|
Memorandum submitted by the WWF-UK
1 Summary1.1 WWF welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the select
committee enquiry on DFID's departmental report. This is the first annual
report after the publication of DFID's White Paper on International Development:
'Making governance work for the Poor', and starts setting out how DFID has
taken on the challenges set out in the White Paper. 1.2 The environment underpins human development and poverty reduction, and the Tenth Report of the Environmental Audit Committee of July 2006 put forward a strong challenge to DFID to take this more seriously, saying that: "What is needed more than anything is the urgent recognition throughout the Department that the environment is vital to sustainable development and the will at senior level to ensure this is translated into working practice". WWF's own submission to the Committee stated that 'WWF is extremely concerned that environmental sustainability has significantly dropped down the list of DFID's priorities during the last two years, with indications that current policy and practice at DFID will continue this trend'. 1.3 In response to the Environmental Audit Committee, welcome changes have taken place in DFID to address the many shortcomings outlined in the report. WWF welcomes the recognition in the White Paper of the importance of natural resource governance for poverty reduction, and the consequent appointment of a Head of Profession for the Environment and new policy capacity on biodiversity, as well as increased policy and research capacity on climate change. However, we still fail to see the big strategic shifts that are necessary to tackle the real and urgent challenges of our time: making poverty history in a resource constrained environment. 1.4 A recent assessment by WWF of MDG 7 - environmental sustainability - at the halfway point to 2015 (see attached in annex), showed that MDG 7 is the only Millennium Development Goal where the overall situation is getting worse, with ecosystems being depleted at a rate faster than they can be regenerated. The loss of these natural resources and unabated climate change are putting the achievement of all other development goals at risk. While DFID has started putting in place mechanisms to start working on environmental resource issues, the environment and the threat of climate change is still not sufficiently integrated into DFID as an institution, and still treated as a separate concern from DFID's perceived 'core business'.
Summary of WWF key recommendations:
1.5 DFID needs to introduce more profound and substantial change institutionally, structurally and operationally, to be able to live up to the challenge of poverty reduction and climate change 1.6 DFID should invest resources into a robust discussion and rethink of the type of architecture needed to meet the climate challenge, ensuring that the priorities of the world's poorest countries are reflected. 1.7 DFID, together with DEFRA, should start a wide consultation on the Environmental Transformation Fund, ensuring that civil society and people living in poverty have a say. 1.8 DFID's policy work on 'Green Growth' should deal in an honest and open way with the challenges of increasing resource constraints and economic growth. To achieve true sustainable development various options will need to be explored, and the Green Growth policy work provides an excellent opportunity to start tackling some of these questions. 1.9 DFID needs to pay greater attention to the challenge of ensuring aid modalities include the twin benefit of promoting ownership and downward accountability as well as sustainable development. 1.10 DFID should be an active voice to ensure sustainable investment in the forest sector and making it illegal to import illegal and unsustainable timber and wood products into the EU. 1.11 DFID should advocate that the EU, as the largest fisheries market and importer of fisheries products in the world, takes more action to stop its market from being used by illegal operators to launder their catches. 1.12 On governance, the Country Governance Analysis should be widened to include tools and assessments of environmental governance structures and quality. 1.13 DFID needs to have clear criteria, screening and monitoring mechanisms in place if it chooses to increase its investment through multilateral channels. Furthermore, DFID should overlay its current portfolio of countries with a map of countries where the predicted impact of climate change will be worse. 1.14 DFID should be a more pro-active leader across government, with DEFRA and FCO, to ensure that our own production and consumption behaviour does not impact negatively on the natural resources of developing countries and does not compromise their ability to develop sustainably. 1.15 The top line of the new Public Service Agreement of DFID should include "ensuring environmental sustainability" and articulate clearly that MDG7 is not only about climate change and energy, but also about broader natural resources and livelihood issues.
2. CLIMATE CHANGE2.1 WWF welcomes DFID's increased emphasis on climate change adaptation and the recognition that climate change is one of the biggest threats to eliminating poverty and achieving the MDGs. The scale of the climate and development challenge and speed by which impacts are being felt poses an enormous threat to the world's poorest people and economies. The recent IPCC Working Group 2 Fourth Report clearly demonstrates that the world poorest and most vulnerable people will be increasingly devastated by the compounding effects of climate change, threatening development efforts, creating millions of climate and environmental refugees and undermining the assets and resources of the worlds poorest people and economies. 2.2 Moving from rhetoric to action: While WWF welcomes DFID's increased emphasis on climate change, we feel that the speed by which DFID has reacted and moved from recognition to action is still too slow in comparison with the scale of this global challenge. Responding to climate change necessitates a quick decisive response to ensure that funds, resources and other support reach those people at the frontline of climate change impacts. Whilst WWF welcomes the establishment and expansion of the climate change team in DFID, we are concerned over the lack of rapid and direct organisational action. It has taken a year to appoint a head of the climate change team since the White Paper on International Development in 2006 and a number of other staff places have only recently been filled. A number of DFID regional offices have reported to WWF a lack of strategic guidance on how to incorporate climate change into their portfolios of work, and have as yet received little guidance or internal support from DFID Head Quarters. Organisational change is critical for developing an effective institutional response to climate change. While DFID has recognised the task in rhetoric, only limited new financial resources and staffing have been provided. The majority of country offices still don't have environmental advisers or staff with adequate climate change resources and training to mainstream climate change into their work. There is an urgent necessity for DFID to match the scale of the task at hand by increasing resources, political will, focusing on organisational change and mainstreaming at all levels of the organisation. 2.3 Working coherently-from DFID across UK HMG: The UK government has a high degree of responsibility in meeting its own domestic targets for reducing green house gases and specifically by developing and implementing enforcing the proposed climate bill. The UK has a high degree of moral culpability in both the causes and responding to the consequences of climate change. At present DFID's approach to climate change is not coherent as it seeks only to work on adaptation issues within developing countries whilst not seeking greater UK policy and organisational coherence to tackle the root causes of the problem within the UK and international community. The Stern report clearly demonstrated that the cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of early action. While it is critical that the UK strengthen its work on climate change adaptation, if it is serious about eliminating poverty it needs to beginning working inwardly on increasing UK awareness about the effects of UK lifestyles and carbon emissions on the world's poorest people. This requires a greater level of policy and institutional coherence which is critically lacking within current UK HMG structures. 2.4 Working coherently across sectors and issues: WWF broadly supports the conclusions of the International Development Committee Sanitation and Water Report which was published in April 2007, especially those in Chapter 5 on water resources management and climate change. We are pleased that DFID is showing a greater understanding of the need for better management in order to secure water resources and reduce risk of conflict; and we are keen to help in any way we can drawing on our 40 years of experience across the globe. At the same time, we would encourage DFID to show leadership amongst the donor community on Water Resource Management and climate change issues, in line with the recommendations of the IDC Sanitation and Water Report and in particular the recommendation that DFID should "translate this leadership into substantive policies and frameworks for action in the near future" (p.50). Specifically, we are concerned that policies intended to help countries mitigate or adapt to climate change - such as a rush to build hydropower or water storage infrastructure - may have profound negative impacts on scarce water resources and on the poorest people. 2.5 DFID needs to work at home and put its own house in order. This should provide impetus to develop coherent UK policy that pulls in the same direction in the fight against climate change. This should specifically focus on the current export credit guarantee scheme, UK investment support for fossil fuels, implementing the climate change bill, meeting UK emissions targets and ensuring ACTIS supports a green growth investment portfolio. 2.6 Mainstreaming and re-linking Adaptation and mitigation for policy coherence: Climate change is a systemic problem requiring systemic solutions. Currently DFID works only on adaptation, thus working only on the symptoms of the problem, not the root causes. Historically adaptation and mitigation responses have been seen as separate strands of the climate change debate. However, recent reports (especially IPCC WKGP 2 fourth Assessment-chapter 18) clearly demonstrate the fundamental interconnected and variable relationships between mitigation and adaptation and need for integrated climate change policy and strategies addressing both strands in unison. There is an urgent need to adopt an integrated approach to climate change that can be mainstreamed across HMG and to use this process as an opportunity to develop increased policy coherence to resolve conflicts between policy objectives to ensure that HMG is pulling together not pulling apart in the fight to tackle climate change 2.7 Financing adaptation and dis-empowering the world's poor: DFID rightly attaches a lot of importance to being demand driven, evidence based, and working on the priorities of the world's poor. However, while the current G77 countries currently oppose the GEF to obtain and manage the development of the new adaptation funds, DFID, with the United States, currently support GEF in its mission to be the sole mechanism for adaptation funding. The G77 is opposed to GEF for a variety of reasons, including the fact that the GEF has a very poor record on delivery, is highly bureaucratic and inefficient, and too closely controlled by the World Bank and US Treasury. The G77 countries are calling for a new architecture for adaptation funding whilst the GEF continues to rally support for being the only organisation to manage adaptation funding. In line with its own principles, DFID should instead ensure sound investment of its resources into a robust discussion and rethink of what type of architecture is desperately needed to meet the climate challenge, based on the priorities and needs of the world's poorest countries. DFID should support the articulation of demands of the G77, and help define efficient, country-owned and accountable mechanisms for adaptation funding, and be careful not to reinforce existing unequal power structures which are not benefiting the poor. 2.8 The Environmental Transformation Fund (ETF) and adaptation funding: WWF welcomes the development and implementation of the ETF, and together with other NGOs in the Development and Environment Group and the UK Aid Network, it has developed a series of principles that it wishes to see implemented and is calling, as a matter of urgency, for a full consultation on the use and implementation of these funds (see attached). The ETF offers the opportunity for real environmental transformation, and to leverage a new, effective and coherent architecture for adaptation funding. There should be clear transparency and accountability in managing the ETF, and coherence between the ETF and other government policies and practices is fundamental. Adaptation funding should be above and beyond the existing commitment of ODA and include recognition that adaptation funding is a result of the moral responsibility and culpability of the UK to pay part of the costs of climate change. 2.9 Stern type review of impacts and adaptation options: Even
with aggressive and successful policies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions,
the world is committed to an increasing degree of climate change impacts.
However, data and detailed economic information on the magnitude and locality
of impacts is in short supply. DFID as a matter of urgency should instigate and
lead international efforts to implement a comprehensive analysis of adaptation,
including its costs, barriers and limits. This report should inform a clear
programme of adaptation measures- including proposals to finance adaptation
responses. 2.10 Moral culpability as commitment to adaptation financing and tackling poverty: Climate change is primarily a problem caused by developing countries, yet the impacts are being felt the hardest by the worlds poorest people, who perversely are the least able to adapt and have contributed little to the causes of climate change. The UK through its historical and present emissions shares a high degree of culpability for causing climate change. It is therefore fundamental that DFID includes recognition of these facts and the UK's own moral culpability in causing the climate crisis and commits to work internationally to accept its responsibility. 2.11 Working locally to internationally: The solutions to climate change lie primarily within a globally agreed framework, however the impacts will increasingly be felt at local and community levels. It is fundamental that DFID makes clear recognition of this fact and commits to providing devolved authority to local communities and regional authorities to be empowered with adequate financing and resources to support localised adaptation responses, which enable local communities to build adaptive capacity and resilience to deal with climate change, variability and vulnerability within the confines and opportunities of their own local contexts. 2.12 Strengthening ecosystems resilience and building adaptive capacity: Science clearly demonstrates that environmental well being and healthy ecosystems and their continued provision of goods and services provide a necessary and fundamental foundation for adaptation and a buffer to limit the impacts of climate change. This fact should be highlighted across DFID's work and other environmental and ecosystem related policy and practices should be supported. This acknowledgment and further commitments should mesh within the overarching framework of the UK governments Sustainable Development strategy and provide a solid platform for building ecosystem well being and societal resilience and adaptive capacity to live with and tackle the impacts of climate change. WWF recommendations 2.14 DFID needs to change much more profoundly, institutionally, structurally and operationally, to be able to live up to the seriousness of the challenge of poverty reduction in the context of climate change. Bolted on efforts to increase capacity will not be sufficient, and rather capacity will need to be mainstreamed and internalised into the organisation and into all procedures and programmes. More resources, staff and training will be necessary to achieve this. 2.15 DFID needs to be coherent and be an advocate for mitigation as well as work on adaptation. It needs to start working internally to raise awareness of the impact of life styles in the North on the world's poorest people. DFID also needs to ensure coherence across sectors and issues, for example making sure that its responses on energy provision in the light of climate change, such as hydropower or water storage infrastructure - do not impact negatively on scarce water resources and on the poorest people. 2.16 DFID should invest resources into a robust discussion and rethink of the type of architecture needed to meet the climate challenge, and ensuring that the priorities and needs of the world's poorest countries are reflected. DFID should support the G77 in articulating their demands around adaptation, and help define efficient, country-owned and accountable mechanisms for adaptation funding. 2.17 DFID, together with DEFRA, should start a wide consultation on the Environmental Transformation Fund, and ensure that civil society and the people and countries who will be benefiting have a say in the running of the fund. 2.18 DFID, with other international partners, should work towards a Stern type comprehensive economic analysis of the impacts of climate change and the cost of adaptation. This report should inform a clear programme of adaptation measures- including proposals to finance adaptation responses. 2.19 The importance of ecosystem resilience in the context of climate change should be researched more in-depth and highlighted systematically by DFID. This should fit within the overarching framework of the UK governments Sustainable Development strategy and provide a solid platform for building ecosystem well being and adaptive capacity to live with and tackle the impacts of climate change.
3. the environment in the departmental report3.1 While the report does address an entire chapter on the environment and climate change, there is still a lack of mainstreaming environmental sustainability across the institution. For example, within the discussion of progress in Africa (p25-30), there is no discussion about some of the key challenges for Africa, i.e. climate change, natural resource degradation and scarcity, which have the potential to exacerbate poverty further and increase conflict, as happened in Darfur. When discussing progress on MDG 7 for individual countries, the focus generally continues to be on one element of MDG 7 - the provision of water and sanitation. This is the case for 8 out of 15 all African PSA countries (all countries in Africa have a focus on water and sanitation, but 8 exclusively so). While sustainable access to water and sanitation is called for and very much welcomed by WWF, MDG 7 includes more environmental issues than water alone, which seemed to be neglected in-country. 3.2 Some DFID activities on MDG 7 in some countries offer very welcome exceptions, for example in Kenya and Sierra Leone which include work on climate change and forestry, but the overall trend to equate MDG7 with water and sanitation remains prevalent. This is at its starkest in the discussion of progress in Pakistan, where is stated that 'Pakistan is on track to achieve MDG 7' (page 89) based on its performance on water provision and sanitation services. This is in very stark contrast with Pakistan's own Strategic Country Environmental Assessment Report: "Rising to the Challenges" (May 2006), which stated that 'The urgency of addressing Pakistan's environmental problems has probably never been greater. Conservative estimates presented in this report suggest that environmental degradation costs the country at least 6 percent of GDP, or about Rs. 365 billion per year, and these costs fall disproportionately upon the poor' (page 5). WWF recommendations 3.4 DFID should do a concerted effort to ensure that MDG 7 is interpreted by country offices as more than water and sanitation, but also including sustainable environmental management as well as improving the lives of slumdwellers. Indicators for MDG 7 have recently been reviewed by the United Nations to better reflect the true nature of environment and poverty links, and future departmental reports should be made to reflect this.
4. climate change, carbon and economic growth4.1 DFID's main strategy is to achieve poverty reduction through rapid and sustainable economic growth and good governance, and this strategy is again reflected throughout most of the 2007 Departmental Report, using growth rates as a primary indicator for progress. However, as the development paths of all OECD countries have shown, economic growth has traditionally been associated with increasing carbon emissions. In the global fight against climate change, in which poor people will be most impacted by global warming, questions emerge about how we can really make poverty history and continue to rely on global economic growth that is dependent on carbon emissions. 4.2 The Development and Environment Group of BOND recently organised an event 'Global Futures: Development in a carbon constrained world', to address exactly that question. The event brought together development and environment NGOs, as well as the Development and Environment Secretaries of State and civil servants from DFID, DEFRA and the Treasury. The event was a timely opportunity to discuss the challenges of promoting development in the context of likely carbon constrictions in the near future, as well as increasing natural resources shortages. This was the first time the Secretaries of State for Development and the Environment shared a public platform, illustrating the stated commitment of the British government to take the twin challenges of climate change and development seriously. 4.3 Echoing DFID's focus on economic growth, both ministers maintained that economic growth and carbon emissions can be de-linked, and that the UK has successfully done as much. They proposed that the UK should now lead the way internationally to move towards carbon-light rapid economic growth. However, it is questionable whether the UK has really managed to de-link growth from carbon, because the UK has outsourced much of its manufacturing industry and has moved to being primarily a service industry. 4.4 There is growing recognition however, that to calculate a nation's impact on carbon emissions globally, it is important to look at consumption of products as well as production, and particularly at the carbon embedded into products. When taking into account the carbon emitted during the life cycle of a product, the UK's impact on carbon emissions globally is likely to be much higher than the current 2% commonly quoted. Equally, as estimated by Christian Aid recently, when taking into account the emissions caused by the worldwide consumption of the FTSE 100 companies, which contribute to the economic growth of the UK, the actual size of our carbon footprint is much larger, potentially up to 12 to 15% of the global total. 4.5 The Global Futures event ended with strong recommendations to look again at how economics can work better for the poor and the environment. Some of the suggestions were to improve the focus on local economic development, the need to develop alternative indicators to measure the quality of life beyond GDP and growth figures, and to start pricing of services provided by nature, so that products reflect their real cost. WWF Recommendations: 4.6 For DFID's policy work on 'Green Growth' to deal in an honest and open way with the challenges of increasing resource constraints and economic growth. Global economic growth has slowed since the 90s, and the share of the poor in economic growth is declining. At the same time, economic growth is putting increasing strain on ecosystems, particularly the climate, but also other ecosystems. To achieve true sustainable development various options will need to be explored, and the Green Growth policy work provides an excellent opportunity to start tackling some of these questions. 4.7 As DFID now includes responsibility for trade, a unique opportunity is presented to ensure that DFID advocates for a trade system that benefits the poor as well as restores and protects the environment. DFID is now fully in a position to encourage a trade debate that extends beyond a simple focus on cutting export subsidies or extending market access (critical though these things are), and recognise, as Hilary Benn did, that "developing countries cannot go for growth and worry about environmental sustainability later on[1]".
5. BUDGET SUPPORT and aid effectiveness5.1 Direct Budget Support (DBS) is an increasingly favoured tool in implementing the Paris Aid Effectiveness agenda, whose principles of country ownership, donor harmonization, alignment with national systems and mutual accountability WWF fully support. Where the government has developed an effective and monitorable national plan for poverty reduction with participation of civil society, the provision of funds directly into a partner government's own financial system is a major step in the right direction to achieve effective poverty reduction. The Departmental Report (Chapter 5) reflects how DFID has shown a strong commitment to the Paris Aid Effectiveness agenda and has been a leader in the donor community in taking this agenda forward.
5.2 Direct Budget Support can be a very effective tool in the right circumstances, but it also carries some risks. As DBS entails giving money to Ministries of Finance and Planning, weaker government departments, such as those concerned with health, education, or the environment, might find it more difficult to negotiate their budgets as compared to stronger trade and industry departments. The environment is often not seen as a priority for national governments, and environmental ministries in developing countries often do not participate fully in the preparation of national development.
5.3 DFID recognises that many Poverty Reduction Strategies have proven weak in addressing local, regional or global environmental issues and that DBS itself does not sufficiently tackle the challenge of good environmental management for poverty reduction (DFID's approach to the environment, 2006). DFID recently also commissioned a study by ODI on 'Addressing environmental objectives in the context of budget support'. However, the chapter on aid effectiveness of the Departmental Report 2007, which discusses DFID performance on DBS, does not mention the challenges posed by an increasing move to DBS, and the risks this might entail for those policy areas which are not high on the national policy agendas of both recipient governments and donors, as is often the case with the environment.
5.4 According to the DFID-commissioned study general budget support can promote environmental objectives through a number of potential openings. One listed is the creation of space to mainstream the environment as a development and growth opportunity (particularly in countries rich in natural capital) rather than only a risk to be mitigated. WWF would suggest that this could be a possibility although there is little evidence to show that this is taking place on a wide scale. Raising environmental issues during policy dialogues to encourage such an action within DBS, implies staff resources in donor agencies with the requisite skills at the appropriate level. However, since raised as an issue by the Environmental Audit 10th Report, we are not aware that DFID has increased environmental resources and expertise within regional and country teams.
5.5 DFID states that it will improve the effectiveness of development cooperation among our international partners (such as World Bank European Commission and UN) for better environmental management and sustainable use of natural resources (p 188). However, based on current evidence, the UK does not feature as one of the EU member states who are pushing hard, and coordinating, for better environmental management and sustainable use within development cooperation. Visible players are Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Denmark and to a certain extent, France and Italy. We would like to ask DFID how they are planning to take this commitment forward in the future.
WWF Recommendations 5.6 Further understanding needs to be developed on how changing aid systems will impact on the environment. DFID has started recognising this, but does not discuss these challenges in the Departmental Report 2007. Greater attention needs to be paid to these challenges to ensure new aid modalities include the twin benefit of promoting ownership and downward accountability as well as sustainable development. We are looking forward to the work that will follow out of the first review of DBS and the environment.
5.7 Other aid modalities that could directly benefit the environment for people should continue to be discussed and improved, such as support for multistakeholder national dialogues, untied technical assistance, joint agreements for natural resource governance, sector wide approaches and others.
5.8 A key solution to ensuring DBS works for the poor and the environment lies in ensuring that Poverty Reduction Strategies are inclusive, and include a wide range of stakeholders in setting the policy agenda. The participation of grassroots civil society organisations and environmental NGOs is important to ensure that the environment, a vital asset to the livelihoods of the vast majority of poor people, is given the status it deserves in national development strategies.
5.9 DFID should act up as a key player to ensure it takes forward the debate about the advantages and limits of DBS with other donors and key players, such as the World Bank, European Commission and the UN.
6. GOVERNANCE6.1 Natural resources, if managed effectively and equitably, have the potential to support poverty reduction and promote long term sustainable growth. Poor environmental governance leads to environmental degradation and exacerbates poverty. For this reason, the focus on good governance, including of natural resources, announced in DFID's White Paper on International Development in 2006, is a very welcome focus for moving forward a sustainable development agenda, and WWF appreciates the strides DFID has made into putting capacity and resources into natural resource governance processes, such as EITI and FLEGT. The DFID Departmental Report 2007 also includes specific discussions on progress on the governance of water, fisheries, forests and minerals.
6.2 In an increasingly globalised world, and because of the way natural ecosystems work, environmental governance has to be considered at all levels: local, national, regional and international. For example, transboundary water resources require agreements and solutions between nation-states, and WWF has evidence that disputes over shared rivers is already having severe impacts on livelihoods in many developing countries, and forcing migration from water scarce areas. The climate, an ecosystem with global repercussions, need to be dealt with through international governance systems. Focusing on national level governance systems risks loosing sight of the importance of regional and international governance issues. DFID should ensure it has a good balance of work at different levels of governance, including international treaties, multilateral environmental agreements, etc.
6.3 The UK has been a leader in certain areas of environmental governance, for example on the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan. We commend DFID for its pro-active engagement to increase transparency in these sectors, as well as with the newly launched Medicines Transparency Alliance (MeTA). This exemplifies that DFID is committed to improving governance through increasing transparency and scrutiny of private sector and governments alike. However, DFID could do more to ensure that the actions of the UK policies and business practices do not impact negatively on natural resources of developing countries, for example by ensuring sustainable investment in the forest sector and, at a EU level, making it illegal to import illegal and unsustainable timber and wood products. This should go hand in hand with more work to ensure that certification of legal products actively promotes the participation of poor communities and producer groups.
6.4 Similarly, DFID has recently confirmed the importance of sustainable fisheries for developing countries by launching a £15 million scheme to help fishermen in Sierra Leone stamp out illegal fishing, including setting up a tracing scheme that will track fish being exported to the EU. Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing (IUU) affects developing countries most as they have less capacity and fewer resources to regulate their fishing grounds. WWF warmly welcomes the recognition DFID is giving to the intrinsically linked issues of environmental resources and sustainable development. DFID should continue to advocate for sustainable fisheries, and advocate that the EU, as the largest fisheries market and importer of fisheries products in the world, takes more action to stop its market from being used by illegal operators to launder their catches.
6.5 As part of its continuing work to ensure that UK companies investing in developing countries bring benefits for people and environment instead of hurting them, DFID should consider more seriously proposed mechanisms to ensure greater corporate accountability of key decision makers in companies, the importance of openness and transparency in corporate activities that have an impact on a range of stakeholders, and the need for improved rights of redress mechanisms so those unfairly effected by corporate abuse can seek justice. These are key demands from the CORE coalition, of which WWF is a founding member.
6.6 On a technical level, DFID has recently developed a technical 'How to' note for country offices on the Country Governance Analysis (CGA), giving guidance on which criteria to include and reports to consult to report on governance performances of partner countries. However, despite the recognition that natural resource governance is essential for development, the current CGA does not propose to look at any issues related to sustainable resource management. While there is some, if limited, recognition of the need to mainstream gender, there is no mention at all of the need to sustainably manage and govern natural resources.
WWF Recommendations
6.7 DFID should be an active voice for ensuring that the actions of the UK policies and business practices do not impact negatively on natural resources of developing countries, for example by ensuring sustainable investment in the forest sector and making it illegal to import illegal and unsustainable timber and wood products. More work should be done to ensure that certification of legal products actively promotes the participation of poor communities and producer groups.
6.8 DFID should continue to advocate for sustainable fisheries, and advocate that the EU, as the largest fisheries market and importer of fisheries products in the world, takes more action to stop its market from being used by illegal operators to launder their catches.
6.9 The Country Governance Analysis should be widened to include issues of environmental governance structures and quality. The technical 'How to' note needs to include tools and assessments which include looking at how natural resources are governed in-country. Otherwise, the CGA risks missing out a very large part of governance issues, including governance of forests, marine resources and water, which increasingly lie at the basis of a failure of sustainable development.
7. implications of DFID distribution of aid7.1 DFID allocates its budget according to two criteria; how poor the country and its people are; and the extent to which the country's Government has a real commitment to reform. WWF supports the fact that money is allocated according to need. At the same time, with a pure focus on GDP (including population), countries where future impacts of climate change will be dramatic are at risk to be missed out by these criteria.
7.2 For example, we are aware that DFID withdrawing substantial resources from the Andes, is because of staff cuts. However, the Andes is already one of the poorest regions in Latin America, and on that continent, it will be hardest hit by climate change as the Andes glaciers are expected to disappear entirely, having enormous impacts on water supply and livelihoods.
7.3 As mentioned in the section on climate change, with a growing budget but stringent staff caps, we are concerned that DFID will become a mechanism to pass funds to other international donor institutions, without the capacity to influence the mechanisms these institutions have in place to ensure their work truly benefits the poor in environmentally sustainable ways.
WWF Recommendations 7.4 DFID should overlay its current portfolio of countries with a map of countries where the predicted impact of climate change will be worse. Strategic choices will need to be made in terms of where DFID focuses its aid. However, leaving climate prone countries without support will only create new pockets of poverty.
7.5 DFID should evaluate the balance of bilateral and multilateral support, and consider to what extent it effectively has influence over the use of funds by multilateral institutions. DFID is committed to 'making the multilateral system more effective' including the institutions of the World Bank, the United Nations, the European Community and Development Banks. However, DFID needs to consider whether on environmental sustainability, it has enough capacity to influence these institutions to a sufficient extent that many of the environmental problems caused by development financing of, for example, the World Bank do not repeat themselves. DFID needs to have clear criteria, screening and monitoring mechanisms in place if it chooses to increase its investment through multilateral channels.
8. a rising budget but reduced staff levels8.1 A fundamental way in which DFID will deal with the combined issue of increasing budget and requisite reduction in staff levels is through the EU Code of Conduct on Division of Labour in Development Policy (Doc. 9558/07 agreed by all Member States in May 2007). The commitments under the Code are embedded in the principles of ownership, alignment, harmonisation and management by results of the Paris Declaration. EU Donors, therefore including UK, are also committed to implement the joint programming framework set out in the April 2006 Council Conclusions as a tool to advance division of labour.
8.2 The Division of Labour principles propose that each EU member state donor will aim at focussing their active involvement in a partner country on a maximum of 2-3 sectors, based on alignment with country priorities and comparative advantage of the donor. The principles also involve a geographical focus, a lead donor arrangement, and delegated cooperation between EU Member States. The partner countries will have clear views on the comparative advantages of different donors and in each of the selected sectors, donors should ensure mainstreaming of cross-cutting issues such as environment and gender.
WWF Recommendations
8.3 WWF would encourage a debate on the comparative advantage of DFID in terms of both sectoral support and geographical focus. The issues of environmental governance and environmentally sound and sustainable development that have been highlighted in the 2006 White Paper could well be one of the areas where DFID might take a lead, in particular because it is a sector/issue that, at DFID points out, is often neglected but it would be important to have that discussion with partner countries, other donors and other stakeholders. The results of analysis and debate and subsequent decisions should be reported in the next DFID annual report, including the plans for handling cross-cutting issues in the chosen sector.
9. Coherence9.1 DFID has stated on various occasions that it recognises the central importance of Policy Coherence for global development, and has been praised for being a leader in this area (Global Policy Project 2004[2]).
9.2 As noted in the Departmental Report (p 193) , DFID has agreed to take joint action with the European Union on Policy Coherence for Development (Doc.9266/05) and a rolling work programme on 12 policy areas. These are related to the areas of trade, environment, climate change, security, agriculture, fisheries, social dimension of globalisation, employment and decent work, migration, research and innovation, information society, transport and energy. All member states were due to report on progress in the first half of 2007 for the production of an EU Report on progress on policy coherence to be published in September 2007 and thence biennially.
9.3 Amongst EU Member States, the Netherlands has made public its report to the European Commission on progress in the 12 policy areas. We commend this practice of proactive and transparent reporting which allows civil society, parliamentarians, and other interested parties, scrutiny of detailed and comparable data and would suggest that the UK government follows this lead and also reports on all twelve policy areas in future DFID annual reports. We would also suggest that the government invites civil society to critique progress against policy coherence from their own perspectives and experience on the ground. The French Government, together with Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, commissioned a report on "The EU Institution's and Member States' Mechanisms for Promoting Policy Coherence for Development" which makes some interesting comparisons on the different institutional structures for policy coherence amongst Member States. For example, the use of multi-stakeholder reference groups in several member states, (eg Finland) is seen as an effective approach.
9.4 Particularly with regards to the UK's impact on the environment for sustainable development, the Departmental Report quotes the 2006 Commitment to Development Index of the Centre for Global Development in saying that the UK has the best environmental record of 21 OECD countries from the perspective of developing countries (page 193). This is a change in position from 3rd (amongst 21) in 2005. However, we would dispute this ranking, as our own ecological footprint work suggests that the UK ranks 8th out of 21 OECD countries (with an average national footprint of 5.6 global hectares per person) together with Belgium and France[3].
9.5 While the UK seems to have improved its performance on the Commitment to Development Index because of its recent international action on climate change, the fact remains that the UK as a whole is still living a 3 planet lifestyle, with serious implications for the capacity of developing countries to manage natural resources sustainably. Furthermore, a recent WWF report has estimated that the UK is the third biggest importer of illegal wood in the world[4]. The UK can and should still do much more to ensure that our production and consumption behaviour does not impact negatively on natural resources of developing countries and does not impede their ability to develop in environmentally sustainable ways. DFID, as the leading department on sustainable development, should be a leader across government on this issue, together with DEFRA and FCO.
WWF Recommendations
9.6 Following the good example of the Netherlands, DFID should make its report on policy coherence to the European Commission publicly available, and should report on all twelve policy areas in future DFID annual reports. Civil society should be invited to test the governmental reports against the experiences of practice on the ground.
9.7 DFID should be a more pro-active leader across government, with DEFRA and FCO, to ensure that our own production and consumption behaviour does not impact negatively on the natural resources of developing countries and does not compromise their ability to develop sustainably. As mentioned in point 6.1, DFID has made very important steps to move this agenda forward on Extractive Industries, forests and fisheries.
9.8. With a Comprehensive Spending Review underway, DFID has a unique opportunity to ensure that a coherent approach to sustainable development is entrenched in the UK government's overall policies, and will deliver a powerful tool to take forward coherence for sustainable development forward throughout Whitehall. We recommend that the top line PSA message includes "ensuring environmental sustainability" as is the case in the current draft PSA. It needs to be clearly articulated that "ensuring environmental sustainability" (MDG7) is not only about climate change and energy, but clear markers are needed for work to address other critical poverty, livelihood and sustainability issues such as natural resource management, biodiversity and ecosystem services. The PSA should also ensure that all UK policy, action and spending across government should be pro-poor and environmentally friendly.
ContactAlison Doig Senior Public Affairs Officer, WWF-UK Tel: 01483 412376 E-mail: adoig@wwf.org.uk
ANNEX 1
7 July 2007 - An assessment of the progress made on MDGs and the environment
Lies Craeynest 9 July 2007
IntroductionThe Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) have been agreed by the world's nations as a framework for action to reduce poverty and to achieve sustainable development objectives. They are an outcome of the Millennium Declaration, which was agreed by the heads of state and government of the United Nations during the Millennium Summit in September 2000.
The Live Earth concerts took place around the world on 7 July, a date that also marked the halfway point in the time alloted to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. The goals recognise that the environment and environmental sustainability are fundamental to human wellbeing, and MDG 7 specifically states this as a goal.
The Millennium Declaration pleaded that we must 'spare no effort to free all of humanity, and above all our children and grandchildren, from the threat of living on a planet irredeemably spoilt by human activities, and whose resources would no longer be sufficient for their needs'. A healthy and thriving environment lies at the very basis of human development, so achieving the MDGs on a long-term basis will depend on how we treat natural resources and the environment.
The most urgent environmental challenge today is climate change, as unabated global warming has the potential to obstruct or undo many of the development efforts currently under way. The International Panel on Climate Change concluded that 'over the next half-century, it is very likely that climate change will impede achievement of the MDGs'[5].
But other natural resources such as water, forests and fish are also crucial for human development.
To safeguard long-term success in meeting the MDGs, environmental sustainability needs to be higher up the political agenda still. The rhetoric has finally started changing, and new activities and programmes are being developed. However, the scale of the challenge to reverse environmental loss is enormous, and much more needs to be done more urgently. Without such an approach, any development gains will be transitory and inequitable. This paper provides an analysis, at the mid-point towards 2015 - the year set to achieve the Millennium Development Goals - of what has been achieved thus far on the environment. Key findingsPoor people depend most on the environment, and degradation of the environment impacts most on them.Poor people depend most directly on the services delivered by natural resources and ecosystems. They depend on them for food, water, fibres, fuel and income. Natural resources are often the few assets poor people have, and their degradation has a direct negative impact on these people's livelihoods. It makes the poor even more vulnerable, and exposes them to increased frequency and impact of droughts, floods, landslides and other natural disasters. In the context of climate change, vulnerability increases dramatically in the face of environmental degradation.
MDG 7 is the only Millennium Development Goal where the overall situation is getting worse, with ecosystems being depleted at a rate faster than they can be regenerated.The Millennium Development Goals agreed in 2000 include MDG 7: ensuring environmental sustainability. But this is the only goal where the overall situation is getting worse rather than better. This is the case across a wide range of ecosystems, particularly forests, freshwater sources, fish stocks and climate regulation. The loss of these natural resources and unabated climate change are putting the achievement of all other development goals at risk, particularly beyond 2015.
Urgent action needs to be taken to manage our freshwater resources, halt deforestation, protect and restore our fisheries, and cut carbon emissions.The international community needs to urgently address rapid natural resource loss and put mechanisms in place to ensure environmental resources are safeguarded in the future. This means taking urgent action to:
· ensure integrated management of freshwater resources; · halt deforestation by ensuring sustainable investment in the forest sector and making it illegal to import illegal and unsustainable timber and wood products; · work for sustainable fisheries by ensuring markets do not launder illegal catches; and · rapidly cut carbon emissions to ensure we stay below a 2°C increase in global temperature, and develop finance mechanisms for adaptation.
Because of the impact of their production and consumption patterns, rich countries have the greatest responsibility to act.Rich countries have the greatest responsibility to act because they are one of the main drivers of natural resource loss and climate change through their global consumption and production methods. If everyone lived as we do in the UK, we would need the resources of three planets to sustain ourselves. Developing countries also need to play their part by strengthening governance in their countries. But as the nations with the biggest ecological footprint, the rich countries need to act first and most dramatically. As well as ensuring that international trade and investment structures do not take advantage of weak governance in developing countries they also need to provide capacity and resources to help developing countries implement the international environmental agreements they signed up to. BackgroundThe first signs of human-induced climate change - in the form of changing seasons, abnormal weather, heatwaves, droughts and floods - have finally made wider society, including the media, politicians and business realise that the environment matters for humanity and for development. While poor people, such as the pastoralist people in northern Kenya, have contributed least to the problem of carbon emissions, they are already feeling serious impacts on their lives and livelihoods.
But the environment is much broader than the climate alone. Climate regulation is crucial, but is only one of the many natural ecosystems that form the basis of all life on Earth. Other natural resources also underpin human wellbeing, such as fresh water, food, clean air, wood, fisheries and productive soils. These are all relevant for various elements of human wellbeing, including security, health, good social relations, and basic materials for a good life.
Degradation of the natural environment has profound negative impacts on human beings, such as increased conflict and migration owing to the scarcity of natural resources. It has been shown that a healthy environment underpins all other Millennium Development Goals. It is for this reason that one of the MDGs - MDG 7 - explicitly refers to environmental sustainability (see Box 1). However, instead of environmental concerns being brought into the mainstream, they have often been sidelined and ignored within development institutions.
Based on the current targets and indicators, the UN reviews annual progress towards the Millennium Development Goals. For MDG 7, environmental sustainability, the Millennium Development Goals Report 2007[6] reviews progress on the following indicators:
1) proportion of land area covered by forests; 2) emissions of carbon dioxide; 3) proportion of population using improved sanitation; and 4) urban population living in slums.
The report clearly shows that overall, MDG 7 is one of only two goals where the situation has deteriorated rather than improved, particularly on forest loss, carbon emissions and slum conditions. The only other goal that seems to be globally off track is MDG 6 (combating HIV/Aids, malaria and other diseases), particularly on the prevalence of HIV and deaths from Aids. This echoes the 2007 UN Progress Chart, which shows MDG 7 covered with red boxes in most continents, meaning that there is 'no progress, reversal or deterioration' happening on many of these issues[7]. This is particularly the case for forest loss and sanitation.
However, it is widely recognised, including by the UN, that the current formulation and measurements for MDG 7 are not sufficiently coherent and fail to cover some key areas, such as healthy ecosystems[8]. A review process of MDG 7 has recommended that a better formulated, new target should be adopted on environmental sustainability, which will focus on biodiversity and reversing biodiversity loss. This target will be in force in July 2007, and will be followed by the development of clearer and more measurable indicators later this year or early in 2008.
In anticipation of the new targets and indicators, in this paper we assess the status of MDG 7 by looking at the current state of some key natural resources and environmental issues, which all underpin human wellbeing and development, as explained in Box 2.
Box 2: How biodiversity contributes to achievement of the Millennium Development Goals[9] MDG 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger Biodiversity and ecosystem services are essential to the productivity of agriculture, forests and fisheries. The soil fertility, erosion control and nutrient cycling provided by ecosystems enables people to derive food, water, fibres, fuel, income and livelihoods from natural and managed landscapes. Degraded ecosystems make the poor more vulnerable to increased frequency and impact of droughts, floods, landslides and other natural disasters.
MDGs 2 and 3: Achieve universal primary education; Promote gender equality and empower women When biodiversity and ecosystem services are degraded or destroyed, the burden falls disproportionately on women and girls, who are forced to travel farther and spend more time in the search for drinking water, fuel wood, and other forest products. This increased burden limits their opportunities for education, literacy and income-generating activities.
MDGs 4, 5 and 6: Reduce child mortality; Improve maternal health; Combat major diseases Genetic resources are the basis for modern and traditional healthcare treatments. Some 80% of the world's people rely on traditional healthcare systems that use traditional medicines, mostly derived from plants found in the local environment. The global pharmaceuticals industry also depends on genetic diversity: of the 150 most frequently prescribed drugs, more than half are derived from or patterned after the natural world. Also affecting maternal and child health is the increased spread of malaria, dengue fever, and other insect- and water-borne diseases linked to degraded ecosystems. Loss of biodiversity and ecosystem function can lead to economic disruption, population dislocation and urban crowding, which encourages the spread of communicable diseases such as tuberculosis, hepatitis and HIV/Aids.
MDG 8: Develop a global partnership for development Maintaining biodiversity and the integrity of critical ecosystem functioning will require global partnerships - encompassing government, the private sector and civil society in developing and industrial countries. MDG 8 embodies, among other things, the commitment of the developed countries to increase development assistance and open their markets to developing-country products - efforts that should be undertaken in ways that support rather than degrade the biological resource base on which achievement of the MDGs ultimately depends.
Progress on the MDGs and the environment
So, seven years after the Millennium Development Goals were agreed, how far have we progressed on the environment? The most recent figures available are alarming. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA)[10] found that approximately 60% of ecosystem services are being degraded or used unsustainably, including fresh water, capture fisheries, air and water purification, and the regulation of regional and local climate, natural hazards and pests. WWF's own most recent Living Planet Report (2006) confirmed that we are using the planet's resources faster than they can be renewed, and that humanity's ecological footprint has more than tripled since 1961. This is having an enormous impact on global biodiversity, with populations of vertebrate species (freshwater, terrestrial and marine) having declined by about one third since 1970 (Figure 1).
In the face of the enormous scale of these problems, it is the wealthy nations of this planet that have the responsibility to act. With their production and consumption patterns, the richest and emerging countries make use of almost three-quarters of the Earth's biocapacity. Looking at per capita consumption, it is mainly North America and Western Europe that are stepping heaviest on the Earth (Figure 2). WWF calculated that if everyone lived as we do in the United Kingdom, we would need three planets to sustain us - but of course we have only one.
Figure 2:
This paper looks at some of the key environmental resources and issues, including water, forests, fish and climate change, and evaluates the state of each at the mid-point towards 2015. It calls on rich countries to take urgent action to place MDG 7 and the environment at the centre stage in the development agenda, to urgently address rapid natural resource loss, and to do more to reduce and redirect their own ecological footprint on the world.
WATERFacts 2.6 billion people do not have adequate sanitation, 2.2 million people a year die of water-borne diseases, and every week an estimated 42,000 people die from diseases related to poor quality drinking water and lack of sanitation. Over 90% of this occurs in children below the age of five.
One-third of the world's population lives in countries that are experiencing moderate to high water stress.
More than 20% of the world's 10,000 freshwater species have become extinct, threatened or endangered in recent decades[11].
The biggest threats to sustainable freshwater flows are water infrastructure (including dams), over-extraction of water, and climate change. The quality of water is also affected by activities such as overfishing and pollution, which has negative consequences for humans and for nature and wildlife.
Water resources that are reliable, in quantity and quality, are a prerequisite for the provision of water and sanitation and the reduction of poverty.
There is a global crisis in water supply and sanitation. It is a crisis fundamentally driven by a failure to deliver development, exacerbating inequality and poverty. More than one billion people worldwide do not have access to clean freshwater. Some 2.6 billion people do not have adequate sanitation services, and the annual death toll from water-borne diseases is estimated at more than two million (WWF). It is a crisis that is killing as many as 5,000 children a day - this is the equivalent of 20 jumbo jets filled with children being lost every day to an entirely preventable public health crisis. Official estimates show that as many as 90% of the fatalities attributable to water-related diseases are children[12]. But less than 20% of developing countries are on track or have achieved the 2015 target to increase access to water, and less than 35% have increased access to sanitation. Sub-Saharan African countries are lagging behind other regions[13].
Water resources that are reliable in quantity and quality are a prerequisite for the provision of water and sanitation and the reduction of poverty. Water scarcity and declining access to fresh water are a globally significant and accelerating problem for 1-2 billion people worldwide, hindering growth in food production and harming human health and economic development.
Future impacts of climate change are expected to put increased pressure on already-stressed water systems and, consequently, on water and sanitation services. But even without warmer temperatures threatening to melt glaciers that provide water resources, rivers such as the Indus face scarcity due to over-extraction for agriculture.
The need for water to grow food will only continue to increase with a growing population. Furthermore, badly managed water resources threaten fish populations, which are the main source of protein and the overall life support system for hundreds of thousands of communities worldwide. Integrated water resource management is therefore essential for the long-term sustainability of water supplies for both human needs and nature.
Article 25 of the Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) called on all countries to develop Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and water efficiency plans by 2005. An informal survey in February 2006 found that only 21% of the 95 countries at the summit have plans or strategies in place or well under way; 53% have initiated a process, and the remaining 26% have made only limited progress[14].
RecommendationsWhile this is an important beginning, much more needs to be done, and with greater urgency. As part of the End Water Poverty campaign, WWF calls for:
· a global action plan for sanitation and water, monitored by one global task force; · 70% of aid money for sanitation and water to be targeted at the poorest countries; and · water resources to be protected and shared equitably.
There is an urgent need to speed up progress on the development and implementation of national integrated water resources and water efficiency plans, as agreed in the WSSD Plan of Implementation.
WWF also calls on governments to promote and accelerate UN Conventions to protect many of the world's river basins, which cross international borders, sustain millions of people and support vast ecosystems[15]. In this context WWF is campaigning for the UK government to ratify the UN Convention on International Watercourses, which will set an international legal framework for negotiation of regional agreements over shared water resources.
FORESTSFacts 60 million indigenous people depend on forests for their subsistence, and 1.2 billion people worldwide depend on forests for their livelihoods.
The global trade in timber is worth an estimated US$345 billion per annum.
An estimated 90% of the global trade sits outside any form of guarantee of either legality or sustainability.
Each year, 13 million hectares are deforested - that's around 36 football fields every minute.
Deforestation is responsible for 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
The total cost of the global illegal trade in timber is estimated to be US$10-15 billion per year.
Forests provide us with an incredible array of natural resources such as timber products, wood fibre for paper, wood fuel and medicinal plants that treat everything from the common cold to cancer. It is estimated that some 1.2 billion people worldwide depend on forests for their livelihoods, with 60 million indigenous people depending on forests for their subsistence[16]. Forest loss means the people and wildlife that depend on forests are increasingly marginalised, and that environmental goods and services including carbon sinks and regulation of water flows are severely disturbed and compromised.
Deforestation continues at an alarming rate - about 13 million hectares per year[17] (that's 200 sq km per day, which equates to 25 hectares or 36 football fields every minute). The ceaseless spread of urban development, illegal logging, the additional pressure of economic growth in key countries such as China and India, conversion for agriculture, road building, mining, and forest fires all contribute to deforestation. New threats to forests are emerging, including droughts because of climate change and encroachment by ill-planned plantations of biofuel crops such as soybean and palm oil. The Stern Review also estimates that land use change is responsible for 18% of global emissions, almost entirely due to deforestation[18]. This makes deforestation the second-largest source of emissions after heat and power generation, and significantly greater than the emissions from the global transport sector.
Forest planting, landscape restoration and natural expansion of forests have significantly reduced the net loss of forest area, but newly replanted land does not have the ecological value of older, more biologically diverse forests, and does not provide the same benefits and livelihoods for local communities[19]. Discussions are now under way to include deforestation as a major source of emissions in the Kyoto post-2012 framework. A framework that helps reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation, respects biodiversity and social and cultural values, and ensures attention to rights, equity and livelihoods could be a valuable tool in protecting standing forests.
The key causes of forest loss are illegal logging and conversion, much of it driven by unsustainable consumption in rich countries and unsustainable forest management by producing countries. The total cost of the global illegal trade is estimated to be US$10-15 billion, and developing countries with rich natural resources are the ones that lose out most[20]. For example, more than 70% of forest loss in Indonesia is illegal, and costs the country about US$1 billion a year. With regards to Tanzania, trade statistics show that China imported 10 times more timber products from Tanzania than appear on Tanzania's own export records, indicating that only 10% of revenue due from these exports is collected, and that a large proportion of logging is illegal[21].
While China's imports of wood have increased exponentially over the past decade, and it is often blamed for overexploitation of forests, it is important to note that more than 70% of this timber is processed into furniture and exported to the United States and the European Union[22]. The UK, for example, is estimated to be the world's third-largest importer of illegally harvested or traded timber and wood products[23]. Developed countries are sustaining the trade in illegal and unsustainable timber by continuing to drive the markets that take the illegal wood. By way of comparison, the overall cost of illegal logging is equal to between 13% and 19% of overall development aid given by the developed world[24].
RecommendationsSome progress has been made at an international level to reduce illegal and unsustainable logging through voluntary mechanisms to stop illegal trade, as well as through credible, voluntary certification which is capable of tracking timber and wood products sold, back through the supply chain to responsibly managed forests.
However, it has become increasingly clear that voluntary mechanisms will only take us so far. Incentives for illegal logging will continue to exist as long as the markets that take them are there. WWF is calling on the EU, as a major buyer and importer of illegal forest products, to introduce legislation that makes it illegal to import illegal timber into the EU[25] and to ensure that the timber traded has come from sustainably managed forests.
Influencing the finance and investment sector to restrict investments to responsibly produced source timber and wood products can also play a key role in tackling illegal trade. WWF believes forest certification is essential in ensuring that forests are managed in a way that allows us to meet our current needs while retaining the integrity of the forest's resources and production capacity for the future. Forest certification can provide a tool to promote good forest management, be instrumental in helping to curb illegal logging, and ensure sustainable investment capable of delivering long-terms returns.
FISHFacts 76% of the world's fish stocks are fully exploited, over-exploited or depleted.
Over a billion people in the developing world depend on marine fish for their livelihoods and food security.
Sub-Saharan Africa alone loses about US$1 billion a year from illegal fishing.
80% of reefs are at risk from coastal development, fishing-related pressures and climate change. Coral reefs provide fish and seafood for a billion people in Asia[26].
Fish from our oceans provide the principal source of protein for more than a billion people in the developing world. Yet the global fishing fleet takes two and a half times more from the oceans than they can sustainably produce. Worldwide, three quarters of the world's fish stocks are now already fully exploited, over-exploited or depleted. And each year billions of unwanted fish and other animals - such as dolphins, marine turtles, seabirds, sharks, and corals - needlessly die from inefficient, illegal, and destructive fishing practices. WWF is working directly with fishing industries, governments, academia and other non-governmental organisations to develop, test and implement new fishing gear that reduces by-catch (the unintended catch of non-target species). We are calling for a moratorium on bottom-trawling in deep-sea sites until an impact assessment is undertaken and until precautionary measures to prevent destruction of marine life are implemented.
Overfishing and destructive fishing pose serious threats to ocean life and habitats, as well as to people's livelihoods[27]. One of the biggest obstacles to achieving sustainable fisheries is illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU). Globally, at least US$4 billion of fish is caught illegally every year. Poor countries suffer the most from this situation. Sub-Saharan Africa loses about US$1 billion a year from illegal fishing, which amounts to a quarter of Africa's total annual fishery exports. In Tanzania, for example, figures from 2001 show that illegal incursions by high seas tuna longliners resulted in revenue losses of some US$20 million[28]. These are all resources that could be used for social spending, such as education and health.
Aside from the reduction in GNP, further revenue is lost through the avoidance of landings fees, licence fees, taxes and other levies that are payable by legal fishing operators. There are also direct impacts on people's livelihoods. These include the loss of income and employment in industries and activities upstream and downstream from the fishing operation itself, with a reduction in demand for fishing gear and equipment, and for labour in processing and packaging.
Local fishing communities are also negatively impacted. A recent report from Pakistan showed that the combination of IUU, weak surveillance and policing, by-catch and discarded fish, and little sanction against unsustainable industrial fishing is now devastating local fishing communities. Fisher folk say they now catch much less, have lost their rights to access fishing resources, and are losing their livelihoods, falling into debt, and going hungry[29].
One of the main drivers for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU) is the global overcapacity of fishing fleets, primarily caused by subsidies. Estimations of global fisheries subsidies annually paid to the sector vary between US$10-20 billion[30] and US$30-34 billion[31], which is equivalent to 20-25% of the revenues of the global fisheries sector.
Some of these subsidies have enormous negative environmental, social and economic effects, which prompted members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to include reform of fisheries subsidies in the agenda of the Doha round of trade negotiations, in November 2001. The process of 'clarifying and improving WTO disciplines on fisheries subsidies'[32] is progressing well, with members actively negotiating and proposing rules on banning harmful subsidies and allowing subsidies that promote transition to sustainable fisheries and promotion of responsible fisheries management practices.
Other major threats to sustainable fisheries and ocean ecosystems are primarily climate change, but also tourism, shipping, oil and gas development, and aquaculture.
RecommendationsAs the largest fisheries market and importer of fisheries products in the world, the EU has a specific responsibility to ensure that its market is not used by illegal operators to launder their catches, thus indirectly supporting IUU activities in external waters, particularly those of developing countries who have less capacity and fewer resources to regulate their fishing grounds.
EU measures should include: making the confirmation of the flag state of ships and submission of catch certificates conditional for imports, and prohibiting imports of fisheries products from non-abiding states; ensuring a level playing field for sanctions and penalties; setting up a traceability scheme and a database of IUU vessels; providing technical assistance and information to affected parties, particularly developing countries; and ensuring that developing country perspectives are heard and taken into account.
CLIMATE CHANGEFacts The world is warming. A recent IPCC report asserts with 'very high confidence' that already many natural systems are being affected by climate change, and that human systems such as coastal zones, agriculture and forestry management, and human health are also suffering its effects[33].
With only a 0.5-1.5°C increase, the small glaciers in the Andes will disappear entirely, threatening water supplies for around 50 million people. In Asia, millions of lives will be affected as stronger summer monsoons will make it warmer and wetter, increasing flood risks. Lower yields of maize are predicted across South America[34] with only a 0.5-1.5°C increase.
Sea level rise because of warmer temperatures will impact on developing countries in particular. With only a 1-2°C increase in global temperature, sea levels are estimated to rise between 1 and 5 metres, affecting at least 56-245 million people in developing countries[35].
With increases in temperature of 1.5-2.5°C, around 20-30% of plant and animal species are at increased risk of extinction. When ecosystems are destabilised, the people who directly depend on them for their livelihoods are also threatened.
By 2010, the UN estimates that there could be as many as 50 million refugees as a result of the effects of environmental deterioration[36].
Average global warming of 2°C above pre-industrial levels will result in dangerous and irreversible effects, which rapidly worsen above 2°C warming. While the window of opportunity of staying below 2°C is closing very fast, it is still possible[37].
The G8 countries (Germany, France, Italy, Japan, Canada, Russian Federation, United States and United Kingdom) produced total carbon dioxide emissions of 11.3 billion tonnes in 2004, which is 43% of the world's total emissions. Also, developed countries polluted the atmosphere with an annual average of 13.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide per inhabitant, compared with the global average of 4.2 tonnes[38].
Greenhouse gas emissions from the world's developed countries are largely responsible for global climate change, which threatens human wellbeing, ecosystem functioning and biodiversity. Recent figures show that, globally, the 11 warmest years yet measured have been in the last 15 years[39]. The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change estimates that irreversible damage to the world from unabated climate change could entail a cost equivalent to a permanent drop of 5-20% of global per capita consumption, with that cost being disproportionately borne by the poorest people who have been least responsible in causing climate change[40]. This drop in GDP could cause as many as 220 million people in Africa and South Asia alone to remain below the $2 a day poverty line at the century's end[41].
The development challenge will become more daunting and more urgent the longer we delay serious action to combat climate change. Once temperature increase rises beyond 2°C above pre-industrial levels, up to four billion people could experience growing water shortages. Agriculture will cease to be viable in parts of the world and millions will be at risk of hunger. This rise in temperature could see an extra 40-60 million people exposed to malaria in Africa. Changing precipitation patterns, extreme temperatures, increasingly violent storms and rising sea levels could also lead to massive migration and increased conflict. The threat from desertification, which already costs the economy US$42 billion a year, will increase. But the human cost is incalculable - some 135 million people, the combined populations of France and Germany, are at risk of being displaced[42].
A business as usual scenario in terms of carbon emissions could see the rise in average global temperature eventually exceed 5 or 6°C. At these levels, no one can predict what will happen to ecosystems and the people that depend on them, as this rate of temperature increase is beyond anything experienced in the last 10,000 years.
It is crucial and urgent to curb further emissions in order to keep global warming levels below two degrees. While this is by no means 'safe' and there will still be serious consequences, it is likely that this will limit the worst effects of climate change and avoid the most dangerous climate change[43].
The worst polluters have the responsibility to provide sufficient resources for the cost of adaptation that developing countries will need to incur to prepare for climate change. Oxfam has estimated that adaptation in developing countries will cost at least US$50 billion each year[44], but so far only a meagre US$48 million has been pledged towards adaptation. The polluting developed world has a moral responsibility to provide finance for adaptation to poor countries and vulnerable communities who have done nothing to cause the problem.
RecommendationsPromises were made at the G8 summit in Heiligendamm to conclude a UN deal by 2009 to succeed the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol, which comes to an end in 2012. But real cuts in emissions still have to be negotiated and countries must urgently recognise the need to stay below a 2°C increase in global temperature. This means cutting emissions rapidly and deeply, far below current levels. Globally, emissions need to be reduced to less than half their 1990 level by 2050. Developed nations, which have high per capita emissions and which have been responsible for the bulk of emissions to date, must reduce their emissions by at least 80% by the same date.
WWF has shown that it is possible to meet the growing global demand for energy using clean and sustainable energy sources and technologies, while protecting the global climate and safeguarding development[45]. However, urgent action is needed to shift the world's energy systems onto a low-carbon path. On adaptation, developed countries urgently need to develop financing mechanisms that provide sufficient and adequate resources that support the adaptation efforts of developing countries and vulnerable communities.
Conclusion
The international community has pledged to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. While there have been some successes in terms of poverty reduction, education and water provision, any results achieved will not last in the long term if there is not more progress on MDG 7 to ensure environmental sustainability and ecosystem health, which is the basis for all human development.
The UN's own assessment of MDG 7 does not bode well, as it is one of the only goals to receive many red-coloured traffic lights across all regions. Because the indicators for MDG 7 are weak, WWF has done its own assessment of the state of natural resources. Overall trends are very bleak. They indicate that there has not been a reversal of the loss in natural resources, but on the contrary, natural resources continue to be rapidly depleted as illustrated by the losses of fish stocks, continuing deforestation, and lack of progress on integrated water management and on reducing carbon emissions.
While there are many commitments and international agreements to safeguard the environment, they have failed to translate into international and national programmes for action, and have failed to protect the environment for the benefit of people. Unless more and urgent action is taken by the international community and national governments, we risk compromising the entire Millennium Development Agenda, and failing the poor as a result.
To conclude, WWF calls for:
· The UN to take forward the review process of MDG 7 indicators, to ensure that monitoring and progress reports are meaningful. · Concerted action at all levels (UN, G8, EU, regional and national) to place MDG 7 centre stage in a development agenda. This includes ensuring that the environment is brought fully into the mainstream in policies and programmes of development agencies, trade and industry departments and lending institutions, as well as requiring targeted resources to improve the health of ecosystems and restore their health and resilience, and ensuring that capacity is in place to ensure policy is translated into practice. · The international community to urgently address rapid natural resource loss and put mechanisms in place to ensure environmental resources are safeguarded in the future. This means taking urgent action to manage our freshwater resources, to halt deforestation, to protect and restore our fisheries, and cut carbon emissions. · Rich countries to urgently address the impact of their own production and consumption patterns on natural resources and biodiversity. If everyone lived as we do in the UK, we would need three planets to sustain us. Rich countries need to develop innovative ways to develop 'one planet' lifestyles[46] to ensure that our natural resource base is maintained and restored to a healthy state and benefits all people on this planet in a fair and equitable way.
ANNEX 2: DEG/UKAN principles on Environmental Transformation Fund
BOND Development and Environment Group (DEG) and UK Aid Network (UKAN) Principles for the International Window of the Environmental Transformation Fund (ETF)
We broadly welcome the international ETF announcement, but are calling for a public consultation on the fund, its scope, its disbursement, how it will operate and be managed, as well as its relationship to agreed ODA commitments and targets. We set out a number of key principles for the ETF below, as well as some more detailed issues related to how the fund will be spent. These will need to be dealt with in the course of the consultation.
This is a joint briefing by DEG and the UKAN for those engaged in the ETF decision-making process.
Key principles: 1. With growing recognition that 'business as usual' with extra money for climate change is not enough, this fund offers an opportunity for real environmental transformation. The UK could lead the way by showing how money can be used differently to deliver effective and coherent development and environmental protection and regeneration (i.e. sustainable development). The ETF should be used to help transform existing systems and processes, including through supporting developing countries to engage effectively with processes and debates that affect them. The Government must make sure that resources reach the areas where they are most needed, and support sustainable alternatives to unsustainable development options.
2. The £800 million for the ETF should be additional to the existing UK commitment to give 0.7% of GNI as aid by 2013. Otherwise, there is a risk that increased attention for climate change simply diverts funds from poverty reduction. There are also issues of principle at stake (such as polluter pays, equity and justice) - the poor and marginalised in developing countries should not pay, via reduced aid levels, for problems which are not of their making.
3. There should be clear transparency and accountability in managing the ETF. This should include clear and transparent information on ODA scoring, and clarity around where funds are being taken from and where they will be spent.
4. There should be coherence between the ETF and other government policies and practices, including the phasing out of funding for fossil fuels through multilateral development banks as low carbon energy sources are available. The continued funding for fossil fuels can exacerbate poverty locally and rarely benefits those who need energy most. The UK's role in consumption and production processes that lead to environmental degradation elsewhere must also be coherently addressed through all government departments.
Spending ETF funds: 5. The ETF should be based on integrated development models, ensuring that the poor and the environment benefit - for example by building "systems" (ecosystems, governance systems etc.) capacity and resilience, as well as supporting action on the ground. 6. The fund should be spent in ways that support and promote country ownership. Projects and programmes need to be accountable to local people, and not co-opted by elites. ETF spending should be based on locally identified needs, and should support the best possible solutions based on sound science and long term environmental sustainability. 7. Appropriate mechanisms for the disbursement of funds should be identified in advance, to ensure that the poorest and the environment benefit in the long term. This should be done in inclusive and transparent ways, recognising all the co-benefits of sound environmental protection and poverty eradication. Traditional funding mechanisms and aid instruments are often short term. Projects addressing environmental issues generally need long-term and predictable funding, including to manage important ecosystems and provide alternatives to land-use change. The ETF should help explore and implement sustainable funding mechanisms (e.g. trust funds, public payments for public goods, and payment for ecosystem services in a developing country context). 8. The fund should finance a balanced portfolio of options that are both bilateral and multilateral. The UK government should be imaginative about the range of avenues through which funding could be disbursed to support international, regional, national and local needs. It should be looking now to find and develop appropriate mechanisms for channelling resources within existing structures, avoiding the creation of new administratively costly institutions. Opportunities could exist through UNDP, UNEP, PEP and FAO, for example. Another option to explore might be some kind of challenge fund, which invites governments/civil society to bid for long-term funds, but does not impose particular models or priorities. 9. Clear criteria will need to be drawn up to identify which institutions would be eligible to manage programmes funded by the ETF. Strong caution on regional/international development banks, especially the World Bank, is urged given concerns about their accountability and their approach to energy policy and sustainable development. If money is channelled through development banks, its use must be clearly accountable, transparent, and have strong civil society involvement at country level in directing where and how money should be spent. 10. The Fund should not be tied just to DFID's priority countries, but focus on those with pressing climate change and environmental need (e.g. 'Megadiverse' countries, forest rich countries, SIDS, etc.). Deforestation, and other natural habitat degradation that contributes significant carbon emissions, is recognised as of international concern - and a priority for many developing counties within the UNFCCC 2012 discussions. Alternative options for development are essential - and could provide other significant co-benefits, including for biodiversity and forest dependent communities who rarely gain from forest conversion. 11. Three years is a limited period for the fund. Longer-term commitment and greater levels of support will be needed to respond to the challenge of climate change for developing countries and to ensure environmental sustainability. The UK government should explore additional funding sources, both nationally and internationally, to support this (e.g. carbon taxes, levies on international transport or the use of global commons such as the high sea). Future financing needs to reflect the responsibility of the UK as a contributor to climate change, and the scale of the challenge faced by developing countries and the natural environment.
5 June 2007
[1] Chatham House speech, 23rd February 2006. [2] http://www.globalpolicyproject.org/docs/idc.pdf [3] Calculations based on the Living Planet Report 2006, WWF. [4] Illegal Logging: Cut it Out! The UK's role in the trade in illegal timber and wood products, WWF-UK, January 2007. http://www.illegal-logging.info/uploads/cut_it_out.pdf
[5] IPCC, Working Group II, Fourth Assessment Report, 2007. [6] The Millennium Development Goals Report, United Nations 2007. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mdg/Resources/Static/Products/Progress2007/UNSD_MDG_Report_2007e.pdf [7] Millennium Development Goals: 2007 Progress Chart. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/mdg2007-progress.pdf [8] A review process of MDG 7 is under way to better capture the multiple ways in which the livelihoods of the poor depend on biodiversity and ecosystem services. A better-formulated target will be in force in July 2007, followed by the development of clearer and more measurable indicators later this year or early 2008. In fact, at the World Summit for Sustainable Development in 2002, additional 'MDG plus' targets were adopted relating to biodiversity, water, fishing, marine protected areas, harmful chemical substances, and sanitation. [9] Taken from The Millennium Development goals and Conservation. Managing Nature's Wealth for Society's Health, edited by Dilys Roe. 2005 (second print). [10] The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) was set up by the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2001 to assess the consequences of ecosystem change for human wellbeing. The MA involved the work of more than 1,360 experts worldwide. [11] Commission on Biodiversity, 2005. [12] End Water Poverty Campaign http://www.endwaterpoverty.org [13] World Bank Global Monitoring Report 2007 www.worldbank.org/gmr2007 [14] Global Water Partnership http://www.gwpforum.org/servlet/PSP [15] For more information on WWF freshwater policy work, see: http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/freshwater/our_solutions/policy_practice/index.cfm [16] WWF Forests for Life: Protect, Manage and Restore the World's Forests, August 2002. http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/protectmanagerestore.pdf [17] Based on FAO figures from 2005. For more on WWF work on forests, see: http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/forests [18] Stern et al. (2006), Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change, HM Treasury. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm [19] UN MDG Report 2006. [20] Illegal Logging: Cut it Out! The UK's role in the trade in illegal timber and wood products, WWF-UK, January 2007. http://www.illegal-logging.info/uploads/cut_it_out.pdf [21] Forestry, Governance and National Development: Lessons Learned from a Logging Boom in Southern Tanzania, Traffic East/Southern Africa, 2007. [22] Rethink China's Outward Investment Flows, WWF, April 2007. http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_re_think_chinese_outward_investment.pdf [23] Illegal Logging: Cut it Out! The UK's role in the trade in illegal timber and wood products, WWF-UK, January 2007. http://www.illegal-logging.info/uploads/cut_it_out.pdf [24] Overall aid in 2006 was US$103.9 billion, which equals €77.2 billion http://www.oecd.org/document/17/0,3343,en_2649_33721_38341265_1_1_1_1,00.html [25] See: http://www.wwf.org.uk/researcher/issues/forests/0000000284.asp [26] Millennium Project Task Force 2005 [27] For more information on WWF's marine work, see: http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/marine/problems/index.cfm [28] High Seas Task Force (2006). Closing the net: Stopping illegal fishing on the high seas. Governments of Australia, Canada, Chile, Namibia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, WWF, IUCN and the Earth Institute at Columbia University. [29] Taking the Fish, Actionaid, 2007 [30] World Bank [31] Recent study by Pauly (http://www.fisheries.ubc.ca/publications/reports/report14_6.php) [32] At the Fourth Ministerial Conference in Doha, Qatar, in November 2001 [33] IPCC, Working Group report II, Fourth Assessment Report, 2007 [34] Except in Chile and Ecuador. Lynass M (2007) Six Degrees: Our future on a Hotter Planet, Fourth Estate, March 2007. [35] Dasgupta, S, et al. (2007) The Impact of Sea Level Rise on Developing Countries: A Comparative Analysis, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper (WPS4136), February 2007 [36] World Health Organisation (2006) WHO/UNEP Health and Environment Linkages Initiative (website), WHO, Geneva www.who.int/heli/risks/climate/climatechange [37] Climate Change: Why we need to take action now! http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/2_vs_3_degree_oct06.pdf [38] Federal Statistical Office. [39] In descending order, these were: 1998 & 2005 (joint), 2002 & 2003 (joint), 2001, 1997, 1995, 1990 & 1999 (joint), 1991 & 2000 (joint). Compiled by the UK Meteorological Office and the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia for the World Meteorological Organisation. [40] Stern et al. (2006), Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change, HM Treasury. [41] Global Monitoring Report 2007, World Bank. www.worldbank.org/gmr2007 [42] UNCCD press release 14 June 2006, marking World Day to Combat Desertification. [43] Two degrees, one chance. The urgent need to curb global warming. NGO Policy Paper, May 2007. http://www.tearfund.org/webdocs/website/Campaigning/Policy%20and%20research/Two_degrees_One_chance_final.pdf [44] Oxfam briefing paper, Adapting to Climate Change, 29 May 2007 [45] Climate Solutions, WWF's vision for 2050: http://assets.panda.org/downloads/climatesolutionweb.pdf [46] See WWF's One Planet Living Campaign: http://www.wwf.org.uk/oneplanet/ophome.asp
|