Memorandum submitted by the WWF-UK
1. SUMMARY
1.1 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. WWF is
uniquely positioned to comment on these issues, as WWF's work
is worldwide, with offices in more than 50 countries. Our experience
across the developing world includes work on freshwater, biodiversity,
climate change, forests, trade and energy. We work in partnership
across the globe with civil society, national governments and
multi-national agencies towards our goal to build a future in
which humans live in harmony with nature. WWF was the first environmental
organisation to hold a Partnership Programme Agreement with DFID.
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, [24]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 CHANGE
2.1 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. [25]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. Such a report would
also recognise the limits to adaptation (some places will be invariably
impacted and no adaptation efforts will be of help), which is
critical to provide the platform from which the UK government
can advocate for national and international change to meet its
adaptation and mitigation commitments as well as leverage other
countries to meet theirs.
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 REPORT
3.1 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 (p 25-30), there is no discussion about some of the key
challenges for Africa, ie 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 eight out of 15 all
African PSA countries (all countries in Africa have a focus on
water and sanitation, but eight 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 seem 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 MDG 7 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% 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 GROWTH
4.1 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".[26]
5. BUDGET SUPPORT
AND AID
EFFECTIVENESS
5.1 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. GOVERNANCE
6.1 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 AID
7.1 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 LEVELS
8.1 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 two to three
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. COHERENCE
9.1 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). [27]
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 third (amongst 21) in 2005. However, we would dispute this
ranking, as our own ecological footprint work suggests that the
UK ranks eighth out of 21 OECD countries (with an average national
footprint of 5.6 global hectares per person) together with Belgium
and France. [28]
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 three 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. [29]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" (MDG 7) 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.
24 Half way to the Millennium Development Goals-An
assessment of the progress made on MDGs and the environment, WWF,
9 July 2007 http://www.wwf.org.uk/FILELIBRARY/PDF/MDG7.PDF Back
25
Principles for the International Window of the Environmental
Transformation Fund (ETF), BOND Development and Environment
Group (DEG) and UK Aid Network (UKAN), 5 June 2007-http://www.bond.org.uk/pubs/groups/environment/ukan°ETFprinciples_5June07.pdf Back
26
Chatham House speech, 23 February 2006. Back
27
http://www.globalpolicyproject.org/docs/idc.pdf Back
28
Calculations based on the Living Planet Report 2006, WWF. Back
29
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 Back
| 
