Examination of Witnesses (Questions 93-99)
MR DUNCAN
BRACK AND
MS ALISON
HOARE
16 DECEMBER 2008
Q93 Chairman: Good morning and welcome
to the Committee. We have just been talking a bit about governance.
I wonder if you could say how important you think an improvement
in governance is in tackling deforestation.
Ms Hoare: It is absolutely fundamental.
A lot of deforestation is the result of poor governance and so
without effective governance it is not possible for a government
to control its forest resources. It needs to devise a strategy
or plan of how to manage the forests and also you need good governance
to implement that planning. Without good governance nothing is
going to work basically.
Q94 Chairman: What do you think about
the progress of Poznan on these issues, if any?
Ms Hoare: I did not participate
in Poznan, but from the feedback that I have had from colleagues
I guess I would say that the progress was probably what was to
be expected. It is very much just a step on the road to Copenhagen.
As we heard from the previous witnesses, there was little progress
in terms of some of the substantive issues, but it was useful
in identifying some of the key methodological and more technical
questions that still need to be addressed. So really the next
year is going to be very critical in the run up to Copenhagen.
Q95 Chairman: Do you think it is
possible to be successful in dealing with deforestation without
both poor governance being tackled and also the whole question
of the economic value of the qualities that can be produced? Are
those two ingredients absolutely essential to the process of tackling
deforestation?
Ms Hoare: In relation to forest
governance, yes, it is certainly essential. As I was highlighting,
a government needs to be able to be able to control its resources,
it needs to be able to develop an effective strategy and implement
this. This means that you need effective institutions and there
needs to be systems in place so that governments can consult with
all the stakeholders concerned. All those elements need to be
in place if deforestation is going to be tackled. The second part
of your question was?
Q96 Chairman: It is really how the
economic factors work in this as well.
Mr Brack: Clearly there needs
to be a higher value to protecting the forest and not cutting
down than there is to logging it or replacing it with agriculture—palm
oil or soy or whatever. At the moment the economic returns to
alternative investments like palm oil and soy are much, much higher
than sustainable forestry. So until you sort that out as well
as the governance problems you will not have a solution. If you
are going to say that countries will be protecting much bigger
areas of their forest than they currently to, you also have to
find a means of making a living for all the people who currently
rely on extractive methods of forestry and that is millions of
people, which is not an easy thing to do.
Q97 Dr Turner: What do you think
about the treatment of governance issues in the Eliash Review?
Ms Hoare: I welcomed the strong
focus on governance issues, I think that was right and highlighting
the fact that there needs to be effective institutions in place
and also the focus on land rights and ensuring that those fundamental
issues are addressed. Where I do have concerns is I think it was
overly optimistic in relation to the ease with which those issues
can be addressed. I think it will be a lot more difficult than
is implied by the Eliash Review. If you look at the history of
development interventions, they all show and highlight the difficulty
of bringing about effective reform.
Q98 Dr Turner: You clearly do not
share his confidence that the governance issues can be wrapped
up in five years and the history of attempting to tackle governance
in the past backs up your lack of confidence, does it not?
Ms Hoare: Yes. I do not share
the optimism that we can address these issues within five years.
Clearly the situation varies hugely in different countries. In
some countries if you have effective interventions with a clear
idea of how to intervene and good support from the government
in place then five years would be sufficient, but in many other
countries it will not be. A key problem is that in many countries
there still remains a lack of political will to instigate change.
Q99 Dr Turner: What would you say
were the principal reasons for the failures of past attempts at
governance reform?
Ms Hoare: It is difficult to say.
There is a whole host of reasons. From the perspective of the
donor side of view, it is often a case of perhaps not a sufficiently
co-ordinated approach and not consistent, not having a sufficiently
long-term view as well. It is not possible to have effective forest
governance reform without looking more widely, so it has got to
be part of a bigger picture. In many countries failures in forest
governance is due to wider governance failure, so you need a very
broad picture. In countries where the whole sociopolitical system
is not functioning effectively it is very difficult to instigate
change.
Mr Brack: We have tried to encourage
people to look at the lessons from the FLEGT process which is
designed to improve governance in forest countries, so it is tackling
exactly the same problems that any REDD mechanism will have to
do. The sheer scale of the problems they are tackling is very
daunting in some countries. We are talking about the clarification
of forest law which is often contradictory between different levels,
between national and regional levels and generally not well enforced
anyway. The previous witnesses made the comment about the lack
of capacity which is certainly true. You are talking about clarification
of land ownership legislation which has been a problem in many
countries for decades, if not longer. You are talking about needing
to put in place a system for independent verification of what
is going on, which can be quite costly. The five-year target might
be possible in some countries, but you are assuming general political
will across all elements of government and not just the forestry
ministries, which I think are generally signed up to the REDD
agenda, but all the other law enforcement agencies, finance ministries,
industry, agriculture ministries have to be working in the same
direction. In many countries I do not think you have that general
commitment and general political will. Even if you can deal with
the underlying problem of corruption— I do not agree with
the previous witness— that is a problem in many, if not
most, forest rich developing countries. The FLEGT system has had
problems. To assume that you can sweep all those aside and solve
all your governance problems in 40 rainforest nations in five
years is just ludicrously optimistic. I do not think you will
find many people who work on forestry governance who would not
agree with what I have said.
| 
