Appendix—Government response
Introduction
(i) The Government welcomes the Environmental Audit
Committee's continuing interest in international climate change
and forestry.
(ii) This is a cross-cutting issue and a number of
Departments are working together to deliver the Government's objectives
in this area. The Government's response to the specific conclusions
and recommendations of the Committee's Report is provided by the
Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC); the Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Department
for International Development (DFID).
Conclusions and recommendations
1. An agreement on reducing emissions from
deforestation and forest degradation will be required if the UNFCCC
conference in Copenhagen in December 2009 is to be a success.
We are concerned by evidence that the negotiations are focusing
solely on the development of a payment mechanism. An agreement
at Copenhagen must include a decision that the global community
will also act on both the supply- and demand-side causes of deforestation.
In particular, the UK and other developed countries must reduce
the impact of their consumption patterns on deforestation and
forest degradation. (Paragraph 14)
The UK agrees that reducing emissions from deforestation
and forest degradation (REDD) must be part of a Copenhagen agreement
in order to be on track to meet our ambition to keep global surface
temperature increases to less than 2°C. At Copenhagen the
UK wants to reach agreement to reduce tropical deforestation by
at least 50% by 2020, and to halt global forest cover loss by
2030 at the latest, while providing sustainable livelihoods to
forest communities and conserving and sustainably using biodiversity
and other forest ecosystem services.
The text under consideration for Copenhagen[1]
shows that the negotiations on reducing emissions from deforestation,
forest degradation and sustainable management of forests (REDD+)
are complex and go much wider than designing a price mechanism.
We support the multiple references to broader sustainability issues
and recognition of the importance of demand-side measures.
The Government is fully aware that in order to see
real emissions reductions from deforestation and degradation,
incentives need to address country specific drivers. Supporting
robust forest governance, including legislative frameworks and
adequate enforcement are essential. Any payment mechanism for
carbon reductions therefore needs to be preceded by institutional
capacity building where necessary, and complimented by demand
side measures. That is why we are participating actively in the
International Working Group on Interim Finance for REDD (IWG-IFR)[2]
which is working on a phased approach to capacity building leading
to incentive payments, and continue to support the development
of measures at the EU level to tackle trade in illegal timber.
Measures under the European Union's Forest Law Enforcement Governance
and Trade Action Plan 2003 can support the governance reform necessary.
2. The UK Government must lobby for an agreement
in Copenhagen that includes a mechanism to support capacity building
and effective governance in rainforest nations. The Copenhagen
agreement must reduce the economic drivers of deforestation. (Paragraph
21)
The Government accepts that capacity building for
climate change is fundamental for developing countries in implementing
the UNFCCC Convention and in addressing climate change at the
national level. Capacity building should be country-driven and
therefore based on specific capacity requirements. The Prime Minister
launched on 26 June an initiative to set out the UK's views on
climate finance, to encourage ambitious outcomes at Copenhagen,
which recognised the importance of REDD.
We fully understand that financial incentives will
not address greenhouse gas mitigation in the forest sector if
forest governance is weak. In many countries illegal activity—both
through logging and land conversion—has been one of the
most significant drivers of deforestation and forest degradation.
It is therefore vital that we address issues of forest governance
and build on existing national and international initiatives in
this area in order to effectively address the drivers of deforestation.
It is our objective that an agreement on REDD at Copenhagen will
create a new economic incentive to value the carbon in forests,
so that this value can be properly reflected in subsequent decisions
about how forest resources should be used.
The UK is seeking to ensure, through the EU Forest
Law Enforcement Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan 2003,
and participation in the World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership
and Forest Investment Programme, as well as through the IWG-IFR,
that developing countries have in place the capacity to tackle
effectively the drivers of deforestation.
3. We recognise the benefits of channelling
funding through multilateral organisations, but the Government
must ensure that these organisations effectively deliver its aims.
More resources should be given to bilateral activity on forestry
related issues, especially as development objectives and climate
change objectives are well aligned in measures to reduce emissions
from deforestation. (Paragraph 24)
The Government takes seriously the effectiveness
of the multilateral finance institutions through which it channels
funding. A performance framework is in place to monitor progress
in improving the effectiveness of these institutions. The UK is
represented on the governing bodies of the Congo Basin Forest
Fund, the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility and the Forest Investment
Programme and is able to exercise direct oversight of these funds.
DFID will direct more resources bilaterally to meet
specific objectives and to take advantage of opportunities to
advance wider, international, objectives.
4. We caution against further reductions to
UK bilateral activity in significant rainforest nations. The UK
must be able to work effectively on environmental issues in its
bilateral relationships. Outsourcing environmental work may lead
to a reduction in civil service expertise and the UK's effectiveness
in this field. The Government must ensure it retains an appropriate
level of expertise. (Paragraph 27)
The Government has no plans to reduce further its
bilateral work with rainforest nations and fully agrees with the
Committee's comments about retaining an appropriate level of expertise.
Although not strictly a form of bilateral activity,
DFID's support to Partnership Agreements between rainforest nations
and the European Union under the FLEGT Programme, provides a vehicle
for the UK to work effectively with rainforest nations on matters
related to forests and the broader environment. Added to this,
Defra continues to support some smaller but significant projects
through bilateral funding, including through the Darwin initiative
and the Sustainable Development Dialogues.
For example we are working closely with the Brazilian
Government through the cross-Government UK-Brazil High-level Dialogue
on Sustainable Development, which has a strong focus on forestry
and natural resource management issues. Within this we are providing
£140,000 to support a collaborative project run by the UNEP
World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and the Brazilian
Environment Ministry (MMA) which will assess the value of environmental
services from Brazil's Protected Areas to the country's economy.
This will also contribute to the international research study
on The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB).
The UK Government acknowledges the importance of
retaining UK expertise, but also on developing that expertise
in the country where deforestation is occurring. Such capacity
building through learning has a long term impact. Creating a small
network of professionals in-country and internationally can also
contribute to better in-country projects by boosting ability and
capacity to influence wider strategic priorities in-country.
5. We welcome the Forest Carbon Partnership
Facility and hope that it will influence thinking on how to reduce
emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. If implemented
effectively, the strategies that are developed under it could
play a key role in helping rainforest nations shift to more sustainable
land use. We are concerned, however, that action being taken under
it could be undermining work the Government has done elsewhere
to improve forest governance. In its response to this Report the
Government should make clear what action it has taken to address
these criticisms. (Paragraph 30)
We are very conscious of the need to ensure that
work we do in one area builds on and strengthens existing work.
In this way we have been working to ensure that strategies
developed under the FCPF address issues of forest governance and
build on existing national and international initiatives, particularly
learning lessons from the FLEGT process. Full and effective consultation
of forest-dependent indigenous peoples, and other forest dwellers,
in the development of strategies is vital. Assessment of the first
Readiness Preparation Proposals under the FCPF recognise the need
for governance issues to be addressed as thoroughly as possible
and we will continue working with the FCPF Facilities Management
Team and stakeholders to achieve this.
The Government is providing £15m to the FCPF
which aims to provide US$300 million split between a Readiness
Fund (support for 37 countries to develop strategies to reduce
emissions from deforestation and degradation) and a Carbon
Fund (piloting payments to approximately 5 countries for reducing
deforestation/degradation below an agreed level). The FCPF has
been established, as have all the Climate Investment Funds, on
the basis of equal representation of donors and recipients and
in a pilot capacity. At the Participants Committee meeting for
the Readiness Fund in June 2009, it was recognised that concepts
of readiness, and the development of a strategy to reduce emissions
from deforestation and degradation will need to evolve together.
It was therefore agreed that Countries could enter into a Grant
Agreement on the basis of a Readiness Preparation Proposal. This
does not have to be a fully completed Plan but Countries will
be expected to address outstanding issues and report on these
to the Participant's Committee as they move forward.
6. We welcome the Government's wish to ensure
that forest peoples' rights are recognised in the agreement at
Copenhagen. We believe that eligibility for forest payments should
be conditional on the protection of local communities. Commitment
to a rights based approach might be evidenced by ratification
of International Labour Organisation Convention 169 on Tribal
and Indigenous Peoples; the UK Government should encourage rainforest
nations to sign and ratify this treaty. (Paragraph 35)
The UK supported the Bali Action Plan (2007) commitment
that the needs of local communities and indigenous people will
be addressed when action is taken to reduce emissions from deforestation.
We were pleased that the Conclusions at Poznan (2008) invited
Parties and accredited observers to submit their views on issues
relating to indigenous people and local communities for the development
and application of methodologies. We will continue to support
developing countries in working out how best to achieve transparent
and consultative REDD strategies, including through piloting community-based
approaches to forest management. We will also work within the
governance structures of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility
and Forest Investment Programme to promote the interests of local
communities and indigenous people.
The UK is not planning to ratify ILO Convention 169
as there is no evidence that there would be any benefit to indigenous
people in other countries by us doing so. However, we may encourage
other countries with indigenous populations who would benefit
to ratify ILO 169.
7. UK development assistance could increase
greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation if not managed effectively.
We urge DfID to ensure that the programmes and projects it funds
bilaterally, including through arms length bodies such as CDC,
and multilaterally, through organisations such as the World Bank,
assist progress towards a low-carbon global economy and halt deforestation.
We recognise that in certain cases projects that lead to managed
increases in emissions and deforestation might be defended on
development grounds; indeed many developing countries claim a
right to increase their emissions because they are not responsible
for current greenhouse gas concentration levels. But the need
to reduce emissions, including those from deforestation, must
now be included within developing countries' national development
and growth plans; DfID should ensure that development assistance
contributes to the development of a low-carbon economy. (Paragraph
40)
DFID share's the Committee's view that its development
assistance should promote a low carbon economy. We are working
to identify and support patterns of economic growth that break
the link between rising emissions and economic growth. DFID has
funded a number of low carbon growth studies in the larger emitting
Middle Income Countries (MICs) through multilaterals and think
tanks including China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia and South
Africa.
DFID's investments, whether they are for agricultural,
infrastructure or other developments, are subject to environmental
impact assessments. Multilateral finance institutions such as
the World Bank also have safeguard policies. In the case of CDC,
its investments, including those through other investment funds,
are guided by an investment policy and investment code. DFID sets
these two frameworks and the Board of CDC oversees implementation
and governance.
Further, a joint Defra/DfID initiative on Valuing
Ecosystem Services will look practically at how ecosystem services
can be incorporated into economic development decisions and support
wider efforts to build capacity for environmental management in
developing countries, including in climate change adaptation plans.
The international TEEB report (supported by Defra and DfID) will
provide advice that attempts to mainstream the consideration of
ecosystem service values for national and international policy
makers, regional and local decision makers, businesses and citizens.
8. We welcome the Joint Nature Conservation
Committee's work on the UK's global impact on biodiversity. This,
combined with the Foresight Project on Global Food and Farming
Futures, must be used by the Government to identify how to reduce
the deforestation that results directly and indirectly from UK
demand for commodities. This work should consider the consumption
of all imported commodities that affect deforestation. The Government
should take account of and engage with work being done on these
issues by the European Commission. (Paragraph 42)
We recognise that there is a need for a high quality
evidence base to assess and highlight the real trade-offs made
when converting forest land to alternative land-uses, and the
effects of consumption on forests and other ecosystems. Projects
like the JNCC's Global Impacts Programme, which integrate ecological
and economic data, are key to developing this evidence base. We
need to disaggregate costs and benefits between those who incur
and receive them; gaining a full understanding of impacts allows
Government to prioritise and to work out how to implement policy.
The Foresight Global Food and Farming Futures project
is looking at how we can feed a future global population of 9
billion people healthily and sustainably. The project will look
out to 2050 and take a global view of the food system, considering
issues of demand, production and supply as well as broader environmental
issues, including in relation to the wider externalities of production,
consumption and the supply chain. Regional case studies are being
commissioned to consider particular issues in more detail. For
example a study is being commissioned from Brazilian experts to
look at how this major food producing country might respond to
future global food prices and what the consequences of this might
be for land use, ecosystem services and biodiversity. Importantly,
the project aims to catalyse substantial international action
based on its findings. It is planned that the Foresight project
will report by October 2010, and Government will work to ensure
the relevant project findings are integrated into cross-Government
strategies for tackling deforestation as they emerge.
We also acknowledge that efforts need to be targeted
at both demand and supply side measures and the UK Government
is working with business and Government partners nationally and
internationally to develop and improve sustainability standards
throughout product supply chains.
We recognise the important role of voluntary and
mandatory sustainability standards. However, developing and agreeing
sustainability standards is not a simple task, especially given
the global and inter-related nature of food, fuel and other commodity
markets—and the trade-offs between their various economic,
social and environmental impacts. There remains much to be done
to develop the scientific and economic evidence base for the full
scale of the impacts associated with a range of commodities, and
the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both direct
and indirect land use change. We aim to prioritise work to develop
sustainability standards in those instances where there is potential
for the most significant benefits.
For example, the UK Government has recently agreed
to fund a collaborative project between the Roundtable on Sustainable
Palm Oil and producers in South East Asia and big UK buyers. This
will review, improve where possible, and increase take up of their
sustainability criteria, thus increasing production and consumption
of sustainable palm oil —a major agricultural commodity.
The Government's work on developing its public procurement
policy is a further pragmatic step forward in which the Government
aims to influence markets, and learn through practice how standards
can deliver the outcomes we want. The Committee has already noted
the value of our timber procurement policy, and we are currently
considering how it might develop Public Procurement Policies for
other commodities.
We are also engaging in the EU, including through
the Sustainable Production and Consumption Round Table on food,
and will be working with the European Commission and private industry
to develop a common methodology to measure the environmental impact
of food and consider how this should be applied at the European
Community level.
9. A fundamental reassessment of the way in
which the global agricultural system functions is needed. It is
critically important that the Government's response to the global
food crisis includes strong support for a global change in sustainable
land use and an end to deforestation. (Paragraph 49)
We are already looking closely at how we can
promote sustainable land use in the global agricultural system.
Our response to Recommendation 8 sets out some of this work, and
the complicated issues with which we are dealing. We are additionally
engaged in work around, for example, the Global Bioenergy Partnership
to develop voluntary sustainability criteria and indicators (including
in relation to food security) for bioenergy (see also our response
to Recommendation 11), the responsible purchasing of timber by
Government (Recommendation 14), and controls on the illegal timber
trade (Recommendation 15). We are also involved in research strands
to develop the evidence base to inform our work in this area,
including the ongoing work of the Foresight project; research
on the indirect impacts of biofuels on land use change; and on
how we can increase global food production and productivity to
meet global 2030 food needs in the most environmentally sustainable
way (which we hope will inform the Foresight work).
10. While we welcome the Government and G8
response to the global food crisis and its call for a Global Partnership
on Agriculture and Food, we are very concerned that the G8 has
failed to address the need for sustainable production of agricultural
commodities. It failed to act on agricultural subsidies, biofuel
subsidies and other damaging trade-distorting measures. This suggests
that the G8 countries are not committed to solving the developing
ecological and food security crisis in a sustainable way. (Paragraph
50)
We welcome the report's acknowledgement that the
UK government has been at the forefront of the international response
to the global food crisis, leading efforts through the G8, the
Global Partnership for Agriculture and Food Security (GPAFS) and
other fora, to increase global food security. This approach considers
short, medium, and longer-term responses, underpinned by sustainable
natural resource management, and taking account of both climate
change adaptation and mitigation including in terms of investment
in water management infrastructure. The Government's recent International
Development White Paper "Eliminating World Poverty: Building
our Common Future" draws on this and sets out our future
ambition.
We recognise that food security, natural resources,
climate change and poverty eradication are inextricably linked.
An integrated approach to development is needed, one that maximises
these synergies and manages any necessary trade-offs between them.
This will help us meet future food needs—including underpinning
our own food security here in the UK—without undermining
the natural resource base (including forest resources) and the
ecological services that it provides and on which the poor are
most dependent, many for their livelihoods.
In this context, July's G8 Summit set out commitments
to help ensure a more food secure world, including through the
promotion of sustainable agricultural development for which leaders
committed to mobilise $20bn over three years. GPAFS will be one
mechanism to help achieve this. Leaders also recognised the need
to work closely with developing countries to better integrate
sustainable land management into national development and climate
change plans, to further promote sustainable forest management
with a view to reducing forest degradation and deforestation,
and to continue efforts towards trade reform, including an ambitious,
comprehensive and balanced conclusion of the Doha Development
Round, to encourage more open and efficient markets.
We continue to develop the evidence base to inform
our work in this area, including through the Foresight Global
Food and Farming Futures project described above at Recommendation
8, and Defra has commissioned its own research into how we can
increase global food production and productivity to meet global
2030 food needs in the most environmentally sustainable way, which
we hope will inform the Foresight work. In addition, HMG's current
research on the indirect impacts of biofuels on land use change
will inform future policy.
11. We are concerned that the Renewable Transport
Fuels Obligation and the Renewables Obligation are stimulating
deforestation. Potentially damaging biofuels should not be promoted
until the technology improves, robust mechanisms to prevent damaging
land use change are introduced and international sustainability
standards are agreed. The Government must ensure its policies
do not stimulate or accelerate deforestation. (Paragraph 57)
The Renewable Energy Directive (RED), which contains
an ambitious target for the UK to source 10% of its transport
energy from renewable sources by 2020, also contains mandatory
sustainability criteria which all biofuels must meet in order
to be counted. These include achieving a greenhouse gas saving
of at least 35%, and they must not be sourced from areas of high
biodiversity such as rainforests or wetlands. The RED and the
Fuel Quality Directive (FQD—which requires the UK transport
sector to achieve a 6% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by
2020) are expected to be transposed into UK law by December 2010,
and we will consult on options for implementing them early next
year.
The UK is committed to these targets but we realise
that more needs to be done to ensure the sustainability of biofuels,
especially regarding their indirect impacts. The UK is already
at the forefront of the debate into sustainable, cost effective
biofuels. We are one of the first to establish a reporting system
into the sustainability of our biofuels and the Renewables Obligation
now requires all biomass generators in the UK to declare certain
sustainability reporting information—including country of
origin. We are building on the EU sustainability criteria by chairing
work in the Global Bioenergy Partnership to develop voluntary
sustainability criteria and indicators for bioenergy, including
biofuels. The Government is also supporting the development of
sustainable advanced (or next generation) biofuel technologies.
We are also pursuing a comprehensive research programme to help
us identify the "good" biofuels, those that do not cause
environmental or social damage.
The European Commission needs to produce a report
on indirect land use change in 2010, and review by 2014 whether
the 2020 target can be met sustainably. The UK will be focusing
its research efforts on trying to find a workable methodology
for accounting for the indirect impacts of biofuels under the
RED, to inform our policy at UK, EU and international levels.
12. It is wrong to apply sustainability standards
to commodities used for biofuels but not for food and we recommend
that the Government develops sustainability standards for all
agricultural commodities. The Government should work on ending
damaging agricultural subsidies in the EU and other developed
countries so that standards can be agreed. A mechanism that rewards
countries for not converting forests to agricultural use will
make it possible to reach international agreement on sustainability
standards. (Paragraph 58)
Many thousands of standards, benchmarks or comparative
rating systems, for a huge range of commodities, products and
materials, have been developed and publicised by national and
international standard setting bodies, Governments or other parties.
This has been essential to support many market interventions which
drive sustainability, such as legal minimum standards, voluntary
initiatives, fiscal measures, procurement standards and product
labelling. The UK Government has supported the use of standards
and benchmarks to improve agricultural sustainability through
benchmarks which support industry standards for legal and sustainable
timber, the EU Ecolabel e.g. for wooden and paper products and
the Fairtrade label, as well as minimum legal standards for managing
the environmental impacts of farming in the UK.
The Government has also been working with the British
Standards Institute and the Carbon Trust to develop a Publicly
Available Specification to measure embodied greenhouse gas emissions
which can be applied to food and drink products, and most UK supermarkets
also require producers to supply food which is produced to the
standards laid down by Assured Food Standards or Global G.A.P.,
which includes standards for the working conditions of agricultural
labourers). Some supermarkets produce their own supplier protocols
to ensure food safety and environmental benefits. We are looking
into ways that the Government might support more rapid progress
in supermarkets decreasing the levels of deforestation which might
occur as an indirect result of purchasing policies, for example
on palm oil through the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (see
response to Recommendation 8).
Further, we have prioritised work to develop sustainability
standards for biofuels, which have been specifically developed
to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and which need to be genuinely
sustainable if they are to appeal to potential consumers.
We acknowledge the significant environmental benefits
to be gained through sustainable agriculture. The UK will continue
to push for further reform of the Common Agricultural Policy so
that farmers are free to produce in response to market and consumer
demand, with future CAP expenditure focused on securing from EU
farmers environmental benefits which would not otherwise be delivered
under market conditions. The CAP should be non-distorting of international
trade and the world economy and provide for an agricultural sector
which is sustainable, without reliance on subsidy or protection.
The sector must be truly competitive, providing consumers with
safe, good quality, nutritious food which they can afford and
which they can trust.
Finally while the UNFCCC process is not, in itself,
tasked to develop or endorse sustainability standards for commodities,
our work towards agreeing a mechanism to reward countries for
REDD will create incentives to move away from unsustainable practices
in favour of behaviour that benefit the forests, by recognising
the value of the full range of services they provide.
13. Three years ago we called for legislation
to ban imports of illegal timber. No ban was introduced and illegal
timber remains an unacceptable part of the UK timber trade; it
is possible that the UK is one of the world's largest importers
of illegal timber and illegal timber products. This failure to
ban illegal timber means that the UK is undermining efforts to
improve forest governance and contributing to deforestation and
its associated emissions. (Paragraph 61)
The Committee is right to stress that the trade in
illegal timber is an unacceptable, and that the UK has a central
role, along with other major consumer countries, in developing
policies to tackle this trade. We fully support the Committee's
findings that that any proposed REDD framework will only deliver
its objectives if the UK puts in place strong, demand side measures
to tackle the problems of illegal logging and deforestation.
The UK remains committed to working within the EU
in taking forward the FLEGT process. We are pleased with the signing
of the first two Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) since
the launch of the Inquiry. DFID has since committed £6.5
million for the implementation of the VPA with Ghana. The Government
will continue as key player in the EU process to take this work
forward.
The European Commission's proposal for a new EU Due
Diligence Regulation to tackle the illegal trade continues to
be discussed by EU Member States and the European Parliament.
The UK government consulted on the proposal in May this year.
Responses to this consultation confirmed broad support for measures
to put in place demand side measures to tackle the illegal trade
in a proportionate and targeted fashion. The UK will work with
the Swedish Presidency of the EU, taking account the range of
views on the proposal, in efforts to reach political agreement
to the proposal in EU Council by the end of the year. Further,
the UK has also tabled a proposal for a prohibition on the first-placing
of illegal timber on the European Community market, with the aim
of strengthening the Regulation.
14. The Government has a policy framework
to ensure the procurement of legal and sustainable timber by central
government but it has been poorly enforced. We welcome Defra's
development of a timber monitoring and tracking system to address
this problem; an effective system is needed across Whitehall at
the earliest opportunity. The Government should consider introducing
penalties to motivate departments and companies to implement policy.
The Government must also insist that local authorities and the
wider public sector adopt timber procurement policies. (Paragraph
66)
The Government agrees that responsible purchasing
of timber is an important step in tackling deforestation and climate
change. Defra published in July 2009 the timber reporting pilot
study (http://www.proforest.net/cpet/implementation-in-practice/timber-reporting-pilot-study).
The study recommended that:
1. Reporting on timber for all major construction
projects (new builds and refurbishment over a threshold value)
should be compulsory (section 4.1) and
2. For all other timber and wood products not
purchased for a major construction project, that the relevant
body would be required to operate an appropriate system of internal
spot-checks and audits, supplemented by an external programme
across government (section 4.2).
Defra will be following up on the recommendations
and views the report as a key step towards setting up reporting
and monitoring systems, which will play a key part in Defra's
strategy to implement the UK Government's revised timber procurement
policy that came into force on 1 April 2009. We will consider
the issue of possible penalties within this context.
We are also implementing an awareness raising campaign
targeting all central government departments and key public sector
projects related to timber use, such as Building for the Future.
We are also supporting work to engage Local Authorities to develop
and implement a responsible timber procurement policy through
the Central Point of Expertise on Timber (CPET), WWF UK and the
UK Timber Trade Federation. A newly developed toolkit, a helpline
and training to assist Local Authorities is available free from
CPET.
In addition Defra is working closely with the Olympic
Delivery Authority (ODA) who have set high and rigorous timber
procurement standard and created a Timber Supplier Panel to ensure
that only legal and sustainable timber is used during the construction
of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games venues and infrastructure.
15. We support the Government's desire to
strengthen the current EU proposals on control of the illegal
timber trade. The Government must work with the EU to make it
an offence to place illegal timber and timber products onto the
market and to introduce robust sanctions to enforce these rules.
(Paragraph 70)
As set out above, the UK included a proposal for
a prohibition on the first placing of illegal timber on the EU
market as part of our public consultation on the Commission's
proposal. This proposal received a great deal of support from
a range of stakeholders, although others expressed concern about
the impacts of such a prohibition on certain operators. We will
take forward discussions on this proposal in a manner which respects
these concerns. The UK believes that the additional inclusion
of a prohibition will not, per se, increase the general cost of
implementing the Regulation for operators.
The Government reiterates that a prohibition on the
first placing of illegal timber on the EC market will only be
successful if it is agreed by a range of players, not least other
EU Member States and the European Parliament. We will continue
to work to convince others of the importance of strengthening
the Regulation in this way.
The Government also acknowledges the importance of
robust penalties and an enforcement regime if the Regulation is
to meet its stated objectives. We commit to further discussions
on this issue as part of our implementation of the Regulation,
once agreed.
16. A system to pay for sustaining forests
is vital. But such a system could be counter-productive if it
allowed developed countries to continue emitting unsustainable
levels of greenhouse gases or if it diverted funds away from projects
that enable developing countries 'leap-frog' carbon intensive
development. (Paragraph 78)
We agree that including forestry in a global deal
should not be a way of avoiding action to de-carbonise either
developed or developing economies—we are seeking the most
ambitious deal we can achieve in Copenhagen. Domestic abatement
has to account for the bulk of developed country effort and we
need to ensure that financial flows from the carbon market continue
to support low carbon development in developing countries. This
will require stringent targets for developing countries and a
staged approach to ensure the introduction of forestry credits
into the carbon market does not undermine the global carbon price.
We welcome the European Commission's leadership and
the December Environment Council Conclusions which suggests that
a new market mechanism for forest credits should be established
on a trial basis and deforestation credits could be valid for
government compliance with post 2012 commitments.
17. We do not believe that a forest payment
system based on carbon markets will avoid these problems at present.
Forest credits should not be allowed in the EU Emissions Trading
Scheme at this stage and should be considered only in the future
after the impact of such credits has been tested. (Paragraph 79)
While we think there is an important role for carbon
markets in the longer term, we agree that we should not bring
forest credits into company based trading schemes at present.
However as capacity develops, rules on the amount of forest credits
that can enter the market can be used to ensure the market is
not destabilised. We therefore welcome the provision contained
in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme Directive for new crediting
mechanisms under an international agreement. This gives the flexibility
to include credits from avoided deforestation and other land use
activities in future phases of the EU ETS, once we have measurement,
reporting and verification provisions in place, an understanding
of the effect on carbon prices and long-term commitment to reduce
emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.
18. The Government must suggest ways to pay
for sustaining forests. These should include non-market funding
sources, such as the hypothecation of a percentage of EU Emissions
Trading Scheme revenues and how forest credits could help to meet
non-traded sector emission targets. (Paragraph 80)
The Prime Minister made a proposition that all countries
should work toward raising finance to combat climate change, including
avoiding deforestation, to a level of around $100bn per year,
derived from multiple sources, including both public and private
funds and carbon markets. He has proposed that some of the public
finance could come from a limited amount (up to 10%) of official
development assistance where it clearly meets both poverty reduction
and adaptation or mitigation objectives. The rest would come from
a combination of new and additional sources of finance. The UK
would be willing to support the approach proposed by Norway, which
is an "automatic" mechanism for generating predictable
and credible flows of international public finance by auctioning
a small proportion of international emissions allowances.
The funding needed to meet the EU's target of halving
deforestation by 2020 is estimated by the EU Commission to be
in the range £10 billion to £20 billion a year. Meeting
this need will require a range of funding sources and instruments.
Public funds could also be used to encourage private
sector finance into sustainable forest enterprises by sharing
the risks to private investors through public-private partnerships.
We will work to build consensus on options for payments
for forests, including through the Informal Working Group on Interim
Finance established following a meeting of world leaders hosted
by his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales on 1 April 2009.The
aim of the Working Group is to examine interim financing needs,
mechanisms and architecture to help address tropical deforestation
with the aim of delivering a final report to inform the Copenhagen
climate negotiations in December.
19. In the search for a suitable mechanism
to pay for forests, the Government must also examine the supply-
and demand-side issues we have identified. A forest payment mechanism
by itself will not stimulate the necessary governance reforms
in all countries. The Government must consider how to link payments
for forests to reform of governance in rainforest nations. It
must also act bilaterally to build capacity and the necessary
institutions in rainforest nations. Rainforest nations with severe
governance problems will find it extremely difficult to reduce
emissions and they could be rewarded for making verifiable efforts
to develop independent judicial systems and reform legal, fiscal
and land tenure systems that will help halt deforestation in the
future. (Paragraph 81)
A payment mechanism for REDD has yet to be agreed
by the UNFCCC but we anticipate that there will be three phases
in the development of such a mechanism:
- An initial phase where funding
is provided based on a country's commitment to develop a national
REDD strategy, and to support the necessary capacity building
required for implementation;
- A second phase where funding is provided to implement
policies and measures that reduce emissions and progress is based
on proxies such as the trend in area of deforestation;
- A third phase where payments are made on the
basis of measured reported and verified results.
The second phase of implementation of policies and
measures provides the main opportunity for developing the linkages
between payments and governance reforms. Capacity building as
part of phase one could also provide support for the development
of frameworks and for taking forward reforms. We are working through
the IWG-IFR to develop ideas on how the phases can be funded until
an agreement is reached under the UNFCCC.
DFID is supporting governance reforms in a number
of rainforest nations, primarily through its Forest Governance
and Trade Programme, linked to the EU FLEGT Action Plan 2003,
but also in other ways. FLEGT and REDD are concerned with the
same set of constraints: market failures, lack of institutional
capabilities, weak regulatory capacities and corruption. Both
require: inclusive multi-stakeholder planning processes; clarification
of resource rights and tenure and avoidance of negative consequences
for local communities; strengthening of law enforcement and judicial
systems; credible means of reporting and verification which build
buyer confidence; and control of international leakage.
20. We recommend that payments to forest nations
to reward reforestation, afforestation or avoided deforestation
are designed to protect primary and natural forests. Biodiversity
safeguards should be built into any agreement reached at Copenhagen
in December. Restoration, reforestation and afforestation will
also be significant contributors to halting dangerous climate
change and should receive significant support. Balancing these
objectives without making a scheme that is so complex that participation
is discouraged is the key dilemma in drawing up any international
agreement. (Paragraph 88)
Reducing deforestation and degradation has real potential
to deliver a positive impact on biodiversity. Primary forests
are generally more carbon dense, biologically diverse and resilient
than other forest ecosystems. The December EU Council Conclusions
supported the use of gross deforestation rates. This would include
only primary forest in a country's avoided deforestation reference
level and so prevent simply chopping down trees in one area and
replanting in another. Action to reduce forest degradation, plus
afforestation and reforestation would be counted additionally.
The Bali Action Plan recognised the relevant provisions
of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as well as other
relevant international environmental agreements and we are seeking
language in the Copenhagen agreement to ensure that the maximum
environmental benefits of paying for the carbon mitigation services
of forests are achieved.
The UK has been leading the way in looking at this.
Dr Bob Watson, DEFRA Chief Scientist, chaired a meeting of experts
on biodiversity and climate change convened under the Convention
of Biological Diversity (CBD), to provide biodiversity-relevant
information to the UNFCCC. The first part of this work was presented
to the UNFCCC in Poznan, and the main messages from the second
meeting were made available to the UNFCCC SBSTA in June 2009.
A final, peer reviewed report, will be submitted to the UNFCCC
in Copenhagen.
Finally, the UK recognises the important role of
forest restoration in tackling climate change and achieving sustainable
development goals and has been actively promoting this globally.
The UK, with IUCN and WWF are founder members of the Global Partnership
on Forest Landscape Restoration (GPFLR) which was formally launched
by the UK Government in 2003. Its aim is to promote a responsible
approach to the use of forests in the restoration of degraded
land. The aim of this approach is to benefit both communities
and the natural world. A number of governments, the World Bank
and the FAO are members of the partnership. We will be exploring
the opportunities for Forest Landscape Restoration to contribute
even further to achieving climate change mitigation and adaptation
objectives over the coming months.
Department for Energy and Climate Change, Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Department for International
Development
1 In September 2009 the text under discussion can
be found at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf
This is a living document that changes constantly. Back
2
The IWR-IFR was set up following a meeting hosted by the Prince
of Wales in London in April 2009. Back
| 
