gained first-hand experience of fragile states</li> <li>No fewer than 17 have also been honoured by Her Majesty The Queen for their work in dangerous environments </li> <li>During the recent Pakistan floods, DFID worked closely with MoD to ensure equipment was ferried to those most in need and;  </li> <li>It is, of course, no accident that I chose to make this speech here at the RCDS today</li> </ul> <p>Indeed, we have something of a burgeoning DFID/MoD fixture list: I have already played host to General Sir David Richards, the incoming Chief of Defence Staff while I have invited the outgoing CDS, Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup to address DFID staff on the nexus between security and development.  The more we share our experiences, the more we will all learn. </p> <h3>Increasing our chances of success</h3> <p>Right now, the SDSR gives us the perfect opportunity to go further in coordinating Whitehall’s response to conflict and poverty. </p> <p>In the past, the UK took important steps to create cross-departmental bodies, bodies such as the Stabilisation Unit, that could improve cooperation between departments. The Helmand Provincial Reconstruction Team has also shown how effectively DFID, the Foreign Office and the military can work side by side. </p> <p>But there is scope to go further, learning from past experiences while  making better use of existing structures - drawing on whatever tools and instruments are most appropriate, without getting hung up on institutional provenance. </p> <p>I want to see more flexible, bespoke solutions crafted in response to specific needs on the ground. I want to see DFID, FCO, MoD and the Armed Forces working even closer together, for example delivering effective Security Sector Reform. </p> <p>The Stabilisation Unit is proof that this experience is possible; it is time now to build on this so that we can change mindsets and habits across Government. Cross-Whitehall cooperation should be second nature for DFID staff, and we will encourage our colleagues in the FCO and MoD to think and act similarly. This is what I have in mind when I say we should develop an “integrated approach”. </p> <p>As part of the SDSR we will be discussing new ways to develop the Conflict Pool – a unique cross-departmental funding arrangement -- so that it can better support the full breadth of our work in conflict-affected countries. </p> <p>But as we look ahead we will find ways of going further and faster. </p> <p>The Bilateral Aid Review, which I initiated as soon as I came to office is – as I speak - analysing DFID's programme in each country, looking at the results our programmes obtain and the value for money we get. This is a thorough bottom-up process and will focus on the detailed picture in each country.  </p> <p>Overall, however, I am pushing for us, in future, to spend more of the UK’s aid programme in conflict and fragile countries. Because in doing so we will maximise our impact on the lives of the most vulnerable, while also leveraging the contribution that aid can make to national security. And as we approach the UN MDG Summit next week there can be no better time for remembering that our ultimate goal is to ensure that all people in conflict countries - and wherever else poverty may exist -- have access to the food, health care, education and other services that they so desperately need. </p> <h3>Conclusion</h3> <p>Ladies and gentlemen, if you are  living in one of those dreadful camps in Darfur, it does not matter how much access to money, aid, trade or different articles of development you may have, because as long as the conflict continues, you will remain poor, frightened, dispossessed and angry. </p> <p>Just as conflict condemns people to remain in poverty, so it is wealth creation - jobs, enterprise, trade and engagement with the private sector - that enables people to lift themselves out of poverty.</p> <p>Yet without peace and security this cannot happen. For just as development cannot occur in the absence of peace, peace without development is a peace that may not last.</p> <p>This is true not only in places like Helmand, that rightly fill newspaper columns and are constantly in the nation’s thoughts, but also in places like Harare where economic development that can provide jobs and basic necessities, is essential to achieving stability. </p> <p>To achieve this stability we have to move beyond a zero-sum game, where one camp sees DFID, the MoD and FCO working together as suspicious; and the other argues an independent DFID, focused on poverty-alleviation is wasteful. The world’s poorest people have an interest in security and development. So do we. As your College’s motto so aptly proclaims: “Strength in Unity”.   We cannot achieve our goals if we do not work together.</p> <p>If trust is the most important part of any partnership; then it is vital when you are talking about a partnership as wide as ours. DFID needs to trust its partners both in government and outside to help it innovate and push boundaries.  The military must trust that DFID will do everything it can to support their mission.  And our NGO and charity partners must trust that this Government will never compromise its development principles.</p> <p>Because one thing is certain: the future holds many new and more difficult conflicts, conflicts that will inevitably threaten Britain and its people while also making it harder for us to achieve our goal of eradicating world poverty. </p> <p>I said one thing was certain. But actually there is a second certainty:  that we have the will and the determination to face up to those challenges. To shape thoughtful solutions that address the reality of conflict while also bringing lasting help to the millions living in its shadow. </p> <p>The choice is ours. To move forward with confidence, focusing on the poor and vulnerable in conflict-ravaged countries, working across government and beyond in a spirit of true partnership; or to run scared of change and to miss this golden opportunity to make the world a safer and more prosperous place for generations to come.</p> Andrew Mitchell Development in a conflicted world 16 September 2010 Department for International Development Royal College of Defence Studies
/video/240 None Play New Media, Old Politics? Moderator: David Thorburn October 14, 2004 Public Policy Media Innovation/Invention None None None None None None None
/video/892 None Play Japan’s Nuclear Crisis Richard Samuels, Kenneth Oye and Michael Golay March 16, 2011 Technology International Affairs Environment/Energy None None None None None None None
/video/890 None Play Online News: Public Sphere or Echo Chamber? Moderator: Jason Spingarn-Koff February 24, 2011 Public Policy Media Business/Leadership None None None None None None None
/video/888 None Play Diversity on the World Stage Moderator: Bishwapriya Sanyal February 17, 2011 International Affairs History None None None None None None None
/video/886 None Play Minorities in the United States Moderator: Leon Trilling February 24, 2011 Public Policy History Education None None None None None None None
/video/868 None Play Relaunching Growth in Europe José Aznar December 6, 2010 Public Policy International Affairs Economics None None None None None None None
/video/866 None Play An Engineering Career - 50 Years Out Kent Kresa December 1, 2010 Business/Leadership Engineering Defense/Military None None None None None None None
/video/864 None Play Civic Media and the Law Moderator: Micah Sifry November 4, 2010 Public Policy Media None None None None None None None
/video/862 None Play Mixing Oil and Ecosystems Christopher Reddy November 10, 2010 Science Environment/Energy None None None None None None None
/video/871 None Play Perceptive Mobile Robots Working Safely Alongside Humans Seth Teller December 7, 2010 Technology Innovation/Invention Engineering None None None None None None None
/video/869 None Play Communications in Slow-Moving Crises Moderator: Thomas Levenson November 18, 2010 Media Innovation/Invention History None None None None None None None
/video/867 None Play Energy and Emissions Logging in Road Vehicles Sanjay Sarma November 30, 2010 Innovation/Invention Exploration/Travel Environment/Energy None None None None None None None
/video/865 None Play Probing the Plume Richard Camilli November 17, 2010 Technology Science Environment/Energy None None None None None None None
/video/863 None Play Disruptive Demographics and Transportation Tomorrow Joseph Coughlin November 2, 2010 Innovation/Invention Exploration/Travel None None None None None None None
/video/861 None Play The Financial Crisis, the Recession, and the American Political Economy Charles Ferguson November 9, 2010 Public Policy Media Economics None None None None None None None
/video/819 None Play Innovation Spotlight: Bringing Children’s Media off the Screen Cynthia Breazeal May 18, 2010 Technology Innovation/Invention Education None None None None None None None
/video/828 None Play Stem Cells: Programming and Personalized Medicine Rudolf Jaenisch September 28, 2010 Science Medicine Innovation/Invention None None None None None None None
/video/826 None Play Leading through Change Thomas Glocer September 23, 2010 Media Business/Leadership Innovation/Invention None None None None None None None
/video/824 None Play TV or Not TV: That’s Not the Question Moderator: Alice Cahn May 19, 2010 Media Education None None None None None None None
/video/822 None Play Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War Andrew Bacevich September 14, 2010 Public Policy National Security Defense/Military None None None None None None None
/video/820 None Play International Media Flows: Global Media and Culture Moderator: Ian Condry April 23, 2010 Media International Affairs Education None None None None None None None
/video/818 None Play Education Nation: Six Leading Edges of Innovation in Our Schools Milton Chen May 25, 2010 Media Innovation/Invention Education None None None None None None None
/video/815 None Play The Medium Doesn’t Matter Laura Richardson May 19, 2010 Technology Innovation/Invention Arts None None None None None None None
/video/813 None Play Toying with Transmedia: The Future of Entertainment is Child’s Play Henry Jenkins May 18, 2010 Media Innovation/Invention Arts None None None None None None None
/video/811 None Play Creativity and Collaboration in the Digital Age Moderator: James Paradis April 23, 2010 Media Education None None None None None None None
/video/809 None Play The Clean Energy Revolution Moderator: Brian Dumaine May 3, 2010 Business/Leadership Innovation/Invention Environment/Energy None None None None None None None
/video/807 None Play How to Read 1,000,000 Manga Pages Lev Manovich May 21, 2010 Media Innovation/Invention Arts None None None None None None None
/video/805 None Play Dendrite Morphogenesis and Channel Regulation Yuh-Nung Jan and Lily Jan May 28, 2010 Science Medicine Biotechnology None None None None None None None
/video/803 None Play Alzheimer’s Disease: Realizing the Promise of Molecular Medicine Steven Paul May 7, 2010 Science Medicine None None None None None None None
/video/801 None Play Lunch with a Laureate: Jack Szostak Jack Szostak April 28, 2010 Science Medicine None None None None None None None
/video/799 None Play Annual Technology Day Report 2010 Susan Hockfield June 5, 2010 MIT Innovation/Invention Environment/Energy None None None None None None None
/video/797 None Play Lunch with a Laureate: Eric Chivian Eric Chivian April 29, 2010 Public Policy Medicine Environment/Energy None None None None None None None
/video/795 None Play Capitalism 3.0: An Institutional Revolution In the Making C. Scharmer June 5, 2010 Business/Leadership Innovation/Invention Economics None None None None None None None
/video/793 None Play How the Economy Impacts CEO Management Style Antoinette Schoar June 5, 2010 Business/Leadership Economics None None None None None None None
/video/792 None Play MIT’s Entrepreneurial Development and Impact Over the Past 50 Years Edward Roberts June 5, 2010 MIT Business/Leadership Innovation/Invention None None None None None None None
/video/790 None Play Jenkins’ Farewell: Reflections on a Career at MIT Henry Jenkins April 22, 2010 MIT Media Education None None None None None None None
/video/788 None Play Environmental Impacts of Aviation Ian Waitz April 13, 2010 Technology Environment/Energy Engineering None None None None None None None
/video/786 None Play Transportation, the Built Environment and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Chris Zegras April 6, 2010 International Affairs Environment/Energy Architecture/Planning None None None None None None None
/video/784 None Play Bill Porter in Conversation with Howard Anderson William Porter and Howard Anderson April 28, 2010 MIT Business/Leadership Innovation/Invention None None None None None None None
/video/782 None Play Looking Ahead to the Future of NASA Charles Bolden May 10, 2010 Public Policy Exploration/Travel Engineering None None None None None None None
/video/791 None Play Applied Humanities: Transforming Humanities Education Moderator: William Uricchio April 23, 2010 Media Innovation/Invention Education None None None None None None None
/video/789 None Play Denialism: Media in the Age of Disinformation Michael Specter, Chris Mooney, Shannon Brownlee and Shankar Vedantam April 27, 2010 Science Media Education None None None None None None None
/video/787 None Play Rusnano: Fostering Nanotechnology Innovation in Russia Anatoly Chubais and Noubar Afeyan April 9, 2010 Technology Business/Leadership Innovation/Invention None None None None None None None
/video/785 None Play Lunch with a Laureate: Richard Schrock Richard Schrock April 30, 2010 Science Education None None None None None None None
/video/783 None Play The Interaction Between Poverty, Growth and Democracy Alejandro Toledo May 3, 2010 International Affairs Economics None None None None None None None
/video/781 None Play Lunch with a Laureate: Robert Merton Robert Merton April 26, 2010 Business/Leadership Economics None None None None None None None
/video/771 None Play How the Soldier Repairs the Gramophone Saša Stanišić March 9, 2010 History Arts None None None None None None None
/video/769 None Play El Sistema: Social Support and Advocacy Through Musical Education Moderator: Maria Hinojosa April 17, 2010 MIT Education Arts None None None None None None None
/video/779 None Play From Relief to Reconstruction — Practical and Policy Challenges Raymond Offenheiser April 21, 2010 Public Policy International Affairs History None None None None None None None
/video/777 None Play Where the Rubber Meets the Road Krystyn Van Vliet March 30, 2010 Science Environment/Energy Engineering None None None None None None None
/video/775 None Play The Gutenberg Parenthesis: Oral Tradition and Digital Technologies James Paradis, Thomas Pettitt and Peter Donaldson April 1, 2010 Media History Arts None None None None None None None
/video/772 None Play Transportation in Contemporary Society: A Complex Systems Approach Joseph Sussman March 9, 2010 Environment/Energy Engineering None None None None None None None
/video/770 None Play Modeling Human Mobility Marta González March 16, 2010 Technology Environment/Energy Engineering None None None None None None None
/video/768 None Play Race from France to France, Leave Antarctica to Starboard Rich Wilson March 12, 2010 Exploration/Travel Engineering None None None None None None None
/video/767 None Play Automotive Lightweighting: India’s Automotive Industry Charles Fine and Richard Roth March 2, 2010 Technology Business/Leadership Environment/Energy None None None None None None None
/video/765 None Play Blended Learning Revisited John Brown, Dava Newman and John Belcher March 10, 2010 Innovation/Invention Education None None None None None None None
/video/763 None Play Death of the News? Jason Pontin, Susan Glasser and Maria Balinska March 2, 2010 Media Business/Leadership None None None None None None None
/video/761 None Play Creating Value in a Volatile World David Simchi-Levi February 23, 2010 Technology Environment/Energy Engineering None None None None None None None
/video/759 None Play The Future of Digital Public Media Moderator: Jake Shapiro March 1, 2010 Public Policy Media None None None None None None None
/video/757 None Play The Future of Government-Citizen Engagement Moderator: Jerry Mechling March 1, 2010 Technology Public Policy Media None None None None None None None
/video/766 None Play A Policy on Leadership Edmund (Ted) Kelly March 31, 2010 Technology Business/Leadership Innovation/Invention None None None None None None None
/video/764 None Play International Law and the Origins of the Arab-Israeli Conflict Noam Chomsky and Victor Kattan February 22, 2010 International Affairs History None None None None None None None
/video/762 None Play The War in Afghanistan: How to End It David Miliband March 10, 2010 National Security International Affairs Defense/Military None None None None None None None
/video/760 None Play 13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown Simon Johnson April 2, 2010 Public Policy History Economics None None None None None None None
/video/758 None Play Rebuilding Haiti Erica James, Cherie Abbanat, Dale Joachim and Michel DeGraff February 23, 2010 Public Policy International Affairs Architecture/Planning None None None None None None None
/video/756 None Play Autism: What Do We Know? What Do We Need? Thomas Insel December 2, 2009 Science Public Policy Medicine None None None None None None None
/video/726 None Play What’s New at the MIT Center for Future Civic Media? Chris Csikszentmihalyi November 5, 2009 Public Policy Media Innovation/Invention None None None None None None None
/video/724 None Play Education Across Borders: The India Perspective Kapil Sibal October 27, 2009 Technology Education Economics None None None None None None None
/video/722 None Play Final Journey to the Hubble Space Telescope Mike Massimino October 28, 2009 Technology Exploration/Travel Engineering None None None None None None None
/video/720 None Play Darfur/Darfur: The Crisis Robert Rotberg, Susannah Sirkin and Marcus Bleasdale October 15, 2009 Media International Affairs History None None None None None None None
/video/714 None Play Challenges in Nation Building José Ramos-Horta September 29, 2009 International Affairs History None None None None None None None
/video/712 None Play Neural Basis of Drug Addiction Barry Everitt May 7, 2009 Science Medicine None None None None None None None
/video/709 None Play Monitoring Dopamine Release During Reward Learning Paul Phillips May 7, 2009 Science Medicine None None None None None None None
/video/707 None Play Computational Models of Basal Ganglia Function Kenji Doya May 7, 2009 Science Medicine None None None None None None None
/video/694 None Play Opening the Mind’s Eye- Learning to See Pawan Sinha June 6, 2009 Science Medicine None None None None None None None
/video/692 None Play Global and Domestic Imbalances: Why Rural China is the Key Yasheng Huang June 6, 2009 International Affairs History Economics None None None None None None None
/video/690 None Play How to Focus the World’s Brains on your Innovation Challenges Fiona Murray June 6, 2009 Business/Leadership Innovation/Invention None None None None None None None
/video/688 None Play Media in Transition 6: Summary Perspectives Moderator: James Paradis April 26, 2009 MIT Media History None None None None None None None
March 2014
Permalink Hide details Show details 1395038014.836999_a3ba769f-7897-425f-a698-521d5d105e72 13:53, 17 March 2014
Run failed: #<ScraperWiki::CPUTimeExceededError: ScraperWiki CPU time exceeded> - ran for 0 seconds (3 scraped pages, 103090 records) 13:53, 17 March 2014


Permalink Hide details Show details 1394934439.046385_6846c371-6ce0-4849-aba4-23b128aaa10c 01:47, 16 March 2014 1394934436.502855_d8db0046-d058-43c1-805d-bcf20a18ed95 01:47, 16 March 2014 1394831389.795238_57cb3a69-9b74-4264-a20d-ff7f5dc1ce52 21:10, 14 March 2014 1394742725.709319_0c0689f0-1a66-4602-9df0-2a024a51b70b 20:32, 13 March 2014 1394649834.198240_4408cfb1-e8f9-4e5c-8c20-30b467b7456f 18:43, 12 March 2014 1394460804.771672_5d27a5d8-069a-4a1c-b952-9995601f646e 14:13, 10 March 2014 1394269905.630384_9fc2beb5-9229-428e-a54b-a7ce11771f65 09:12, 8 March 2014 1394159351.619262_8d9504b7-62d8-45c4-9e9b-b12d40346582 02:30, 7 March 2014 1394159323.058513_9e5d0718-3382-48d2-b23c-941e98181aac 02:29, 7 March 2014
Run succeeded: - ran 9 times, most recently for 0 seconds (0 scraped pages, 0 records) 01:47, 16 March 2014


February 2011
Hide changes Show changes 9 04:25, 11 February 2011 8 8 04:25, 11 February 2011 7 7 04:25, 11 February 2011 6 6 04:23, 11 February 2011 5 5 04:23, 11 February 2011 4 4 04:23, 11 February 2011 3 3 04:22, 11 February 2011 2 2 04:22, 11 February 2011 1 1 04:22, 11 February 2011 0
Edited by Max Ogden 9 times 04:25, 11 February 2011


Difference between, revision and previous revision

Hide first version Show first version 0 04:21, 11 February 2011
Edited by Max Ogden 04:21, 11 February 2011


Difference between, revision and previous revision