Examination of Witnesses (Questions 340-359)
MR GARETH
THOMAS, PROFESSOR
SIR GORDON
CONWAY AND
MR JIM
HARVEY
25 MAY 2006
Q340 Ms Barlow: The staffing reviews
continue?
Mr Thomas: The staffing reviews
are taking place at the moment as well, so it will be able to
feed into the decisions we make on the basis of the advice we
are given on the staffing reviews.
Q341 Ms Barlow: Can I move on then
to climate change and adaptation? Obviously, development is inextricably
linked to the impact of climate, as you yourself stated, yet in
your memorandum you say that international and global environment
is in the main the responsibility of other government departments.
We obviously put this to your officials, who said a lot of environmental
issues are led by DEFRA. Obviously, climate change is going to
have a huge impact both on the department and your constituents.
Is this not a somewhat relaxed approach, that it is someone else's
problem?
Mr Thomas: It feels anything but
relaxed. Our job is to feed into the international leadership
that DEFRA initiates, the poverty dimension, the developing countries'
angle of climate change, and to help developing countries themselves
take the decisions they need to put in place the adaptation and
mitigation measures that they want to. So we are not sitting back
and relaxing while climate change is taking place. Absolutely
not. We feed into the work that DEFRA does. Our approach to climate
change negotiations are decisions that are taken at Cabinet level,
and the Secretary of State is an active participant in Cabinet
discussions. So we feed into those processes. What my officials
were saying and what we have said in the memorandum is right;
you have to divide up responsibility across government, and DEFRA
has this specific lead on the climate change negotiations but
we feed in and support them in that process.
Q342 Ms Barlow: In the negotiations,
yes, but in terms of international development, should not your
role be louder, more strident? Should you not be one of the leading
voices in preventing climate change rather than seeing your role
as more advisory and supportive?
Mr Thomas: I think we have the
lead within government in terms of helping developing countries
to adapt to climate change. Absolutely. We have put in place a
series of measures to try to help build up, for example, African
capacity in this area but, as I say, on the international negotiations
work I think it is right that it is DEFRA's lead. We have a specific
responsibility in terms of making sure the developing country
angle is fed into those negotiations and we have specific responsibilities
in terms of helping developing countries to make the adaptation
measures that Britain can help them with. As I say, we are not
sitting back and doing nothing. Absolutely not. It is a very active
process that we are engaged in, but we do work very closely with
other government departments.
Q343 Ms Barlow: The presentation
that DFID gave to HMT on 17 November last year set out very clearly
the impact climate change would have: increasing numbers at risk
of flood in Africa from one million in 1990 to 70 million in 2080;
up to 53% of Overseas Development Aid in Bangladesh at risk from
climate change; serious detrimental impact on the ability to achieve
all the Millennium Development Goals; and in India increases in
temperature could reduce farm revenues by up to a quarter. Yet
India's Country Assistance Plan, as one example, says "Slow
onset disasters, particularly drought, are also common and environmental
degradation is a long-term constraint to livelihoods. However,
disasters are unlikely to have a major impact on India's overall
progress on the Millennium Development Goals", which goes
against your own presentation. Which is correct? Is it really
DFID's belief that India's progress generally towards the Millennium
Development Goals in particular is not going to be affected by
any of this?
Mr Thomas: I think in terms of
India, when a huge natural disaster takes place, then clearly,
there are impacts on economic growth and on making progress towards
the Millennium Development Goals, and we have seen that in terms
of the impact of the Tsunami on the people of Ache. Did the Tsunami
have a massive impact on economic growth and progress towards
the Millennium Development Goals in Indonesia as a whole? I do
not think it did. It clearly had an enormous impact on the people
of Aceh and on progress towards the Millennium Development Goals
in that part of Indonesia but more generally across the country
I do not think it did. On India, India is a country that is making
very rapid progress with a very strong system of government and
considerable capacity at federal level to respond to disasters,
so it did not need anything like the level of international aid
or support which had gone to the Tsunami by way of comparison
to countries like Indonesia or some of the countries in Africa
that were affected. So I think that general statement is correct.
What I would say though, as I said in my opening remarks, is that
we recognise as a Department that we need to do more on the issues
of climate change and natural resources management, and that is
both in countries like India but in a whole variety of other developing
countries too, precisely because one of the reasons why climate
change is important is because of the impact it has on the very
poorest people.
Q344 Ms Barlow: What about drought
in particular in the Indian context?
Mr Thomas: We have a number of
programmes that seek to address issues around drought, that help
to develop livelihoods programmes, be they programmes in Orissa
or in other of the focal states that we have. I think the White
Paper will provide an opportunity for us to look at doing more
in a number of countries. I think the judgment that we will also
need to make, Ms Barlow, is what other donors are doing in developing
countries. It may well be that there are other donors already
actively working on environment and that we might want to concentrate
on other areas. The reverse might be the case. So the type of
mapping exercise that is taking place in Africa in that sense
I think is very important. We do need to work much more closely
with other donors to look at where the gaps in support to a developing
country are, and that is what we are trying to do.
Q345 Ms Barlow: Do you feel that
the country offices are sufficiently aware of the impact of climate
change, particularly in terms of areas such as drought; slow-moving
disasters, in other words?
Mr Thomas: I do not think you
can ever have enough information and support in these areas, and
if we thought we were in that situation, we would not have set
in train the two reviews of staffing need that we have. So I would
say that our country offices, and indeed the Department as a whole,
do need more environment capacity and that is why we have taken
the decisions that we have around the staffing reviews. One of
the other things that we have done to try and take forward the
dialogue between the UK and a number of key developing countries
is a series of sustainable development dialogues which again DEFRA
are leading on but to which we are a key contributor, so there
is a sustainable dialogue between the UK and India, there is between
the UK and China, and indeed a number of other of these very significant
emerging nations, with considerable appetite for economic growth
but recognising that that economic growth needs to be done in
a sustainable way. What we are seeking to do as a Government through
sustainable development dialogues is to provide advice and support
for their growth to be done in as environmentally friendly and
sustainable way as is possible. Gordon, would you like to add
anything on the sustainable development dialogue in India?
Professor Conway: The part of
it that I saw was around the Orissa watershed, which is actually
an excellent example of where you bring a range of expertise together
to look at a very large area in a place that is prone to disaster.
A cyclone hit Orissa in 1998, and DFID is still helping to rebuild
schools today, seven, eight years on. That is the scale of the
damage that can occur. So this watershed programme is one which
brings together agriculturalists, soil conservation people, and
water conservation people. It has over a dozen different agencies,
both government, and NGOs and international NGOs, all working
together to help villages produce a more sustainable life within
those large watersheds. That is the practical example of what
these dialogues are about. We do try and work at all these different
levels. Obviously, we work at the international level on agreements,
we work at national level on producing policies and strategies,
and then we also work in many countries on the ground, working
with local agencies and with local people.
Q346 Ms Barlow: I know that you have
just set up five departments to look at how to climate-proof development—is
that right? But it is quite a long way into the life of DFID,
quite a long time since Kyoto, 10 years since Kyoto. Can you explain
why this has been done now rather than several years ago?
Mr Thomas: I think what you are
referring to is our commitment to climate-proof our programmes
in the six pilots that we are committed to, the first of which
is going to start very shortly in Bangladesh, I believe. I think
it is simply a recognition that, as part of making sure that economic
growth is sustainable, we need to take a much more focused look
at the climate change dimension, the risks of programmes, what
potential impact they might have on climate change, and what we
can do to mitigate those risks. I think it is important that we
go down that route. We have had environmental screening for some
time, as you know from your earlier questions, which has been
in place and we think climate-proofing, if you like, takes that
environmental screening on to a new level by specifically focusing
on one particular issue of the environmental challenge that developing
countries face.
Q347 Ms Barlow: Have you any idea
when these pilots will be finished?
Mr Harvey: No. I can tell you
when they are starting. Basically, we are starting during this
year and I cannot tell you, actually, what the time frame is but
I suspect these are going to be an ongoing dialogue. This is not
something which is going to be dealt with quickly.
Q348 Ms Barlow: If they are successful,
as one hopes they will be, you would see a rolling programme where
it might be rolled out across all your areas, all your projects
eventually?
Mr Thomas: Indeed, and we would
also want to try and encourage other international institutions
to climate-proof their work too. There is a dialogue beginning
with the World Bank to look at climate-proofing too. I think we
need to see how that dialogue goes but there is clearly an issue
about regional development banks and indeed about other donors
ultimately being persuaded to climate-proof their programmes.
This is a process of work that is relatively young; it is only
just getting going but we recognise its potential importance.
Q349 Ms Barlow: Will it also look
at emissions?
Mr Harvey: We hope to have procedures
in place by 2008 for climate screening of programmes.
Q350 Ms Barlow: Will they also look
at emissions as part of their brief?
Mr Thomas: By definition they
will have to.
Q351 Ms Barlow: Finally, would you
welcome a PSA on climate change to help you focus your work in
that area?
Mr Thomas: Would I welcome a PSA
on climate change to focus our work? We are still at the very
early stage of discussions with the Treasury about the Comprehensive
Spending Review and therefore about what our PSA targets should
be. PSA targets do not capture the full range of what a Department
does but they do help. We have a series of Directors' Delivery
Plans which seek to give specific responsibility to specific staff
for the way in which the Department divides up work across its
divisions, so each Director's delivery plan will focus on, for
example, meeting the Millennium Development Goals in their particular
part of the world. So that is one of the ways in which we try
and capture the need to make progress on environment. As I said
earlier on, we recognise the need to go further but I do think
we have a substantial body of work that we have already been doing
and which should, I hope, give the Committee confidence that,
as a Department, we have not forgotten or not done anything like
enough on the environment to date. I think there are a series
of opportunities opening up for us to do more and, as I say, that
is why I believe the White Paper will signal our intent to do
more.
Q352 Mr Vaizey: I am going to talk
about aid and trade. The aid budget is obviously going to rise
very dramatically over the next six or seven years. How easy is
it going to be for the Department to manage that increase and
ensure that it is effectively spent?
Mr Thomas: That is the biggest
challenge facing the Department. There is no question about that.
That is the biggest issue which the two staffing reviews are going
to look at because, as the Committee will be familiar with the
Gershon inquiry and the requirement on all the departments to
make some staffing savings, so we have to look extremely carefully
at how we effectively can spend more money and spend more more
effectively. That is something we are very alive to. We have a
particular responsibility, we operate in some difficult environments,
where corruption is a challenge, for example, so we do have a
particular responsibility to make sure our procedures are right.
That is, as I say, one of the key things that the two reviews
are looking at: what additional capacity we need, and how we need
to change our staffing mix to give us the skills to enable us
to spend more, albeit with a reduced total head count.
Q353 Mr Vaizey: You get it through
basically channelling the money through multilateral donors and
through direct budgetary support. Is that right?
Mr Thomas: They are both obvious
ways for us to spend more money: budget support where we have
confidence in the systems that are in place in country and international
institutions where we have confidence in the way in which those
international institutions operate. But again, it depends on us
having a good relationship with those institutions. We will need
to track what those institutions do. Again, part of the skills
mix review is to make sure that we will have the right people
in place at a senior enough level to be able to influence what
those . . .
Q354 Mr Vaizey: You are happy you
are going to have robust procedures in place to . . .
Mr Thomas: It is always risky
for a Minister to say absolutely. Let me say at this stage that
I am confident that we are seized of the problem that we face
and the need to have in place robust systems. Bear in mind that
budget support is not a new concept and neither is working through
multilateral institutions. So we are familiar with the challenges,
but you are right: the rising budget is, if you like, going to
throw those challenges into even starker relief.
Q355 Mr Vaizey: Both you and Professor
Conway have mentioned in a sense that it is very difficult to
talk about the environment as a separate issue given its effect
on so much of the work you do. Is it possible to say how much
of the additional aid budget will go on environmental measures?
Mr Thomas: Not at this stage,
no. The White Paper, if you like, will serve as a guide for our
discussions with the Treasury and across Government about the
outcomes we are going to get from the Comprehensive Spending Review.
I cannot give you an indication of figures at this stage but I
do think we will be doing more.
Q356 Mr Vaizey: Do you think people
are right when they say giving money through direct budgetary
support means that the environment gets pushed down the agenda,
and do you think they are right to say that one way to ensure
that it maintains its place on the agenda is to do more work through
project funding?
Mr Thomas: I do not think it is
as simple as that. There are a number of advantages to budget
support. One of the problems that developing countries face often
is the huge number of individual projects that there are and the
huge number of donors that they have to deal with, and these are
countries that often do not have the civil service capacity that
we take for granted in the UK and therefore we do need to try
and reduce the burden on those developing countries of having
to negotiate and talk to donors. It is better to try and build
up the developing countries' own systems rather than have discrete
projects which often have parallel systems, and on occasions,
sadly, can lead to the loss of key staff from within developing
country governments into those discrete projects. I think the
danger of budget support or the concern about budget support would
be justified if there was not also dialogue between our country
offices and the developing country government. What we recognise
is the need to strengthen that dialogue on the environment. We
do not necessarily think it is just our responsibility as a government
to do that. Again, this is why I say we need to look at what the
rest of the international community is doing in the country, to
take the lead on occasion ourselves and where others have taken
the lead, to come in behind them. Sometimes our staff will have
particular expertise in the environment, and it is right that
they take a lead. Sometimes our country offices will have particular
expertise in other aspects of the development agenda, and they
are better placed to take the lead in that area. What I think
is clear is that poverty reduction strategy papers, which are
the key tool in countries for setting the priorities which budget
support then comes in behind, have not focused as much as they
could do on environment. We have a sense that that is beginning
to change but clearly there is a need for the international community,
in the dialogue with developing countries, to support them to
do more.
Q357 Mr Vaizey: Do you find they
are willing to be pushed?
Mr Thomas: For example, in a couple
of countries, we have worked with them on a strategic environmental
assessment of their poverty reduction strategy papers. Ghana and
I believe Tanzania are two examples. There are two developing
countries that do want to be supported and encouraged to do more
on environment, and I think it is about using our experience there
and rolling that experience out to our relationship with other
developing countries, but also to other donors so that other donors
can take the lead perhaps rather than just the UK all the time.
Q358 Mr Vaizey: Just talking about
trade, what is your current assessment of the Doha Round? It is
quite a big question. Most people think it is grinding to a terrible
dead end.
Mr Thomas: I think we are coming
to a crisis point. I think by the summer we do need to have made
significant progress. What is clear is that all the key participants
recognise that they need to give more ground, and I think most
have recognised that and signalled that they want to do that.
What we need to get right is the sequencing by which people show
their hand so that we can move the negotiations forward. What
is clear from the discussions the Prime Minister has had is that
there is a willingness from both within the Americas, I think
within the European Community—although there are some particular
difficulties within the European Community—but also with
key developing countries like Brazil and with India that they
do want to give ground in a number of areas. You are right: we
are running out of time to get right the sequencing of that, but
it is something that not only the DTI, who have the UK lead, but
also Peter Mandelson, the Commissioner in Brussels who leads for
the EU, are already seized of and it is something the Prime Minister
is very much trying to support through his conversations with
other leaders.
Q359 Mr Vaizey: Do you think in terms
of implementation of things like NAMAs and the service agreements
and also in terms of proposals on agriculture, and what you see
in trade benefits, that you might see corresponding detriment
to the environment, that there would be increasing stress on developing
countries?
Mr Thomas: [If] nothing else would
have happened in terms of developing countries' capacity to ensure
that that trade is sustainable. [If] nothing was done to improve
the ability of developing countries to regulate that trade effectively,
then yes, you are right, that could damage the environment. So
as trade gradually grows, we as an international community need
to support the developing countries to improve their ability to
regulate what happens in their country, to make sure it is done
in a sustainable way, and through, for example, the sustainable
development dialogues we have got going with key developing countries
but also through tools such as the strategic environmental assessment,
through the environmental screening, the climate-proofing, etc,
they do provide us with a series of opportunities to have those
discussions and to support the developing countries in that way.
| 
