Westminster Hall
Wednesday 5 March 2003
[Mr. Edward O'Hara in the Chair]

Southern Africa Food Crisis

Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury): We are all glad that the Government have called this debate on a real, massive and terrible crisis that is being overshadowed by two other humanitarian crises nearer home-in Palestine and, of course, in Iraq.
In southern Africa today, 14.4 million people are at risk from starvation. They face a food deficit of 1 million tonnes until March 2003. There is indeed a crisis and, as
6 Feb 2003 : Column 147WH
the Minister said, it has been taken to a new level by the impact of HIV/AIDS. One in three adults in southern Africa are infected. The crisis needs immediate and long-term commitments. We recognise the achievements of the Secretary of State, her Minister and her Department, but many challenges are still not met and many questions remain unanswered.
As the Minister suggested, the grim spectre of AIDS is ever present and intertwined with so many of southern Africa's problems. Sustainable food production requires strong and healthy people to till the soil and to nurture the next generation. However, 60 per cent. of the population in the region are aged under 18. Those countries have the highest HIV infection rates in the world-it is over 40 per cent. according to Save the Children. The infection rate of young women from the age of 15 is usually four to five times higher than that of young men of the same age, which highlights gender and economic inequalities. More children become heads of households, but they lose family rights to property and land, they have less access to social services and they become more marginalised. If they migrate to find food or work, they are more open to health hazards and they have less education, which reduces the human capital producing food. It is our duty and it is in our interest to help these countries break their downward spiral.
When talking water, we British must snap out of our obsession with having too much of it. We are so lucky. Somewhere, a child dies every 15 seconds from waterborne diseases. The World Health Organisation and UNICEF say that worldwide 1 billion people lack access to safe drinking water and 2.4 billion people are lacking basic sanitation facilities. That means that in Africa one third of the population lack water or sanitation facilities. Dirty water and poor sanitation compound the effects of the lack of food and of AIDS. Weakened HIV/AIDS victims are more likely to die from infections, such as cholera or malaria. In southern Africa, the short-term health of 14.4 million people depends not only on food, but the supply of clean water and the provision of sanitation; currently, they have neither.
In March 2000, the Secretary of State announced that the Department for International Development's financial assistance for water and sanitation would be doubled. That undertaking has barely been met. The current expenditure plan suggests that water and sanitation budgets, particularly in Africa, will continue to fall from their peak in 1999-2000. In this, the international year of fresh water, DFID's water expenditure is significantly less than that of some other donors, such as Germany and Japan and there are, according to the National Audit Office report published last Friday, few substantive country water programmes. That NAO report highlighted the need for DFID to focus the investment of official development assistance on sustainable solutions. Water Aid argues that if investments in water and sanitation are to have a lasting and sustainable impact on the lives of poor people, a significant share of DFID funding should be spent on training local people to administer, deliver and maintain water and drainage systems and on training the trainers. The lack of human capital in such countries is one of their greatest handicaps. Does the Minister agree with WaterAid's analysis?
6 Feb 2003 : Column 148WH
We cannot avoid coherent discussions on genetically modified food aid, nationally and internationally, nor should we wish to. The United States of America supplies more than 50 per cent. of all food aid and DFID, in its memorandum to the Select Committee of 7 October 2002, said that that US food aid contains genetically modified material and with drought predicted in America that major source of supply may literally dry up and other sources will have to be found. Non-governmental organisations, such as Christian Aid, suggest that the US should replace its food aid with cash, which they could use to try to buy GM-free food.
We respect the fact that the decision whether to accept GM food lies with individual Governments, but we must have a clear and informed debate. In terms of feeding people in a crisis such as the one that we face in southern Africa and being challenged by long-term population growth, GM technology provides a wealth of opportunities. Dr. Ray Mathias, at a Scientific Alliance conference last month, said that GM crops could be resistant to pests, disease and environmental stress, including drought, and that they produce higher yields more safely without the need for agrochemicals; he added that they could also lead to novel, easy-to-administer medicines, such as vaccines. For example, 80 hectares of greenhouse could provide enough hepatitis B vaccine for the whole of south-east Asia every year.
For those who will not accept GM, there are problems. Over the years, GM food aid has not just been eaten; it has also been planted. It is now estimated that a significant proportion of food sourced in Africa contains GM-as much as 80 per cent. in South Africa, according to the World Food Programme. Where do we get enough GM-free food from? If countries refuse GM food, do they surrender the "right to food"? When they refuse GM food, what provisions are in place to ensure its swift re-allocation? In Zambia, World Food Programme food aid was shipped in but the Government refused it and would not let it out again without export licences, which took a long time to get.
Genetic modification affects everyone in the food pipeline. It is not the only answer to the problem of feeding the world, but it is a very important one. No nation should reject GM food solely on the grounds of ignorance or prejudice; no nation can afford to do that. If we could focus our energies on determining our vision for the environment, agriculture and food supply across the world, we could get both sides of the GM debate together and find a viable solution. I hope that the Minister and the British Government share my view on that.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud): I apologise for arriving late and missing the Minister's introductory remarks.
Countries reject GM food for two reasons. They might have a principled objection to it. They might also have a strategic view: if GM crops are planted or if GM gets into the environment by mistake, they will be blacklisted if and when they want to supply food to other parts of the world that have a GM-free policy. That is why Africa is in a double bind.
Mr. Key : The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. His comments highlight one part of the hypocrisy of those
6 Feb 2003 : Column 149WH
who are arguing against GM; they argue as though it was not there, but it is-and that is the problem that we have to manage.
Mr. Tony Colman (Putney): Zambia was offered GM-milled maize, which would have had no impact because it cannot germinate. Therefore, it could not have affected future Zambian exports.
Mr. Key : The hon. Gentleman is right, but I am also fairly sure that I am right in saying that Zambia refused oil or soya or anything else that may have come from GM crops. As the hon. Gentleman said, that is totally illogical. That is why we must have a proper debate about this all around the world, which leads me to my next question: what are the Minister and the Government doing to promote the GM debate in developing countries? Even in our country we are strapped for cash with regard to trying to have a GM debate: our Government are allowing £250,000-although that figure has now gone up to nearer £500,000-but the New Zealand Government spent over £2 million on a GM debate. I hope that the Minister will consider that one of her responsibilities is to promote the GM debate in developing countries.
The large-scale provision of free food aid in southern Africa is imperative to address the immediate crisis. What plans have been set up-not only in individual countries, but across the entire region-to manage the effect on prices that this free food will have come harvest time? There has already been a threefold increase in the price of food in some southern African countries, but elsewhere large quantities of imported grain lead to prices in local markets dropping through the floor-or, which is worse, grain is left to rot because there is no need to buy it.
People might also get used to food aid if it is offered to them year after year, with the attendant risk that a dependency culture develops. If food aid is abandoned in favour of cash aid, imports bought from grain-surplus countries such as Tanzania or South Africa cause prices to rise sharply back home, with consequences for the population of the exporting country; that is the case even if the imports are from genetically modified plants.
If we are to work towards long-term solutions, we must provide sustained and strategic support for rural livelihoods, rather than exacerbate the problem by undermining local farmers and their markets: nor can we afford a repeat of the Malawi grain stores fiasco, when the International Monetary Fund advised the Malawi Government to sell most of their grain reserves when the country was facing major harvest failures. The IMF has never been held to account for that. I know that the Secretary of State has said that the Malawi Government accepted the advice and took the decision, but we should question the quality of that advice, and recognise the enormous pressure on African Governments to do what they are told by the IMF.
Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie): The International Development Committee went to Malawi and asked that question. The International Monetary Fund firmly denies ever giving such advice. In fact, all
6 Feb 2003 : Column 150WH
the evidence that we received suggests that the decision was taken by people who administer the grain store and was not the responsibility of the IMF.
Mr. Key : I am relieved to hear that, but how did the story get about in the first place, given that an awful lot of people believe it? I hope that this debate will provide an opportunity for people to take a more rational approach and refer back to the evidence put by the hon. Gentleman. That is the benefit of these debates. There is much merit, as the Minister suggested, in a food programme with food stores owned by the Southern African Development Community. Christian Aid says that that would cost less to run and be less prone to corruption.
When poverty reduction strategy programmes were introduced, we all had high hopes for them. Sadly, opinion seems to be growing that they are falling well short of expectations. The world development movement, Christian Aid, Jubilee Research and Water Aid have all been critical of them. There is a consensus that food security and rural livelihood should get greater emphasis in PRSPs.
Following the IMF involvement, it has now been alleged-I look to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) to correct me-that the IMF is withholding debt relief to Zambia, where nearly 3 million people are at risk of starvation, until their Government privatise their national commercial bank. Is that true? Once again, many people believe that it is. It would be a strange way for the international community to address the food crisis in southern Africa, much as I would like the bank to be privatised.
In Zimbabwe, 7.2 million people are at risk from starvation. Half of all the people in southern Africa who may die of famine have the misfortune to exist-I can hardly say live-under the regime of President Mugabe. The country that was once the bread-basket of the region is now facing disaster. Political instability, the terror associated with land reform policies, economic incompetence, corruption and indifference to the problem of HIV/AIDS can all be laid at the door of Mugabe's Government.
In Zimbabwe alone, there are about 3,000 AIDS-related deaths a week and a horrendous 35 per cent. of adults there have AIDS. Prostitution is increasing as food security is decreasing, thus exacerbating the AIDS epidemic. Food is being distributed via schools, and thank goodness for DFID's aid programme for the children of Zimbabwe. When children are removed from education as their families struggle with AIDS and famine, how do we ensure free and fair food distribution? We cannot.
In answers to written questions, the Secretary of State has told us that the Department has not had discussions with representatives of the Government of South Africa or the Opposition parties in Zimbabwe about the serious effects of the political situation in Zimbabwe on the national and regional food crisis. Perhaps the Secretary of State will rely on President Chirac of France to have a word in President Mugabe's ear at the Franco-African summit in Paris the week after next. Yes, he will be there. Yesterday, EU Ministers were unable to agree on renewing the sanctions against Zimbabwe, which is disgraceful and shameful.
6 Feb 2003 : Column 151WH
As the Zimbabwe Opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, said on 23 January:

"Any avenue granted to Mugabe to attend international meetings at which he is treated as a statesman and an equal is an affront to the people of Zimbabwe. It amounts to a recognition and support of Mugabe's gruesome record at home."

To be fair to the Secretary of State, she told the International Development Committee on the same day that she found it "unimaginable" that the French could consider inviting Mugabe to Paris. She said:

"I can only think that in Paris they are not following what's going on. People have got it into their heads that this is just Britain and Mugabe in conflict over white farmers. They are not attending to the reality and the suffering of the people."

We agree, but once again, the Secretary of State has lost the argument and the Government have lost the argument in Europe.
Today, we have focused on southern Africa, but we do not forget the crises, problems and challenges of the rest of the continent. The Sudan peace agreement signed earlier this week gives real hope. The Bishop of Salisbury is in southern Sudan this week, reinforcing the solidarity of our diocese with the Christian communities there. Ethiopia is teetering on the edge of famine. There is dangerous instability in the Maghreb. West and central Africa continue to give cause for real concern.
Mr. Drew : The hon. Gentleman mentioned Sudan, but I should like to talk about Ethiopia. I went on an Inter-Parliamentary Union trip to Ethiopia before Christmas, and one of the sad things was that because of the crisis in southern Africa's food security, donor countries had been reducing food supplies to Ethiopia, which seems scandalous. However, that is the nature of the way that donor countries work. They sometimes deal with what they think of as the most immediate problem, and forget that they cause other problems as a consequence. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is unacceptable.
Mr. Key : That is precisely why I put that in my speech-so that we do not forget those countries. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right about Ethiopia. One of the great ironies about that country is that although it is suffering from famine, the Nile flows through it. The problem is more a question of failure to manage water. In Sudan, too, food has been a problem from time to time.
In spite of all the distractions, great and small, that grab our attention in Britain, Africa is never far from our hearts and minds, and we are engaged. In most countries in southern Africa, there is not only hope, but real progress. I have seen it myself in Mozambique and in Zambia. Only in Zimbabwe have I seen a sharp decline. We are willing the people of Africa to win, and we must continue to will them the means to win.