|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 289-iii House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT COMMITTEE (TRADE, DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT SUB-COMMITTEE)
TRADE, DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT: THE ROLE OF THE FCO
Wednesday 21 February 2007 RT HON IAN McCARTNEY MP, MR SCOTT WIGHTMAN and MR FERGUS AULD Evidence heard in Public Questions 70 - 101
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Taken before the Environmental Audit Committee (Trade, Development and Environment Sub-Committee) on Wednesday 21 February 2007 Members present Colin Challen, in the Chair Mr Martin Caton David Howarth ________________ Memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Rt Hon Ian McCartney, MP, Minister of State for Trade, Mr Scott Wightman, Director, Global and Economic Issues, and Mr Fergus Auld, Team Leader for Climate Change and Cleaner Energy, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, gave evidence. Q70 Chairman: Good afternoon, Minister. It is a pleasure to have you here this afternoon in what is the final evidence session of this inquiry, indeed this series of inquiries of the Sub-Committee, and I think at some point, if we have not already, we need to welcome some Moldovian MPs coming to listen to our evidence this afternoon. I think you have a statement to start off with, so would you like to give us that. Mr McCartney: Thank you, Mr Challen. Firstly, I would like to introduce my co-witnesses, Scott Wightman, Director of Global and Economic Issues at the Foreign Office, and Fergus Auld who is the Team Leader for Climate and Security and, like you, I welcome our colleagues from Moldovia and, depending on the questions you ask me, I might ask them to substitute for me! First of all, I would like to start by saying that I genuinely welcome the Committee's inquiry and I hope that, after your report, we can work together on issues in terms of what you recommend, though I will not pre-empt that, but I genuinely want to work with you as a Minister in the Foreign Office. My friend of course, the Foreign Secretary, and I both recognise that the Foreign Office can play a unique role through its network of embassies and high commissions to forward the Government's agenda for the environment, particularly on climate security. Sustainable development is central to our foreign policy. It is not only a strategic priority in its own right, but it also underpins the FCO's other strategic priorities. For example, environmental degradation can drive migration or the impacts of climate change can threaten human security. In the last few months, I have seen at first hand myself environmental degradation threatening prosperity in places like Hong Kong and the impacts of climate change threatening human security in the Pacific islands through sea-level rises. Furthermore, Mr Chairman, as I am sure your Committee is aware, in one of her first actions as Foreign Secretary, Mrs Beckett designated climate security and the transition to a low-carbon economy as a new strategic international priority for the United Kingdom, and appointed a Special Representative for Climate Change. The Prime Minister established climate security as a core British interest and put the UK in a position to lead a rapid transition to a global low-carbon economy. The commitment to climate security runs right through the Government. The Government's strategic aim is to avoid dangerous climate change by stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. This is a highly ambitious and long-term outcome. To achieve this, we need to: bring about a step change in global investment in the low-carbon technologies to enable a transition to a low-carbon economy, including through an effective carbon market; build resilience through managing impacts and promoting adaptation to climate change; and secure international agreement to a realistic, robust, durable and fair framework of commitments to reduce CO2 emissions for the post-2012 period. It will be impossible to achieve this objective without much wider acceptance of the scale and the urgency of the challenge, matched by a major increase in international ambition. Our own efforts are, therefore, directed at galvanising international collective action by shifting global attitudes towards climate change. Our recent activities show how the Foreign Office has focused on a broad range of sustainable development work. We have supported the development of the Stern Review on the economics of climate change and amplified its global impact. While I was in New Zealand and Australia immediately after the report's launch, I delivered the key messages from the Stern Review, not just to my counterparts in government, but other political parties, the business community and academia as well as through the media, trying to get to the ordinary citizen of Australia and New Zealand. It was interesting to note, not because of my contribution, how quickly the Stern Review has had a tangible impact on the political debate in Australia and in New Zealand from a political perspective and a business perspective. We have persuaded the past and present United Nations Secretary General to describe climate change as an "all-encompassing threat" in speeches and in articles, and we are trying to mobilise United Nations machinery beyond the environmental sphere. We have secured a high-level EU engagement on climate and energy, as demonstrated at the informal summit in Lahti and in the European Commission's recent Strategic Energy Review. We have persuaded the Commission to adopt a robust position on national allocation plans for Phase II of the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme, and we are working with Germany to put climate change at the centre of the G8 and European Union Presidencies. We have launched another sustainable development dialogue with Mexico in October and we are preparing for the 15th UN Commission for Sustainable Development to be held in New York. We have helped prepare, and participated in, the first ministerial meeting under the sustainable development dialogue and the structured dialogue on climate change between the Government and the Government of India. In addition to that and in parallel with that, I attended, and participated in, the World Business Forum in New Delhi on this issue, addressing the world's business community and, in particular, engaging businesses on the Indian Sub-Continent. We have also just published our Sustainable Development Action Plan which has commitments which focus on areas where the Foreign Office can add the most value; this includes activities to raise awareness of sustainable development across the Department and to ensure that it is embedded in all our work. I will complete it at that point, so you can challenge me and question me and I hope that myself, Mr Wightman and Mr Auld will be able to respond positively and in a way which helps you with your inquiry. Q71 Chairman: Thank you very much for that statement. It does reflect, I think, the very clear and robust commitment made by the Foreign Secretary in the publication in January for the Sustainable Development Action Plan, the commitment to protect the environment. We have had evidence from witnesses who have felt that perhaps there was still a lack of knowledge within the FCO about the importance of the environment in meeting our goals on security and prosperity. Would you accept that a lot more still needs to be done within the Department to ensure that sustainable development permeates all levels in the Department? Mr McCartney: Indeed, and that is why it is essential to start training both in the Department at the UK base and also throughout our embassies and our high commissions; this has become a priority area. Indeed, as we speak today, our attachés are here in London and they are having a programme of training to develop their skills and knowledge not just on the intellectual issues, but on how they can actually at posts co-ordinate, on our behalf, the priorities that the Government has set itself, not just Foreign Office priorities, but the ongoing priorities and the work that is done in the DTI, Defra, et cetera. We have already appointed 100 sustainable development attachés, and some of these, though not all, I do not want to mislead the Committee, but we have now got 100 highly trained people at posts with responsibility for this area. Some are part-time with other issues and some are full-time, but they have all got a skill not just to deal with the issue in general, but actually to join up all the other issues that need to be developed in terms of a sustainable development approach. We have also put in place a significant training programme to ensure that, at every level, whether it is an ambassador or whether it is someone who trains in inward investment, they have all got a serious knowledge of the subject and understanding and will operate effectively on our behalf. Q72 Chairman: The Sustainable Development Action Plan does contain some very welcome proposals on climate change and illegal logging, for example, but some of our witnesses amongst the NGOs are concerned that there seems to be a lack of weight put on the need to protect biodiversity. Would you say that biodiversity perhaps now is less of a priority within the FCO? Mr McCartney: The short answer to that is no, and it might be helpful, in answering that, to say, for example, that the Action Plan has been adopted at all levels of the FCO and there is no question mark, it is not the case, it has been signed off by Mark McDonnelly(?), the Director General, myself and the Foreign Secretary, and all heads of departments, ambassadors, high commissioners and attachés in the countries are now working to the Action Plan. We held an open day for the wider officers and staff to promote the Action Plan and, as I said, we have an attachés conference, as we speak, to develop it, so that is important. On biodiversity, we have got an inter-departmental ministerial group on biodiversity, its next meeting is in the next few days, either Lord Triesman or I will attend, and this is to co-ordinate across government the role in biodiversity. We, as a Department, are not under any circumstances, and maybe a colleague could come in on this in a minute, underplaying or downplaying it; it is a critical part of the work that we are doing. Perhaps at the end of the discussion this afternoon, we can show some of the practical measures we are taking where we are investing in countries across the globe in protecting biodiversity either to prevent a degradation or, where a degradation has taken place, how to improve on that biodiversity, so it is a critically important factor. Q73 Chairman: The RSPB did say that they felt it was a shame to see the loss of some FCO programmes on biodiversity and environmental work in recent years. Are you saying that those programmes or new programmes might be reinstated? Is that something which the FCO would look at? Mr Wightman: Perhaps as an overall comment, what we are seeking to do with the resources that we have available is to ensure that we are focusing on the areas where we feel we can add the greatest value and achieve the greatest degree of impact. To that extent, all of the work that we are doing on climate security has a major impact, or we hope will have a major impact, on protecting biodiversity in the medium to long term. Equally, one of the sustainable development priorities that we have in our sustainable development strategy and as one of the streams of work in our programme activity is around environmental governance, so what we are trying to do in that is to identify where we can intervene most effectively. It is true that in the past we have supported a number of small-scale projects which have been extremely worthy in themselves, aimed at protecting specific species or specific communities, enabling them to work to nurture their own particular ecosystem, but we have come to the conclusion on the basis as well of expert advice on the effectiveness of our programmes from Stephen Bass, the former Chief Environmental Adviser at DFID, that the most effective way in which we can intervene is more at the policy, regulatory and legislative level. We feel that, by focusing our efforts on enhancing the quality of environmental governance both at the international level and also at the national level, we can have a much broader impact on biodiversity across the board rather than on specific activities. Having said that, in addition, as I think the Committee is aware, we do, through the Overseas Territory Environment Programme, support specific projects designed to protect the biodiversity of our Overseas Territories. Mr McCartney: An example, Mr Challen, surely in terms of using our negotiating skills and Foreign Office contacts is our working in partnership with the World Wildlife Fund in terms of signing the Heart of Borneo Initiative by the governments of Borneo, Indonesia and Malaysia for sustainable development to protect one of the rarest and largest ecosystems in the world, and that is where our skill and knowledge is, that is where our capacity is. You could not put a price on achieving an agreement such as this. There are other areas where we are working just as closely at this moment in time to do the same thing. Q74 Mr Caton: Some witnesses have told us that the FCO is failing to work adequately with non-governmental organisations in meeting our international objectives. Given that the March 2006 White Paper specifically acknowledged the need to work more closely with NGOs, what is the problem? Mr McCartney: I did not know there was a problem. Without boasting about it, a great proportion of my time, whether it is at the DTI in the joint role with the FCO, is engagement with NGOs and NGOs across the board. It is a critical factor in my work. I cannot achieve what I need to achieve, the objectives, the priorities that we have set in regions and in countries unless I have a proactive working relationship. I will take this to heart, I will take this back and, if there is more that I can do and that the Department can do, we will do it. For example, today, although it is not an issue for this Committee, we have just sponsored a big event jointly with the All-Party Group on Human Rights with the NGOs and we have refurbished completely the activities that ministers undertake, and I will give an example of this, and again, we are more than happy, if this is not working in the way it needs to work, and maybe my colleagues can come in in a moment on specific issues. For example, before I go to a country, I sit down with the NGOs and talk through what the priorities of the visit should be across all of the issues that the NGOs might have and we then agree priorities for that visit. Then, when I come back, I set out what we have achieved and what we have not achieved, and the next thing I would do is set a work programme out for future visits or contacts, so I am very keen to work with NGOs and I am sorry if people feel that they have not received that kind of contact. I will take it in the way it should be taken and we will go back and look at it and see what more we can do. It may well be in this area, as I am only one of the ministers across government who deals with these issues, that they may well have some legitimacy, so, if the Committee wants to provide us with any examples of where this is happening, I am more than happy to take this up and to resolve matters. Q75 Mr Caton: Well, you will have seen the evidence that has come to us. Can I give you one example that at least one NGO has raised with us, that they said that often there has been a good relationship perhaps with a post on a specific project, but that once the project is done and dusted, then the relationship is not ongoing, and what they would like to have is some longer-term basis for the relationship with the Department. Is that something that will come through in the NGO strategy that you are developing? Mr McCartney: For example, we will be engaging with them in terms of any new action plans, and I think Scott here will chair those discussions with the NGOs. I think that the NGOs, the business representatives, the trade unions, all the alliances that need to be there are going to be included, so it is not just consulting them about what we want to do, but we want to consult them about what they think we should be doing. We want to fit them with the hat of actually developing the policy itself so that it is more than just a consultation, I would say it is a consultation plus where they have the capacity actually to influence at the start of the policy development the actual outcome of what that policy should look like, and I am keen for that to happen. There is a lot of skill, knowledge and commitment out there and it would be folly not to utilise it. That does not mean we will be able to agree everything, that will never happen, the NGOs always have their case to put and they put it vociferously and that is to be welcomed, it helps people like me to focus, but I give you an absolute assurance that, on all of the work we are doing now and in future work, they will be involved and invited to the table. Q76 Mr Caton: You are putting together a strategy for international action on climate change with other departments. Can you tell us a little bit more about that? Mr McCartney: In terms of cross-Whitehall co-operation, I think it is important, and I make it clear from the outset, that this is an area where we have actually spent a great deal of time attempting to improve outcome. You may well say, "Is this not the tale of governments at all times, working in silos both in development and outcomes?", but I think it is important that we have a clarity about this, that we are going to work, and are working, together. Now, on the working closely arrangements, I will outline the arrangements that we have. We have Defra, DFID, DTI and ourselves working on international climate change strategies, for example, the work programme is now to 2009, and part of our input into that is to make available to those departments not just our intellectual resource, but our network in order for them to deliver the strategy which has been agreed after consultation. We will work with Defra and DFID on sustainable development and, in particular, on sustainable development dialogues. We have a Defra expert seconded to our development team and we have officials who sit together on the programme board on the Global Opportunities Fund which is an important fund in terms of sustainable development investment. We also have, in terms of cross-government working, as part of the same group our business and investment teams, and this is important in terms of corporate responsibility, engaging with the business community to invest into other economies, and it is important, in investing in those other economies, that they have not only an overall view, but that they are part and parcel of the sustainable development story and are committed to that. In terms of our strategy for zero emissions and all those issues on carbon trading, it is even more important now with the Stern Report that the business community is locked into this debate and, therefore, we utilise those resources as well across all the departments, and that is very, very important. We also co-ordinate in terms of the United Nations Environment Programme in the governing council so that we can co-ordinate not just here in country, but co-ordinate at the posts out of country as well. That is the kind of structure of the process and what we are doing. I do not know if my colleagues want to add anything to that. Mr Wightman: I could say something perhaps on the overall objective of the international activity on climate change. The overall thrust is to try to create the conditions that will lead to a comprehensive international agreement on the post-2012 framework and, to achieve that, there is cross-Whitehall agreement that one of the essential elements in that would be to try to reframe the international debate in a way in which we can engage the really key players in the negotiation, the key major emitting countries, so China, the United States, India and the EU, and we are engaged in the FCO in supporting the Prime Minister and the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary in a series of dialogues and campaigns in target countries to raise awareness of the issues, to work with different interest groups and exploit the potential for leverage in different interest groups in different countries so that we can create the conditions in which the broad principles of an international agreement can be agreed and then folded back into the multilateral negotiation. A key element of where we get to, as far as the Government is concerned, is an international agreement that facilitates a global price for carbon. We are convinced that achieving that will be absolutely essential to help direct the investments, particularly in the energy sector, which will have 30- and 40-year consequences and on which decisions will be taken over the next five to ten years, so securing the extension and the expansion of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, for example, would be an important objective of ours as well. Mr McCartney: Alongside of that, in my role, which straddles across the DTI and the Foreign Office, I will give a practical example. Recently, and in advance of the meetings between the Chinese and the Prime Minister, I went to China to negotiate with them, bringing forward, with the support of UK investment support and the European Union, the building of the first zero-emission, coal-fired power station in China. We achieved this objective and, when they came in, the memorandum was agreed and signed. The second phase of course is to find the 400 million euros or so to build it. Why? Because every five days in China a coal-fired power station is built and it has productive capacity for at least 45 years, so this is a co-ordinated approach, looking not only multilaterally, but bilaterally at how we can share our technology and the capacity to work because we can do everything we want to do in the European environment, but none of it works unless we have a global environment which is clean and healthy too. Q77 Mr Caton: It is useful that you have mentioned your dual role, Minister. Is one of the aims of the strategy to align trade policy with climate policy? Mr McCartney: As Minister for Trade, it is very important that we utilise trade in a number of ways. Firstly, as we hopefully get a successful conclusion to the Doha Development Rounds, linked to that will be a growing approach in regions to regional trade agreements, agreements between least-developed countries and developed countries, like economic partnership agreements. These are areas where we are pressing the Commission, and particularly Commissioner Mandelson and his colleagues, to ensure, in our future development work on trade agreements, that these areas of sustainable development are part and parcel to the co-discussions and negotiations. I am pleased to say that, in the discussions last Sunday and Monday with the 27 trade ministers and Commissioner Mandelson, I think there was a growing awareness from all concerned and a positive atmosphere that we seriously need to look to ensure in the future that these are absolutely core to any agreements that are reached. Why? Without these, we will not get sustainable development. We will get development, but it will not be sustainable and we will not allow access to technology in terms of least-developed countries being able to develop their capacity. If we want not only to trade, but also to be able to do so and safeguard the environment and their ecosystems, we need to invest and help them invest in those situations. For example, I recently, on behalf of not just ourselves, but working with the European Union, went to Fiji. Why? Because their sugar industry needs restructuring and, without restructuring, it will fail in a global trading environment for all sorts of reasons. I thought it was an opportunity, when there, to look to see whether, in restructuring the industry, we could also restructure the way that they can produce, using sugar, safe fuels not just for themselves, but as an export to other parts of the Pacific region, so a benefit both in trade and a benefit in terms of building their capacity and not to leave them in a situation where they have thousands of unemployed with the social problems attached to that and, in ten years' time, looking to see their seas rising continually in the Pacific, endangering themselves and many other Pacific island communities, so it is putting those types of measures together to try and make a difference. Q78 Mr Caton: Mr Whiteman, you mentioned in a previous answer that, in this cross-departmental strategy, one of the main objectives is influencing other countries. Are we doing enough on the domestic stage to show a sort of diplomatic leadership that others will follow? I am thinking that people will listen to you more if you are walking the walk as well as talking the talk. Thinking of our 2010 target for a 27 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, which we look like failing quite badly, does that affect the attitude of other nations towards us? Mr Wightman: I cannot comment on the domestic policy, but you are absolutely right that the ability for the UK to sustain the leadership that it has shown internationally and given internationally, I think, is dependent on how people perceive actions which have been taken by the Government domestically to pursue its own domestic targets and to pursue the general policies in relation to emissions and reductions, so I think, as a general principle, you are right, yes. Mr McCartney: Okay, I am a politician, but the Government are already working now on the next stage of another Energy White Paper and we are working very closely in terms of the adoption of an energy paper and strategy for the European Union. We are a world leader in this and I do not say that in a boastful sense. It was us who developed the Stern approach and it is that, in my view, which has galvanised the world in a way it has never galvanised it before. There is still a long way to go both in terms of putting meat on the bones, as it were, but everywhere I go in the world now, the one thing that is certain is that there is always a positive view about what the UK is trying to achieve. Yes, there needs to be more on R&D and the science base in terms of bringing about new forms of energy production and sustainable and affordable energy production, yes, we need to do more international collaborations, and yes, we need to get a new generation of power production in Britain which is not only sustainable, but environmentally sustainable too, and these are all big challenges, but they are challenges that the Government is actually planning to meet, but meet it in a way of doing it by co-operation and getting the British people to buy into it which is important. So there is still a lot to do, you are absolutely right, but let us not forget what has been done so far. Kyoto would not have happened if it had not been for the Prime Minister and his negotiating skills. We are now in the business of what happens after Kyoto, which is really, really important, and we are now in the business of getting agreement in the European Union, we hope, through the current German Presidency not only to achieve the emissions trading, but to look at actually how we develop R&D and investment in infrastructure in safe, effective and sustainable forms of energy production, so there are all these areas which are all challenges, but they are all areas which, as the Government, we are on top of. Q79 Mr Caton: Your reference to post-Kyoto leads me on to my next question. John Ashton has been appointed Special Representative on Climate Change for about six months now. Has this enabled us to make more progress in reaching a robust post-2012 international agreement on climate change? Mr McCartney: Yes, John asked me to send his apologies because at one point we were hoping he would come to the meeting, maybe at some point later, as I am quite sure John would like to meet the Committee and I am sure this is an issue you will return to again. The arrival of John has indeed helped us, and I do not want to be too flowery about it, but he has made a major and dramatic impact in terms of directing the attention of the network of overseas posts to this issue. Firstly, his intellect and his capacity to enthuse people has been very, very important and, in a very complex area, the one thing you need to be able to achieve to get people themselves to think and have confidence to go out and do the job for you is that they know that the people they are working with actually will direct you, and we have a very strong leadership, so you have got leadership in the Civil Service and leadership from Margaret Beckett and the two of them working together is actually important. Going back to the question earlier about the public and policy campaigns, we need to do more campaigning on this issue and again John is working on that and how best to do that with civil society, with business, with NGOs, with parliamentarians, the academic science base, whatever, and we need to be able to do that and John is very effective at working in that. In taking forward the Stern Review, he is also someone who has got an international reputation which is very, very important in these matters, and I am pleased we have got him. I think, from our perspective, the way in which we have been able, in a very short space of time since Margaret came to the Department, to change the priorities and the effectiveness of the team is down to his leadership. Mr Wightman: The Foreign Secretary and John Ashton together have been instrumental in changing the focus of the Foreign Office's work internationally on climate change so that we are no longer simply approaching climate change as fundamentally an environmental issue, but seeing it as a much broader issue which fits into economic development, poverty reduction, energy security and national security across the board, and I think that we have had quite a considerable degree of success, thanks to John's intellectual input, in changing the way that some of our international partners are addressing the question as well. Q80 Mr Caton: I am just wondering how the Foreign Office is presenting the Stern Review to foreign audiences. It has obviously had a huge impact and is a very serious body of work, but it does contain a great number of variables, probabilities and uncertainties, yet it is now being cited almost as a final reference work and a textbook for action. To what extent is the Foreign Office actually trying to nuance its messages to actually relay the reality of the Stern Review in that regard? Mr Auld: I think exactly what you were saying about nuancing the messages is the key point. Not every post in the world is going out and trying to present a 700-page document to the key people in those countries, but the important thing is that, through the use of the Stern Review and the debate that that has opened up, there is a whole new flank that has been opened to approach some of the key people in the debate on climate change who are the people who control the money. Now, posts have been using the travel of Sir Nicholas Stern and his team which is ongoing and he was most recently in Canada and will be continuing to travel for the next few months, and he himself is an irreplaceable tool in selling the messages, but it is also possible to take on that discussion with finance and economic ministries, with civil society and with business to carry on the discussion. Mr McCartney: The question is not a very fair one. It kind of mirrors when we are discussing the Stern Review and what happens next. We actually sat down as a Department and looked to see what we could bring to it. It is fair to say that we cannot get every single small embassy facility in the world to promote a 700-page report and, therefore, what we did was we established a priority country basis based on either whether they had significant natural resources, whether they were a major emitter of greenhouse gases, whether they were major economies and had particular relevance to international efforts to climate change or whether they were a country that could supply the UK with energy resources. Putting those factors together, we have a range of priority countries in climate change and energy and we are focusing a great deal of our efforts at the moment on those places, whether it is the United States, Canada, Japan, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Germany, France, Russia, Nigeria, Angola, Kazakhstan, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and others, and there are reasons why those are there on the basis of what I said and the criteria. In the coming weeks and months, at government level, at business level and at civil society level, we will be working very closely in those countries in promoting not just what Stern has said, but promoting what we need to do post-2012 and what we need to do in terms of sharing technological advances, what we should do in terms of trading in carbon emissions, what we can do to encourage and engage and make it easier for the population to engage themselves in activities on environmental issues, say, on biodiversity and safeguarding our ecosystems, so all of those issues are all part of that, but we are prioritising it in terms of the countries concerned at this stage. Mr Auld: In essence, the Stern message is very simple, that the scale and urgency of the challenge needs to be addressed in a way that it simply is not at the moment, and the overall thrust, as the Minister and Mr Wightman have said already, is getting recognition there, building the political momentum around the issue and hoping that that political momentum then feeds into the international negotiations in a way that is currently lacking. Mr Wightman: We try to frame the pitch to the different priority countries in a way that is designed to appeal to their particular interest, so, in the case of China, for example, our message is pitched around their requirements for energy security and how can they be satisfied in a climate-friendly way. What we are trying to do in a number of cases is to encourage either individual countries or regions to consider adopting the Stern methodology themselves in trying to identify at a more detailed level what the potential economic impacts of climate change are on their country or their region. Mr McCartney: I am happy to share with the Committee the list of countries and why we are engaging with them because some have got the same characteristics and some have got different characteristics, and that is helpful both in terms of climate change and also sustainable development. Chairman: That would be very useful. Q81 David Howarth: I think what you have just been saying raises the question of the capacity of the Foreign Office to understand and transmit these messages. One of the things that has been coming through from the witnesses that we have been listening to is a concern about that capacity and, in particular, one specific restructuring which has caused a lot of worry, and that is the restructuring of the former Environmental Policy Department which has been blended into a larger group called 'Sustainable Development and Business'. Obviously there are good reasons to try and integrate the environment into wider concerns, especially to integrate environmental and economic thinking, but many witnesses have expressed to us a concern that this particular restructuring has led to a loss of expertise, and I was wondering whether you recognise that as a problem and, if so, whether you have any proposals for dealing with it? Mr Wightman: I have seen the evidence and the discussion of that before. There is a slight misconception, I think, when the Environmental Policy Department was not melded solely into the Sustainable Development and Commonwealth Group, as it was. What came out of the Environmental Policy Department was the Sustainable Development and Commonwealth Group and the Climate Change and Energy Group, so what in fact happened was that there was an expansion of resources overall looking at environmental issues and climate change. There was a further reorganisation last year, as a result of which the resources that we, in London, dedicate to specifically the environmental strand of sustainable development work were reduced somewhat, but at the same time, along with the arrival of John Ashton and his support unit, we increased the resources that we are devoting to climate change and energy by over 25 per cent in London. None of that restructuring has in any way affected the network of environmental attachés who are working on climate change and sustainable development on behalf of not just the FCO, but other government departments; their work has been sustained. On the question of expertise, we have a regular flow of secondees from Defra into both the climate change side and the sustainable development side both to ensure that we have excellent working relationships with Defra, which we have, but also that we have a corps of technical expertise which, with the best will in the world, we are not always capable of developing quickly ourselves. There was a specific question as well, I think, in the evidence in relation to international whaling. Q82 David Howarth: I think we might talk about that later. My concern was specifically about structure. You are saying that people are coming into the corps from Defra and I think there was a concern from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee especially that what they saw as necessary was to have a permanent corps of expertise in the FCO as a way of making sure that you could mainstream environmental concerns throughout your organisation and a feeling that just having temporary people coming in and going out again would not achieve that. Can you see why that is a concern? Mr Wightman: Yes, it is an alternative approach and I think each approach is equally valid, but, as the Minister said earlier in response to an earlier question, what we are trying to do is to raise the levels of awareness and expertise and understanding of sustainable development issues across the board within the Office so that it is not just people who are dealing with our strategic priorities on climate change and sustainable development that are aware of the implications, but also those who are working on conflict prevention, organised crime, migration, et cetera, so that we are making links across the organisation as a whole. Mr McCartney: I think this is important, the issues about upskilling our complete workforce and getting to work using that additional skill and putting that together to work across all of the disciplines that the FCO deal with. For example, a few years ago, people probably turned their noses up, saying, "Well, those who are working in the estates in the Foreign Office should know about this", I would say, "Why?", "Well, it is easier for the estates here and the estates overseas who need to come up to international standards and requirements in terms of our own objectives", but, to that, we have to engage in a new skillset, so every aspect of the Foreign Office, whether it is our permanent core staff or people coming in to give us additional support, we are working on the basis of enhancing the skill mix in the Department, not increasing it. The second area that is across government, whether it is on trade, it is on investment or it is on this, is that increasingly you have to get a better skill mix, you have to multi-skill people. Five years ago, if you went to an embassy or a high commission anywhere in the world, you may have been lucky to find someone who had absolute expertise, say, in inward investment, whereas now you can probably find in every single high commission or embassy someone with that skill and either they are doing that job solely on its own, or they are being upskilled and reskilled. That is what we need to do now, given the challenges that we face as a country, to reskill and upskill, and it is what the private sector and the public sector are doing with their staff. You have to upskill to catch up and that is what we are trying to do, so I think there is a misconception of people, genuinely so, and it is up to us to make sure that people, when we make these changes, understand it and we engage with them so they have a certainty that what we are doing is not to undermine the work that we are doing, but actually to enhance it. Q83 David Howarth: Can we talk about the figures because you mentioned that 25 per cent increase, and I am still not sure how that works. In the central body, in the Sustainable Development and Business Group, I think you said in your written memo that there were six out of 22 who were working full-time on sustainable development issues, but you are also saying that some other people were taken out to work with John Ashton on a central basis, so overall how do the figures work? Mr Wightman: We have got half a dozen people working exclusively on sustainable development and environmental governance issues within the Sustainable Development and Business Group. We also have within that group a maritime team which has five or six people, a significant proportion of whose time is work around fisheries and around whaling as well, so they are working on those issues as well. The business team in SDBG are working on business's role in promoting sustainability. Separate from that, we have the Climate Change and Energy Group which works on climate change and energy security, which increasingly we are seeing as two sides of the same coin and, in addition to that, John Ashton has his own dedicated team to support his work and they work intimately with the Climate Change and Energy Group. I should stress as well that all of these people work extremely closely with officials in Defra. Q84 David Howarth: I hear what the Minister says about upskilling and multi-skilling, but that then does raise the question of how you tell internally whether you have done enough. How do you assess progress in increasing the knowledge of sustainable development issues across the organisation when you are not doing it solely with individuals, but you are saying that many individuals have to take on board this knowledge alongside other tests? Mr McCartney: Again it is a very important point, from our perspective of this, in terms of our human resource strategy. One, it is about, as we are doing today, providing specific support and investment in skills and knowledge and that goes alongside our assessment strategy where everybody gets an individual assessment of their role and their work, so it becomes part of a process of people moving on and up the organisation, so there is, within the Department, a sophisticated approach where we can tell how our investment is working, if it is not working either collectively or individually, and that is whether they work within country or within posts. Posts are regularly assessed in terms of their skill and knowledge and what they are doing, so all those processes are in place, and I do not want to offer it too much because you may not want it, but I am happy, if you want it, to provide a note showing just exactly what these development strategies are because it does not just cover these issues, it covers every issue the Department has to take up. Q85 David Howarth: That would be helpful. One final point, and you may already be prepared to answer this, but one point which has been made to us is that the mission statement of the Sustainable Development and Business Group does not seem to have a very tight focus on the environment because it talks about, "to help promote lasting development, economic prosperity and faithful international conditions for business in a rapidly globalising world", and one would have hoped for a more environmentally focused mission statement for that part of the organisation, even given that there are other aspects of the organisation doing environmental work. Would you consider some rethink on that? Mr Wightman: The underlying thought there, I think, is that, if British business is going to be able to operate sustainably overseas, then that is critically dependent on the sustainability of the communities in which it is active and the way in which those communities work with their ecosystems to protect their ecosystems and to exploit their ecosystems and, if that is not done in a sustainable fashion, then you will not get sustainable conditions for business. That is the logic of the position, but we can certainly consider the point you are making. Q86 David Howarth: That sounds good, so perhaps it ought to say that. Mr McCartney: Again that is a fair point, Mr Howarth. We could say, "Read the Action Plan; it is all part of it", but you make a very fair point there. All of this is in the Action Plan, all of this is in the co-work we do with DFID in the agreement there on sustainable development, and perhaps we should bring it together in a more effective way, and I accept that in the spirit it has been suggested. Q87 Chairman: We have heard that the Foreign Office has become less involved in certain international negotiations, and CITES is an example of that. If that is the case, is somebody else taking up the effort and is there a danger that the loss of the FCO's negotiating expertise might harm our chances of success in negotiations? Mr Wightman: We are still very strongly involved in environmental negotiations. Defra in general has the policy lead on most of the multilateral environmental negotiations and agreements, but our network in particular is there for Defra to use and to advise Defra on the best means of securing its negotiating strategies. In many of the international negotiations, FCO officials will be part of the UK Government's negotiating team. Our posts, for example, in the last year have been lobbying in response to instructions and requests from Defra on specific issues relating to CITES and to other international conventions relating to the protection of biodiversity. Q88 Chairman: Have you been involved in Defra's attempts to get more non-whaling countries into membership of the International Whaling Commission? Mr Wightman: Yes, we have. We have worked with Defra to develop a sort of targeted lobbying strategy to try to identify the countries that we thought were likely to be the most susceptible to lobbying and focused our efforts on those, and we have secured three additional members between the last meeting of the Commission and the next meeting of the Commission who, we hope, will help to adjust the balance within the Commission. Mr McCartney: There are another two areas. For example, on seals there is an initiative we have taken in the last ten days which requires us, as the FCO, to lobby extensively in the European Union to bring about a ban, and in areas of (?), again this is a great deal of work which will lead to a direct initiative aimed at lobbying expertise through our embassies and our contacts, so, even where we have not got the lead policy, we have a responsibility in taking a lead to get that policy across to other countries unilaterally and multilaterally, and that is a very important aspect of our work. Q89 Chairman: I think we accept that there are benefits to working with a smaller number of priority countries in these regards, but what about the non-priority countries? Are their sustainable development needs important to them and how can we help them, even if they may not be in that priority category? Mr McCartney: Again our staff in posts, there may be less in posts, but they will still have the opportunity of being skilled up in these areas. In those situations, and I give the Fiji example again, this is where, out of the discussions which took place in the Pacific Island Forum, our staff in posts there can draw down our services to continue the dialogue, say, for example, on the issue of the biodiversity of the sugar industry, and this will go on. The fact that they are not a priority in terms of the work we are doing on the investment, in formal agreements, joint working arrangements, getting the international forums to work with us closely and agree political strategies with us, particularly in those very small countries where the impact of global warming will be devastating to them, you can rest assured that our high commissioners and, where it is appropriate, embassies are working, and have been since the Stern Review has gone out, on the promotion of the issues around the Stern Review and trying to work with, and will be working with, for example, Australia and New Zealand in a very proactive way to help the island nations in the Pacific. The key people in that will not just be our high commissioners in Australia and New Zealand, but a whole diplomatic team across the Pacific islands, so no small country is left out in particular, and we are very keen to work effectively to ensure that those small countries which are disproportionately affected if things do not improve have our support, whether it is about helping them with development, building capacity or securing larger countries in the region to work more effectively with them; we are doing that as a matter of course. Q90 Mr Caton: We had some evidence about the importance of maintaining posts in countries where we wish to have influence. It has been suggested that the closure of a number of posts has made it more likely that we will fail in some of our international environmental objectives, and whaling was one example given. There does seem a logic there, that, if you close the posts, surely you reduce your influence in that country? Mr McCartney: Every time in the last few years there has been a post closure, there is a rigorous assessment made of the potential impact of any closure and what alternatives need to be put in place. I think we have got to be very frank, that there is no possibility of us having major networks in posts in every single country in the world, it is not feasible, but, in those countries where we have got little interest or the interest is such that there is no desire for us to take resources off other posts which need more effective and additional resources, what is feasible is to provide one hub-and-spoke arrangement, and that is what is happening and it works effectively. Again I would give the example of the Pacific islands because it is an area of not just climate change issues, but of security, of failed governance, a whole range of areas which you will all recognise are important to resolve in terms of sustainable development. We have a hub-and-spoke arrangement there where we have coverage across the Pacific for the key islands or the small islands serviced or, in some instances, where they are serviced on our behalf by the European Union or, in some instances, we operate on behalf of the European Union. In the Solomon Islands, we take responsibility for all the countries in the European Union which have relationships with that country and it works very well. New Zealand and Australia are all beginning to share responsibility in regions in working on an effective and co-operative basis, and that is what we need to do. Therefore, we do take it seriously and we do not just simply close a mission, but it has to be thought through carefully and what alternatives are in place, so every time there is a closure to take place, there is an alternative position in place and we consult over it. We will never please everybody, there is always someone wanting to keep a facility open because, quite rightly, we have an interest of one form or another, but again we are absolutely clear, and I personally will give that responsibility for many of these small countries, I would not do anything whatsoever to undermine our capacity either to political, economic or social ties and, secondly, I would want to ensure, as we do, that the hub-and-spoke arrangement we have got works effectively and it can manage from a hub British citizens' needs and business needs and our relationships with the countries concerned. Q91 Mr Caton: One post closure that outraged quite a lot of our witnesses was the embassy in Madagascar, the closure of which they described as "shocking", and they argued that the decision was taken on the basis simply of resource savings rather than for strategic reasons. They suggest that this highlights the lack of regard in the FCO for biodiversity conservation, given the importance of the flora and fauna of Madagascar in world terms. Mr McCartney: Again I would not be happy to review the Madagascar situation because that decision is done, but I am absolutely certain, given what I said about the hub and spoke, that we have arrangements in place in terms of the interests in Madagascar, and we serve those interests and we serve an appropriate post in the area, which I cannot remember for which I apologise, but I cannot remember every post, I wish I could. I think I have had Madagascar raised with me on a couple of occasions and again it was a vested interest, which is a legitimate interest, by the way, absolutely, but, from our perspective in looking at post closure, it is whether we can manage it and are managing it because of the relationships and the partnerships with others who have a bigger interest in Madagascar, and there will be other countries nearby where we have got a post facility which will manage Madagascar for them, and that is how we do it and that is what we are doing. So far, to my knowledge, I have got no evidence that the arrangements we have got there are not working and working well. Q92 Mr Caton: You mentioned earlier on, Minister, the fact that the UK looked after European interests - and I have to ask your forgiveness, I have forgotten the exact example - do you see that as a way forward to enable us to maintain some coverage, through the pooling of resources with our European partners, or indeed with others? Mr McCartney: There will be from time to time other reviews, clearly there will be. All countries review, the European Union reviews, the United Nations reviews. The issue is can we get a collaborative approach on the big issues in the regions. There are some countries where for historic and other reasons we are the country of interest. I was duty minister over this weekend - and I apologise if I do not give the names of the countries for obvious reasons - and I have spent the whole weekend on behalf of another European Union country legitimately talking to another country where we have got more influence than they have over a specific humanitarian issue, and I think we have resolved it. It may be that in a few months' time in another part of the world that I will be asking this same country to do the same for us. The truth of the matter is that it is absolutely impossible to make a case for every single mission in all circumstances to remain open, and I understand that, so it is about co‑operation, it is about partnership arrangements, as long as those are transparent and people know what they are, and that will be a continuing trend not just for the United Kingdom but a trend I think across the European Union. As long as we work well together on that I think we can provide a good service and in many instances a better service. Q93 Mr Caton: Our last inquiry was on the UK Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and when the Defra Minister was before us he acknowledged that there are recognisable problems in helping the UK Overseas Territories to meet their environmental challenges. Given that this situation has now been acknowledged at the highest level, how will your Department working with DIFD and Defra make certain that these issues will be addressed in future? Mr McCartney: The simple answer to that is yes. Can I also say that in terms of the Overseas Territories I think this is a very important issue in terms of our programme of work in those Overseas Territories. We take very seriously our activities in the Overseas Territories. Many of those territories have limited capacity and so it is important that we help build capacity, build resources and we utilise across government our resources, whether it is Defra resources or DIFD resources or our own resources, and to do it in a practical way, not just getting them to sign up to activities but to actually help them in a practical way forward. So in many of the countries you are concerned with we have got on-the-ground active projects in place, funded and resourced from various parts of government, usually through DFID, and I think that is important. In issues of global significance where we have got Overseas Territories, then we have got to ensure that the Overseas Territories are part of the solution and not the problem. We increasingly get pressure on Overseas Territories when people misuse them to get round sanctions in one part of the world or another. So we have to make sure that we are very proactive in ensuring that our Overseas Territories are covered in an effective, practical way in international agreements or in any programme work that we are doing, whether it is in biodiversity or other programmes on sustainable development and that means in most instances putting practical programmes in place. Again, if the Committee wants I am happy to share with you a note on what those programmes are. Q94 Mr Caton: One main tool that government has used to try to improve environmental management in the Overseas Territories of course is the Environmental Charters. How successful have they been? Mr Wightman: I think they have been a very positive innovation in the work and the way in which we have been able to use the Overseas Territories Environmental Programme to support their implementation, as in some of the specific examples that the Minister has referred to and which we could provide to you in a note. It is maybe worth saying that, as was pointed out in the last FCO White Paper, responsibility for the Overseas Territories is a cross-government responsibility so the FCO has a role in this as well as Defra and DIFD, and the Environmental Charters provide the basis on which government departments here, individually and collectively, can work in co‑operation with the governments of Overseas Territories on implementation. Mr McCartney: In 2005, the Overseas Territories Environment Programme was independently audited and there was a range of recommendations made to improve the programme, which we have implemented, and I am happy again in the note we give you to deal with that. There is quite a bit about protection of species, capacity building, environmental governance and climate change adaption, and in quite a lot of the programmes we have got in place ‑ I should have said this - NGOs, like the RSPB and others, are actually on the ground implementing these programmes. Again here it is a practical programme building up capacity but doing it with the experts in the field, and I think it is important that we use our expertise out of country as well as in country. Q95 Mr Caton: Specifically on Environmental Charters, which of the departments you have mentioned would be responsible for assessing the success of the various charters? Mr Wightman: I think that is a joint responsibility. Q96 Mr Caton: And that is done on a regular basis? Mr Wightman: I would have to get back to you on that. Q97 Mr Caton: If you could, thank you very much. Mr McCartney: You mean a yearly assessment or a three-yearly assessment, because again we will go back but, for example, on the programmes they are assessed for their effectiveness and at the end of each programme an assessment is made as to whether there should be a continuation of the programme, so that assessment process is in place but if it is a wider issue of whether the strategy in its totality is working in a country or region, then I will get back to you on that. Mr Caton: Thank you. Q98 David Howarth: Still on the Overseas Territories, the one thing that has come through very clearly from the witnesses on this topic, and indeed came through from the FCO's own review of the Overseas Territories Environment Programme, is the case for increased and longer term funding. We do know that there is a shortfall here and I am wondering what you were doing to assess that and whether we could look forward to any successful attempt to meet the shortfall as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review? Mr McCartney: All of these issues are part of the Comprehensive Spending Review discussions. I am quite certain at official level if not at political level for those who are involved in discussions with the Treasury there will those issues directed at each department's budget and issues where obviously there is a shared responsibility. Those discussions are on‑going at the moment and rather than speculate with you, you can decide whether or not we are good negotiators later down the road. However, having said that, there is always going to be an issue of unmet need. Let us be honest about it. No matter how high the budget programme is, you will always find a project which is worthy, and in many instances the projects you get lots of complaints about is they will ask us to fund salaries for example for a range of people which we have got no responsibility for, so sometimes there is capacity there, sometimes there is not, unfortunately, and there is only so much you can do. In the note you will see there is a widespread programme of investment across quite a lot of small nations with very significant habitats and other issues that have got to be dealt with. The issue for us is not the size of the country; the issue for us is the uniqueness of the issues, and we need to help them build their capacity. Q99 David Howarth: One final question, you have mentioned several times working with other departments and shared responsibility, and I think it has been a concern of the Sub‑Committee and the main Committee for a while that shared responsibility often means that no-one does the required action. It has been put to us, especially with respect to the Overseas Territories there is a problem with the relationship with Defra because we have been told that environmental enquiries come into the FCO about the Overseas Territories and these are passed through directly to Defra, but it appears that Defra does not have any responsibility for Overseas Territories and so there is a risk that queries of this type just fall between the gaps and are never really dealt with. Do you accept that it does happen that there is a risk of queries falling between gaps? If you do accept it, what can be done about it? Mr McCartney: DIFD is the Department for International Development and therefore it actually invests its programmes on criteria and it is not a criterion whether it is a British Overseas Territory or a member of the Commonwealth. Its criteria are set on issues of sustainable development, good governance, all the issues that we all recognise, and it comes from their budget. So it is not a matter of saying it is a British Overseas Territory and in those circumstances it is funded by Defra. There have to be the resources found for it. I have no doubt that in the evidence that you have had people will give you examples of specific projects that they feel should have been funded, and they would say they should have been funded from Defra or should have been funded from DFID or the Foreign Office or the DTI, but there will be these requests and whether they fall between stools or whether more likely it does not fall within the criteria of the funding regimes that are available, that is the more likely cause. Again what evidence you have got, because as we did in the past we are looking at evidence and if there is any evidence of a need for us to make an improvement to ensure that legitimate claims are met, then by all means give us the evidence and we will look at it. Q100 David Howarth: I think the suggestion was although it might not lead to funding, at least if there was a joint responsibility for the environments of the Overseas Territories with Defra so Defra had a formal responsibility to deal with queries that came in, that would at least clarify the situation for some of the people who were making this particular point. Mr McCartney: The Overseas Territories Environment Programme is jointly funded by ourselves and DFID, so that fund is there and it is jointly funded and there is a role for it. I was not certain if you were talking about that funding or a more general view about people feel that projects fall between the Whitehall stools. Q101 David Howarth: Or even requests for information or enquires about what is going on or what is happening or what might happen. What it seemed to some of our witnesses was if a question came to you about the environment in the Overseas Territories you would not deal with it yourself but just pass it on to Defra and then Defra would think, "It is nothing to do with us," and so they would not deal with it either and so it would end up not being dealt with. Mr McCartney: I can reassure you that if anybody writes to me they will get a reply. I take responsibility for that. I do not take the question personally, by the way, but I take a view in government that if a citizen or organisation writes to it, it is not their job to guess who should answer it. We should take responsibility for answering it, and we do, and I would hope that that is what others do. If somebody wants to write to government about this issue and they write to us, we will answer it. If it means we have to go to somebody else to get the answer we will do, but we will answer it. Chairman: Thank you very much, Minister. That is the close of our session and we look forward to seeing some of the information that you now have offered to send us. Thank you very much.
|