House of Commons - Environmental Audit

Select Committee on Environmental Audit Minutes of Evidence

Memorandum submitted by the Environment Agency

1. SUMMARY

The Environment Agency welcomes this opportunity to provide evidence on some of the issues surrounding trade, environment, development and the role of the Department for International Development (DFID). We argue that the time is right for a strong political commitment to development which more adequately responds to environmental and resource pressures—especially climate change. We argue that environmental factors, especially those associated with climate change, water resources and pollution, should receive greater emphasis in the development agenda and spending, not least for poverty, welfare and health reasons.

A new development white paper this year combined with a £5 billion per year increase in the development budget by 2013 creates the opportunity to support substantial additional investments in infrastructure and institutional capacity for environmental and resource management, without compromising socially-focussed programmes in health and education. The UK Sustainable Development Strategy envisaged a role for the Environment Agency in delivering international sustainable development commitments and we would welcome a stronger partnership with DFID, DEFRA and the FCO to achieve these important aims.

We organise our response in the following way in order to highlight the compelling arguments for environment and development and set the context for our responses to the questions.

— Key points

— Environment and Development Context

— The Environment Agency role

— Answers to Questions

— Appendix: Environment Agency International Programme

2. KEY POINTS

2.1 Environmental factors are a critical determinant of development outcomes for most of the world's poorest. Nearly half of the world's six-billion people live on less than $2 per day. Three-quarters of those poor people live in rural areas. These rural households depend overwhelmingly on natural resources for their income and wellbeing[1]. The poorest describe their poverty in terms of access to water, food and fuel, rather than their income[2]. The poorest are most at risk from extreme events and natural disasters, depleting water resources, changing temperatures and the resulting impacts on food security and availability of fuel. Environmental pressures are often compounded with unsustainable human pressures and can become a source of conflict. Global climate change adds a further and severe level of instability and challenge. DFID stresses the primacy of poverty reduction in addressing environmental risks:

2.2 There is a substantial need for investment in addressing the environmental dimensions of poverty. The case for linking environmental protection and resource management to poverty reduction is very compelling—we expand on this in section 3. The challenge is to incorporate this imperative into mainstream activities and to ensure an appropriate share of development resources is directed towards environmental and resource management expenditures. Leading international agencies[4] give the following headline estimate.

Estimating a global budget for investments in environmental assets needed to reach poverty reduction targets is subject to considerable uncertainty; however, the best available evidence suggests that US$60-90 billion per year will be needed to address poverty-environment goals over the next 10-15 years, and at least US$80 billion more per year will be needed to tackle global climate change over the next half century.

These are huge sums, and a key challenge is to ensure they are spent well, through strong institutions and evidence-based practices. This would mean a more programmatic focus through DFID's bilateral investment—so that country offices and Country Action Programmes (CAPs) would be operating within an overarching framework. It could also mean imaginative use of the growing development budget to leverage much greater investment through multi-lateral institutions, including development banks and the EU. This could be done, for example, by creating concessionary finance instruments that could be blended with lending.

2.3 Progress on climate change adaptation in developing countries may have wider benefits. Both the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (Articles 4.1 and 4.4) and its Kyoto Protocol (Article 10(b)) contain provisions in relation to adaptation to climate change, including co-operation and assistance for developing countries. It is likely that further progress on reducing emissions will ultimately rely on all parties believing the agreement is fair and commitments honoured. Though the development imperative would be paramount, there would be important advantages to the UK's wider interests.

2.4 There are imminent opportunities for a new approach. There are important opportunities ahead to strengthen the approach to the environment and poverty nexus. DFID is likely to receive considerable additional funding over the next few years and a white paper is expected later this year. These two developments could determine new priorities and structures, and direct more resources to this area without reducing the commitment to health and education.

2.5 UK development spending will double over the next seven years. The government has made a major commitment to the expansion of development spending. Between 1997 and 2013, UK overseas development assistance (ODA) will increase from 0.26% to 0.7% of national income[5], amounting to a four-fold real increase from £2.5 billion to £10.5 billion[6]. Much of the increase is still to come: by 2005-06, ODA expenditure had reached £4.8 billion (0.39% GNI), meaning that in the next seven years the aid budget will more than double in real terms, increasing by over £5 billion per year by 2013.

2.6 The new development white paper offers the opportunity to mainstream the management of environmental risks. It will be a major challenge to achieve the magnitude of "scaling up" implied in the budget expansion, cost-effectively. DFID plans a new development white paper for 2006 and this will set important directions for the development agenda, including addressing the challenges of natural resource depletion and climate change[7]. The White Paper offers an important opportunity to mainstream sustainable development and environmental risk management in the Department's approach to meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). It should not be compartmentalised into MDG-7, but part of the mainstream effort to achieve the poverty objectives of MDG-1 and the health-related MDGs. A further important challenge is to engage with the emerging powerful middle income countries—the BRICS—to attempt to address their impacts on the environment of poorer countries, for example through natural resource exploitation or water abstraction from international rivers.

2.7 Environmental and resource management is now rising up the development agenda, but it has yet to be mainstreamed. DFID has recognised the important link between environmental management and development outcomes in recent publications3, [8],[9]. Though there are many worthwhile initiatives[10] the overall picture remains of an ad hoc approach until now, though with important statements of commitment to future action[11]. There are several possible reasons why "environment" has not been mainstreamed to date:

— To meet the challenge the poverty-environment nexus and respond the major system threats, such as climate change, DFID will need to be well resourced with a cadre of professional environmental and resource management advisers in the field. There is some evidence that this function has been declining in recent years. It is likely that a stronger professional advisory function would have enabled DFID to engage more substantially with these challenges.

— The Head Office staff capacity to address water and environmental issues is now quite small given the scale of the challenges and small compared to resources deployed on other aspects of policy. There is a danger of attempting to scale up investment or developing new approaches with insufficient in-house capacity.

— The locus of responsibility for determining priorities has progressively shifted to DFID's country offices, again for good reasons but again with risks. The danger is that large "system" issues like water stress and climate change are less visible when considered from a country office. There may be a case to rebalance country-level autonomy and a programmatic approach from head office.

2.8 As part of the efforts to scale up the environmental agenda, DFID should invest in new human resources. There is a danger that without relatively small expenditures on people, the very large opportunities associated with the expansion of development resources will be lost or the funds used in a way that does not maximise return to the MDGs and long term poverty objectives.

2.9 The Environment Agency could become a more strategic partner in international development. The Environment Agency plays a leading role in managing water and natural resources, pollution prevention and implementing practical sustainable development measures for England and Wales. Though we have a small international programme (see Appendix), there could be scope to expand this, drawing on and developing expertise within the Environment Agency. The Government's UK Sustainable Development Strategy recognised that the full range of the resources of Government may be needed to address the challenge of sustainable development[13].

Where appropriate in international delivery work, Government Departments will draw on the expertise of other public bodies. For example the Environment Agency is providing technical advice and practical support on matters such as water management, environmental governance, regulation and enforcement.

3. ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT

3.1 This section is included to give some context to our responses to the questions asked by the Sub-Committee and to help make our argument that environmental protection and development are integrally linked. It is not intended to be a complete discussion of the subject.

3.2 It is important to stress that environmental protection and resources management should not be seen as distinct from the development agenda—they are integral to it. The poorest people are most likely to depend heavily on their surrounding environment and to be most at risk from it.

As the Africa Commission put it[14]:

Overall, Africa's vulnerability to climate change is high and its capacity to adapt is low. Economic growth, poverty reduction and the achievement of the MDGs in Africa are jeopardised. More needs to be done to enable Africa to manage climate-related risks and to build resilience to these risks.

3.3 Agriculture and food security

Crops and livestock can be destroyed by extreme events, such as heat waves, drought or heavy rainfall, and irrigation systems can fail if rainfall patterns change. Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for 70% of the region's employment and 35% of its gross national product (GNP).[15] A key development challenge is to manage the vulnerability of the poorest to environmental hazards and changes in the environment. For example, building greater resilience and adaptability in local markets for food would reduce impacts of extreme events, but longer term, a different approach to agriculture, irrigation and environmental management may be required.

3.4 Water resources and excessive abstraction

Water resources could become a limiting factor in development. Many water resources are not managed sustainably. Excessive depletion threatens those that depend on them, a situation likely to be aggravated by climate change. The availability of cheap pumps and electricity has led to a massive increase in water abstraction. One estimate suggests that 250 km3 of water is abstracted for irrigation in India each year, but less than 150 km3 is replenished by rainwater[16]. The World Bank has found falling water tables throughout China[17] and overuse of water resources is widespread in the developing world, with one assessment estimating that water supply is tightening in countries accounting for half the world's population[18].

This has been reflected in international obligations:

"By 2015, reduce by half the proportion of people without access to safe drinking water measured by the proportion of population with sustainable access to an improved water source"

"Halve by 2015 the proportion of people without access to basic sanitation"

"All countries to develop integrated water resource management and water efficiency plans by 2005, with support to developing countries"

3.5 A recent WHO report puts monetary values on some of the benefits of water and sanitation improvements. This shows that the benefits are large—in the order of US$44 billion in Africa if everyone had basic access to water supply and sanitation and US$22 billion if the MDGs for water and sanitation were met. Although the costs of interventions are difficult to quantify, WHO analysis found investments in water and sanitation have a high rate of return, with a benefit to cost ratio of over 10 in Africa[19]. The management and regulation of water abstraction, including demand-side water efficiency, is an urgent priority. However, it is unusual to find water management having a substantial place in DFID Country Assistance Plans.

3.6 Glaciers as water infrastructure

Much of the world relies on glaciers as natural reservoirs, storing water and balancing winter and summer precipitation. Every major river in Asia, where half the world's people live, originates in the glaciers of the Himalayas, including the Indus, the Ganges, the Mekong, the Yangtze, and the Yellow river. If warmer temperatures increase rainfall and reduce snowfall in the Himalayas, there will be more flooding during the rainy season and less snowmelt to feed rivers during the dry season[20]. According to the World Glacier Monitoring Service, the shrinkage of glaciers is well underway[21]:

The spectacular losses in length, area and volume of mountain glaciers during the 20th century are a major reflection of the fact that rapid secular change in the energy balance of the earth's surface is taking place on a global scale.

3.7 The planning of water infrastructure, including improved end-use efficiency, to compensate for declining glaciers or changes in the patterns of accumulation and release of water is an essential component of the response to climate change in developing countries. Glaciers also form a natural hazard—as greater melting can overwhelm the moraine dams holding back glacier lakes and cause highly destructive glacier lake outburst floods (GLOFs). Appropriate engineering and drainage, combined with warnings or in the most severe cases relocation of settlements, can mitigate the risks.

3.8 Flood risk

Increasing rainfall in some places, more severe downpours, increased glacier melt, combined with reduced natural buffering, forest loss and hardening of surfaces will increase flood risk. Sea level rise will create progressively greater hazards to low-lying coastal areas and deltas and will require a managed retreat in some places. A one-metre sea level rise (plausible for the present century) would inundate half the rice cultivation land in Bangladesh[22]. Some developing countries will need considerable investment in flood protection. By way of comparison, the UK has invested heavily in flood risk management—spending approximately £600 million per year in England (2005-06)[23]. The programme includes flood defences, land-use policy and warning and response systems.

3.9 Drought

Climate change may further complicate the challenge of managing water stress by changing long-run patterns of precipitation and causing droughts. Changes to the frequency and severity of El Niño and La Niña events are likely to worsen periodic severe episodes. Many developing countries are especially vulnerable because their water systems rarely have redundancy, and many are already over exploited. An Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change special report summarised the responses needed[24]:

Various approaches are available to reduce the potential vulnerability of water systems to climate change. Options include pricing systems, water efficiency initiatives, engineering and structural improvements to water supply infrastructure, agriculture policies and urban planning/management. At the national/regional level, priorities include placing greater emphasis on integrated, cross-sectoral water resources management, using river basins as resource management units, and encouraging sound pricing and management practices.

3.10 Disease and health

Three of the MDGs (4, 5, 6) relate to health objectives, and these may be compromised by environmental risks. United Nations bodies have highlighted the risks to health arising from climate change[25]:

— Temperature related illness and death.

— Extreme weather related health effects.

— Air pollution effects.

— Water and food borne diseases.

— Vector and rodent borne diseases will spread to higher latitudes and altitudes.

— Effects of food and water shortages.

— Mental, nutritional, infectious and other health effects.

For example, the 2003 heat wave in Europe is expected to be average by 2040 and unusually cool by 2060. Similar effects are likely to be seen around the globe, subjecting people, livestock and crops to great heat stress, and probably rendering some areas uninhabitable by humans.

The distribution of health impacts arising from climate change so far was set out in a WHO sponsored study, which showed the greatest burden falling on the poorest countries.

Figure 1: Temperature rise in Africa[26] and distribution of climate related mortality, showing highest impacts in Africa[27]

3.11 Forestry

Forest resources directly contribute to the livelihoods of 90% of the 1.2 billion people living in extreme poverty (for example fuelwood) and indirectly support the natural environment that is essential for agriculture and the food supplies of nearly half the population of the developing world[28]. Fifteen million people earn direct income from forest products in sub-Saharan Africa, but hundreds of millions obtain a significant share of their subsistence from forest products. More than 70% of the population of sub-saharan Africa is rural and depends upon forests and woodlands for its livelihood. Woodlands and forests supply approximately 60% of all energy (including industrial) used in Africa, as well as building materials and domestic energy for about 80% of Africans and the totality of the rural population[29]. Forests also provide important barrier to floods and landslides—deforestation has been responsible for many flood-related deaths.

3.12 Fisheries

As fisheries in the North have declined, fleets from the EU, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Russia, and China have turned to the developing country water, for example, buying licenses to fish off the west coast of Africa. For impoverished countries like Mauritania and Guinea-Bissau, income from fishing licenses can account for up to half of government revenue. However, the licences deprive local fishing fleets, exhaustion of these fisheries is likely and the revenue temporary and unsustainable[30]. A key development challenge is to manage these resources, and revenues, sustainably.

3.13 Conflict and natural resources

Conflict creates amongst the worst development outcomes. The Prime Minister's Strategy Unit identified natural resources and climate change as precursors to instability and conflict[31]. At a local level, conflicts over productive land—often aggravated by ethnic tensions—already exist in Nigeria, Sudan, Rwanda and Mali and many other stressed environments in Africa and beyond[32]. Disagreements over the allocation of water among countries that share river systems are likely to become a source of international political conflict. For example, agreements made in 1929 and 1959, to allocate Nile waters among Egypt, Sudan, Tanzania and Ethiopia are already disputed. Egypt is allocated 75% of the Nile waters at its border with Sudan[33]. All of the countries involved anticipate rapid population growth over the coming decades with increased demand for food, and hence irrigation, drinking water and other water services.

3.14 The Secretary of State for Defence recently highlighted the risks of military conflict arising from water resources and climate change[34]. The map of international rivers could gradually become a map of international conflict as population and consumption pressures increase. Though military interventions may be more likely, they do not solve the worsening imbalances between supply and demand and addressing the stress at source will be the essential investment in prevention of conflict.

3.15 The challenges set out in the paragraphs above are formidable and fundamental. But the approach to date falls far short of a sufficient response. An example might be the 2005 paper on "Climate Proofing Africa"[35], for which three main recommendations were made. Though important and necessary, these fell short of a proportionate and sufficient response:

For development planning to adapt and become "climate proofed", however, major improvements are needed in the following areas:

— Better monitoring and data interpretation capacity [. . .];

— Better scientific collaboration [. . .];

— Better integration of climate information and science into the development process [. . .].

4. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENT AGENCY ROLE

4.1 The Appendix sets out the Environment Agency's modest programme in international environmental protection. On environmental and development grounds, we argue that DFID should give greater emphasis to environmental protection and resource management than has hitherto been the case. Recent statements suggest this is a likely direction for the new white paper.

4.2 The Environment Agency is a potentially valuable partner and source of expertise to support the achievement of international targets. We are the leading regulator in Europe with several years experience tackling the practical environmental issues discussed above (eg pollution from agriculture, fisheries, integrated water resource management including implementing the Water Framework Directive, managing flooding, managing waste and regulating industry).

4.3 The Environment Agency could continue to add value by sharing our practical experience with fledgling environmental and water organisations to support institutional strengthening and developing regulatory capability. We have shared some of our knowledge of environmental management with DFID staff by running training days for environment and rural livelihood advisers, providing advice to policy group, supporting missions in different countries and recently embarking upon a major project in Kenya. We would like to continue to develop a more strategic basis for collaboration that aims to provide longer-term support to environmental capacity building in target countries.

5. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED BY THE SUB-COMMITTEE

1. How does DFID incorporate sustainability generally and environmental issues in particular into its work? Does the unique definition of sustainable development in the 2002 International Development Act have implications for the environment?

Though there have been commitments to sustainable development and addressing environmental issues, it is only recently that these ideas have begun to form into a mainstream strategy and only once the white paper is complete will the direction be clear.

The International Development Act (2002) defines "sustainable development" as: any development that is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, prudent having regard to the likelihood of its generating lasting benefits for the population of the country or countries in relation to which it is provided.

This definition conveys the essence of intergenerational stewardship in other definitions and should not be a barrier providing a proper interpretation of the concept is applied. Following publication of the government's Sustainable Development Strategy in 2005, DFID has produced its Sustainable Development Action Plan, in which it acknowledges the government's vision is: "to enable all people throughout the world to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life, without compromising the quality of life of future generations" and commits to "work with developing countries and other donors to help integrate principles of sustainable development in poverty reduction strategies".[36]

2. As a department that is focused on a long term goal, poverty reduction, is sufficient account taken of environmental limits—and the need for development to respect these—when implementing policy?

In many cases, environmental limits are already substantially breached and development unsustainable. The challenge for DFID and development is to bring development back within environmental limits, not least to support and sustain poverty reduction.

The institutions responsible for regulating the environment in developing countries are often very weak and lack enforcement capability. We have found that there is a strong need to build capacity within these fledgling environmental policy and regulatory organisations to enable them to better implement environmental legislation. We are currently working with DFID in Kenya and have worked on a disaster management project in Bangladesh, sharing our expertise to support the development of these institutions.[37]

3. Is there recognition within DFID of the long term impacts aid spending can have on natural resources, including biodiversity, and climate change? is spending directed accordingly?

Much of DFID's bilateral funding is now direct budget support and money is allocated to government treasuries according to what has been identified in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs). DFID staff may work with developing country governments to support the drawing up of the PRSPs. If sufficient attention has been paid to environmental and water sustainability then spending will be allocated accordingly. When there is an absence of water and environmental issues, which is often the case, DFID seems less able to direct funding towards them. Funding priorities are generally established at country level, and it is also possible that large-scale system changes, like climate change, will be overlooked unless there is a strong current of advice, analysis, policy and programmes from the centre.

We welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for International Development sees water as a high priority and in March 2005 doubled funding for water in Africa over the next three years, but the emphasis seems to be more on water and sanitation.[38] It was very clear at the recent DFID Water Forum that less attention so far has been given to sustainable planning and management of water resources.[39]

In addition good governance and building capacity of fledgling democratic institutions is emerging as a key priority in all target countries but it is unclear how this will be funded in the future. There are also concerns about how the UK skill base is being deployed to support capacity-building initiatives, particularly with the change in DFID's funding strategy, ie a reduced workforce to co-ordinate larger aid budgets.

4. Is there sufficient level of expertise within DFID and Country Offices on environmental issues?

This capacity has diminished and does not match the scale of the challenges set out above. In some countries, eg Kenya, China and India, there are dedicated environmental advisers based in the country office. This presence means that attention and effort is directed towards tackling environmental and poverty issues. Many other countries DFID work in do not have full-time dedicated, in country, environment advisers though rural livelihood or water advisers may cover some of the remit.

There has been a general downscaling of the network of environment advisers and environmental programmes. It is less clear where environment officials sit after the re-organisation of the policy division. Some are within sustainable development group others are loosely attached to country programmes. The high profile post of Head of Environment Profession, which served to champion the environment, also seems to have been subsumed. It is not clear where environmental leadership now lies.

The environmental advisers, UK-based and in country, often face significant challenges in tackling environmental issues within development programmes or even raising the profile of environment as there may not be specific funding for environmental projects. They often need to weave in the environment angle to large programmes through it should be integral as a cleaner environment has an impact on health therefore GDP. Our view is that DFID could benefit from working more strategically with other organisations, such as the Environment Agency, to build critical mass and expertise on environment to maximise this integration and raise its profile.

5. How extensively and effectively is environmental screening of projects applied?

DFID produced a guide to environment screening in June 2003 that was intended for use in a design phase of any DFID intervention.[40] We are not aware of how effective this has been.

6. How does DFID coordinate with recipient governments, other bilateral donors and NGOs on environmental matters? Is there consistency or extensive variation from one country to another?

As mentioned above DFID provides direct budget support to recipient governments. DFID sees the value of and encourages cross donor coordination. For example in Ghana and Kenya DFID is an active participant in cross donor co-ordination meetings on environment. DFID also provides funding directly to some environmental NGOs such as WWF in the form of Programme Partnership Agreements (PPAs). These enable NGOs to carry out further environmental sustainability work in line with DFID's objectives.

Where there is a full time environment adviser in country, coordination between recipient governments, other donors and NGOs seems to be more effective. In some countries (eg Tanzania) there are some donor initiatives to "mainstream" environment into PRSPs. But we found that, at a practical level, funding on environment was not a priority. In neighbouring Kenya however, there is significant funding for environmental management, for example DFID's PEAK (Partnership for Environmental Action in Kenya) programme in which we are directly involved.[41] This inconsistency means that opportunities, where there may be similarities across regions, for "South to South" learning are lost.

7. How significant a document is DFID's sustainable development action plan? It includes plans to pilot "greener" country assistance strategies by 2007. WHat should this process entail?

The SD Action Plan is important because it will convert a general commitment to a specific set of activities. Greener country assistance strategies would take on climate change, water resources and environmental risks—such as flood or drought.

8. How effective so far have the existing sustainable development dialogues, such as those established with China and India, been? Is this an approach that could be extended further?

The Sustainable Development Dialogues (SDDs) are being led by Defra. They work very closely with other environment and sustainable development staff in DFID and FCO as their presence overseas is invaluable. It is important that each government department is adequately resourced in this area to maximise the benefits of working together to promote sustainable development. The SDDs are still in their first year and a lot of initial effort has been rightly directed into obtaining Ministerial support between the UK and the SDD countries. In principle the SDDs should be extended further as they are a means of raising the profile of sustainable development on overseas governments agendas and encouraging cross Whitehall working.

The SDDs significantly emphasise cross-Whitehall co-operation and there has been success in getting various interested groups from Defra, DTI, FCO and DFID round a table to co-ordinate efforts. We welcome the fact that the Environment Agency has been involved in these discussions as a potential implementing partner. The environmental capacity building we are undertaking in South Africa, also one of the SDD countries, funded by the FCO, is a good example of an area of work which links into the SDDs.

In China there is a full time SDD policy officer based in the DFID office and this is a good example of a joined up approach as linkages across existing initiatives are made. There have also been collaborations on contaminated land issues across DFID, Defra, and the Environment Agency in China. Tapping into, and building upon, EU wide initiatives, is also important as it strengthens the UK voice. An example of this is where the SDDs have been linking into the EU Environmental Management Cooperation Programme in China.

As the SDDs evolve we are interested to see progress of, and be involved in where possible, practical capacity building projects in natural resource management in China and India as well as building on our work in South Africa.

9. How should environment, development and equity be integrated in the proposed White Paper? Is a pro-poor, pro-environment development agenda possible and, if so, what should be its focus?

A pro-environment and pro-poor White Paper is both possible and essential. A key challenge for the White Paper is to recognise the link between environmental protection and development outcomes. The focus should be on management of resources such as water, tackling environmental risks and unsustainable practices and adapting to climate change.

10. How is DFID's work to achieve the millennium development goals integrated with the targets on fisheries and biodiversity also agreed at the world summit for sustainable development?

In section 7 of the UK sustainable development strategy reference is made to which government department is responsible for which target. For many targets there is a lead department which needs to work with other departments. DFID has PSA targets focussed on meeting the MDGs. The lead department for fisheries and biodiversity, as well as forestry and other targets, is Defra. But many other government departments are involved (FCO, DFID, ODPM, DTI, DfT). We have not been involved in the process of monitoring international targets so we are not sure how this co-ordination and integration works in practice.[42]

11. Are there any examples of where DFID policy has worked well to integrate the environment into policy and project funding, and conversely are there any areas where this has been unsuccessful?

The PEAK programme, in Kenya, referred to earlier, is one programme that has environmental issues for pro-poor growth as its primary focus. We have found that sharing our technical expertise with sister organisations overseas, as well as working with WWF, under the umbrella of the PEAK programme, is a good working model for institutional strengthening in developing countries.

Environment Agency

March 2006

1 United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme, The World Bank, World Resources Institute. World Resources 2005. Back

2 Department for International Development M A Brocklesby and E Hinshelwood. Poverty and the Environment: What the Poor Say. 2001. Back

3 Department for International Development DFID's approach to the environment. February 2006. Back

4 UNDP, UNEP, IIED, IUCN, World Resources Institute for the Poverty-Environment Partnership. Investing in Environmental Wealth for Poverty Reduction, 2005. Back

5 The UN target for official development assistance, endorsed in the 1970 UN General Assembly, is 0.7% of Gross National Income. The government committed to reach this target by 2013 in the 2004 Spending Review. Back

6 DFID Statistics on International Development 2005. HM Treasury Spending Reviews 2004 & 2002. Figures adjusted to real terms at 2004-05 values. Future growth of GNI assumed to be 2.75% per year. Back

7 DFID Eliminating World Poverty: consultation document. 2005. Back

8 Department for International Development: How DFID will ensure sustainable development. 22 December 2005. Back

9 Speech by Secretary of State, Hilary Benn, Development beyond aid, Chatham House/BOND. 23 February 2006. Back

10 For example, DFID's joint project with UNDP and government of Bangladesh to develop a Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme with the aim "to reduce the vulnerability of people, especially the poor, to the effects of natural, environmental and human induced hazards to a manageable and acceptable level". Back