Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-94)
DR MARK
AVERY AND
MS JOANNA
PHILLIPS
30 MARCH 2006
Q80 Mr Caton: One possibly positive initiative
that you mention in your memo is a meeting held on 23 March on
environmental management and country-led development planning.
Was that useful, and what is going to come out of it?
Ms Phillips: Yes, it was very
useful; it was a very open and frank discussion. It was under
Chatham House rules. There will be a report with key recommendations.
What I can give you are some of my reflections of the discussions.
It was definitely recognised that this is a big problem and it
is shared by many donors, including DFID, and there are no easy
answers. I think there was a general feeling that environment
is not being well mainstreamed, that there is a need for sound
information to challenge the status quo and to manage challenges
but also to find opportunities. A lot of it is about finding the
relevant information that is particularly relevant to those that
are steering the strategic decision-making processes, so making
it relevant to head economists, for example, and getting the incentives
right, getting the arguments right. Also learning lessons from
good practice but recognising that there is not `one size fits
all' so looking for useful entry points, like climate change,
governance, vulnerability, actually to show the relevance, and
working with governments. As I mentioned before, there really
are country-led demands, so it is about ensuring that the environment
ministries or departments have a voice, have a seat at the table,
and recognising that donors can have a key role in convening and
in requesting and supporting those ministries to have the right
information, to have that seat at the table. Many of the other
points I have mentioned before, but they came out again, that
often it depends on the interest of the country programme office
head, so trying to ensure that they are well educated and versed
about the environmental links is important and ensuring that there
are environmental advisers and there is environmental adviser
capacity within the donor community. That does not mean necessarily
that every donor needs to have that, but within a system of donor
harmonisation there needs to be a lead donor, there needs to be
somebody who is taking responsibility for ensuring that the environment
message is being heard and listened to. That does not mean a technical
expert necessarily but it means somebody who can understand the
cross-cutting nature of environment issues and the relationship
it has to other sectors or other policies, and staff shortages
are increasing the risk of environment not being addressed. Really,
overall, the environmental capacity has got to be seen as a core
capacity of governments to manage public assets and donors really
do need to help champion that cause and share learning from our
experiences. It can be incredibly costly to get it wrong, and
that is one of the perversities of GDP. It can show as a GDP increase,
where you are patching up mistakes and problems, but some of those
problems now are irreversible, when it comes to biodiversity loss
extinction and the impact on ecosystem services, and of course
climate change. We cannot afford to make those mistakes, from
a position of global responsibility, as well as supporting national
governments really to address the interests that are important
to the poor.
Q81 Mr Caton: Thank you. We look forward
to seeing that report. You acknowledged also in your memo that
most of DFID's focus is still on project funding; you highlight
the fact that funding goes mainly to large projects managed by
consultancies. Can you give us examples of these projects, and
you imply that there is a problem with this approach; can you
describe what that is?
Ms Phillips: Rather than give
specific examples, maybe it is useful for me to highlight DFID's
recent project completion synthesis report which analyses their
projects and programmes from 2002 to 2005. There, it shows that
the number of projects which have focused on the environment has
fallen from 12% to 4% and that there is an absence of comment
on the environment as a key cross-cutting issue. One of the problems
it is difficult to talk about how the environment is addressed
in specific, big projects and programmes is that we have not seen
DFID's review of its environmental screening process, which we
are eagerly awaiting; it would be really useful to see that. One
example of major DFID support that we were concerned with and
unhappy with, as an example, was the Nam Theun 2 dam in Laos,
where we felt the environmental impact assessment and social impact
assessment of that clearly showed that there were serious environmental
and social issues linked to it. Really it was focusing on short-term
economic gain, which we felt was largely unsustainable and have
concerns that DFID are supporting issues like that. In terms of
working on big projects with large consultancies, which is a symptom
of an increasing budget and having to work effectively to use
large pots of money, we have several concerns linked to that.
One is the loss of institutional memory and there is a real difficulty
ensuring that lessons learned from experience are maintained within
DFID as a knowledge base and are taken from the field into policy.
Large consultancy projects quite often produce a report at the
end of the day, which sits on a shelf and then everything which
has gone into that is lost. Also it means that DFID's direct contact
with the poor is decreasing, so they are less able to respond
to their key constituency. A lot of DFID's reviews, including
the PCR report, highlight that strong personal relationships are
crucial. DFID puts a lot of focus on capacity-building and on
support, and having ongoing relationships is vital to that.
Q82 Mr Caton: Is it the large-scale consultants
that you would like to, if not be taken completely out of the
picture, have less of a role, or is it that you would like to
see smaller, more focused projects?
Dr Avery: I think the former and
I think we would like to see large projects, and we could give
you an example of one large project which the RSPB has been involved
in, it might sound like a slightly self-serving example but I
think it does illustrate some of the points that we have been
trying to make. We have been involved in a project in Sierra Leone
where the President of Sierra Leone stated that, and I am quoting
here: "Our efforts to defeat poverty would be in vain if
environmental degradation and natural resource depletion continue
unabated." He mentioned that recently RSPB reached an agreement
with the local communities and the Government to buy the logging
concessions of the Gola forest—the Gola forest is a very
important rainforest in Sierra Leone—so that the forest
would remain in perpetuity. A trust fund is being set up for this
purpose and the proceeds to be used to pay for the concession
and for the development of the human communities surrounding the
Gola forest. The President said: "For Sierra Leone this is
a unique and welcome development which helped us to conserve our
forest. While we extend gratitude to the RSPB, I would like to
appeal to the international community to support the project as
well as environmental protection for other areas." We are
not giving that example to show that the RSPB is involved in this,
but DFID do not have a funding stream to which we can go to say
"Would you like to be involved in this project?" and
we cannot find a funding stream easily available anywhere else
in the UK Government to support that type of project, which protects
biodiversity and is clearly, in the words of the President of
Sierra Leone, helping local communities as well. That type of
project is a big project but that appears to be off DFID's agenda.
As I say, it sounds slightly self-serving but I think it is an
example of the type of big project which we would like to see
DFID helping people to undertake.
Ms Phillips: I think it is the
shift between projects like that, which are still necessary to
major programmes, which perhaps are struggling to ensure you have
got that sound partnership, stakeholder engagement which actually
reaches down to the local level and has ongoing benefit and has
left a really strong legacy behind, in terms of building skills
and capacity.
Q83 Mr Caton: You have been very complimentary,
as indeed have others in evidence they have submitted, to DFID's
past work on sustainable development and environment in particular.
What has gone wrong; is it simply that they have halved the number
of environmental specialists, is it a change in culture, what
is the difference now?
Ms Phillips: DFID has had a very
strong environment and sustainable development focus that can
be applauded, and still does have a strong environment and sustainable
development team and has just published a very good environment
approach position paper. I think, within DFID, the environment
and sustainable development team has lost focus. I think that
has come about partly through the shift to direct budget support,
although DFID, I think I can say more confidently now, is recognising
that shift has strengthened the role of economists potentially
at the expense of environment advisers and the sustainable development
agenda and there is a need to redress that balance. I think that
the move to direct budget support was possibly a knee-jerk reaction
to the problems of previous aid modalities linked to project funding,
etc., which do have shortcomings, but we need to ensure that the
problems with that are addressed now and looked at and that DFID's
voice and capacity on environmental issues are not eroded further.
Q84 Mr Caton: You think that DFID have
recognised that they have got out of kilter, to some extent, between
economics and environment. Having recognised that, is there any
evidence that they are trying to do something about it?
Ms Phillips: Not yet.
Dr Avery: No. I think our worry
is that the economists have won and that they are macroeconomists
and their focus is on increasing GDP and the short-term fix for
poverty, rather than the long-term sustainable fix, and that would
be our worry.
Chairman: We are going to explore this
a bit further, I think.
Q85 David Howarth: There is another aspect
of this, going back to the specifics of how DFID is staffed, and
this mystery that you have raised and we are concerned about,
can I raise with you the particular mystery of the Chief Environmental
Adviser post, which seemed to appear, to last six months and then
disappear. I am just wondering whether you can summarise for us
what you think happened and why it happened?
Ms Phillips: The what and why
it happened. DFID had in post a very good and very strong Chief
Environmental Adviser, who I think was very challenging to the
status quo that had evolved within the organisation. I think it
is a real shame that post was lost. I think it is vitally important
that a senior management role is focused on the environment agenda
as a core aspect of sustainable development. I think, without
that strong, technically competent and dedicated internal ambassador
who can sit at the senior decision-making table then the issues
will be hard to keep on the table, on the agenda, and I think
that, potentially, DFID's environmental approach paper could be
really challenging to deliver.
Dr Avery: We do not really know
why it happened but the signal that it sends is most unfortunate,
it is unfortunate within DFID, the signal that it sends, it is
unfortunate to external stakeholders, to other governments and
international institutions. It is probably more appropriate for
you to ask DFID why it happened, but we and I think generally
the NGO community see it as a very retrograde step and we can
only see it as downgrading the environment in DFID's thinking.
If it was not supposed to do that then maybe DFID could explain
to you why we got that wrong.
Q86 David Howarth: You would be very
sceptical of any claims that it was just a reorganisation on efficiency
grounds; you see this as a way of excluding environmental concerns
from key decision-making opportunities?
Dr Avery: As I said, we cannot
say what the motives were but the effects are that it does marginalise
the environment and that cannot be something that we would see
as good. I would hope that it is something that DFID does not
see as good, but that is a question for them.
Q87 David Howarth: DFID now is trying
to put in place a different sort of post, Head of Profession Environment.
That post was created in April of last year but it has not been
filled, it is still vacant. One thing for us to get clear is how
that post is different from the Chief Environmental Adviser, what
kind of level of decision-making, what task does that post have,
compared with the Chief Environmental Adviser?
Ms Phillips: From my understanding,
it sits at a different level of hierarchy and influence within
the organisation. It is within the Policy Division and in theory
has a cross-cutting role across the Policy Division, but, as Mark
has said, we felt very strongly that there was a need to have
a more senior, higher-level influence sitting side by side with
the Chief Economist and with the Chief Scientist. The Chief Scientist
position was a very welcome addition, but to ensure sustainable
development we feel having that Chief Environmental post is absolutely
vital, and that needs to work not only across policy but also
across the regional offices and divisions as well.
Dr Avery: The fact that post is
not filled may say something about how potential applicants see
its clout within the organisation, presumably.
Q88 David Howarth: Precisely. It is this
lack of access, you would agree, would you not, that is part of
the problem about filling this; most people do not feel it is
senior enough? The other part of the question is, Head of Profession,
there are not that many environmental professionals in DFID in
the first place, we are talking about 18 out of nearly 3,000.
Is there any need for that sort of, I suppose, bluntly, bureaucratic
post?
Ms Phillips: I think our feeling
is very much that you need to have a technically competent individual
in post to be able to make the appropriate environmental links,
and a bureaucratic position probably is not the most effective
use of resources.
Q89 David Howarth: Obviously, you would
prefer the Chief Environmental Adviser post to come back?
Ms Phillips: Yes.
Q90 David Howarth: Perhaps connected
with that is another problem we perceive, which is the gap between
ministers' rhetoric on the environment, which is often very good,
and what DFID does, the events on the ground. We are trying to
explore how this comes about, why it is. I wonder if you have
any thoughts about why there is this gap between the very good
things that ministers say and then this rather different way in
which DFID behaves?
Dr Avery: It is quite difficult
to answer that, I think. We have said already that we think the
economists have won with DFID; that is how it feels to us. I would
not doubt the good intentions of the Secretary of State, but we
do feel that somehow this is not joined up within DFID any more,
as much as it used to be, and that may be where we are worrying
too much, but I think this is something that we and your Committee
ought to look at for the future. That is a question for DFID really,
that if they are treating the environment seriously and if they
are going to live up to the very fine words, and I mean that,
and good words from the Secretary of State in many speeches, do
they have the systems and the staff in place really to deliver.
Nobody would say that tying sustainable development thinking and
the environment into poverty alleviation is easy, it requires
a lot of effort and it requires more than just fine words, it
requires the right staff and the right processes within the Department
to do it. Our worry at the moment is that, going forward over
the next few years, which are crucial for biodiversity and people
in the world, DFID is not perfectly set up to deal with those
challenges.
Q91 David Howarth: This victory of the
economists, do you see that as having happened centrally or at
country level, or regional level, or both?
Dr Avery: As we have said, it
is quite noticeable that the management board of DFID has on it
several people with World Bank, IMF, Treasury backgrounds. Clearly
the senior managers' board of a department has a lot of influence
and seems to be feeding through, through some of the speeches
made by DFID ministers which focus on GDP growth, we would say,
to the exclusion of a rounded approach to sustainable development.
Q92 David Howarth: One of the things
which have been put to us is that obviously there are conflicting
priorities, there is environment, economic growth, and we can
talk about other matters, they can be reconciled with effort but,
in reality, that is not what happens. You talked about this being
difficult to do; so is it a question simply of the line of least
resistance, that what officials do is take the easiest line to
follow, and that does not include this difficult work?
Dr Avery: I think we touched on
this probably in an earlier answer, before you joined us, but
I think it is because a truly sustainable way forward is difficult
and has to be long term, whereas the economic approach, increasing
GDP, can be seen as a quick fix but it is not a quick, sustainable
fix to the problems of poverty around the world.
Q93 David Howarth: DFID's budget is rising
but the environmental influence on the way that budget is spent,
from what you are saying, appears to be falling, which means that,
in environmental terms, the budget increases might even be detrimental,
environmentally. How would you sum up what you think DFID should
do, to make sure that does not happen?
Ms Phillips: I think it is vital
that DFID updates and reviews its environmental guide, that it
gets environmental screening processes functioning properly; at
the moment, we have heard that they are seen very much as a chore,
they are not necessarily addressed on time or coherently. I think
partly they are seen as an add-on rather than as providing valuable
opportunities to meeting Development Goals effectively. I think,
in DFID's drive to deliver effective aid, environment has to be
seen, environmental sustainability has to be seen, as a core component
of that. We need to ensure that we have got the performance targets,
the training, the capacity in place to embed the knowledge and
understanding within all of DFID's core staff and ensure that
the environment advisers have the time, the resources and the
capacity to be at the table when important decisions are being
made.
Dr Avery: I suppose one way of
doing that would be to give much greater prominence to Millennium
Development Goal seven in DFID's work and make sure that is seen
as being the basis for DFID's work in helping countries to meet
the other Millennium Development Goals. If that were the case,
I think DFID would have to reverse the haemorrhaging of environmental
staff within the Department.
Q94 Chairman: Thank you very much for
those comprehensive answers and no doubt they will be very useful
to our Committee.
Dr Avery: Thank you for the opportunity.
Chairman: Thank you.
|
