Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200-219)
MR MICHAEL
FOSTER MP, JOAN
RUDDOCK MP AND
HUW IRRANCA-DAVIES
MP
3 MARCH 2009
Q200 Dr Turner: The other obvious
risk is that forest credits will not represent true reductions
because there is so much potential for the manipulation of baselines
and, indeed, an insufficient genuine knowledge base to be certain
that the baselines are accurate. In that context I would like
Michael to comment on the way that DFID has progressively reduced
the amount of money it invests into forestry research—which
is perhaps unfortunate, when we have a greater need for a good
knowledge base in forestry than ever before.
Mr Foster: One of the challenges
we have in terms of our research spend—clearly it is one
which faces every other government—is where to put the money.
We have put our emphasis in the last couple of years into agricultural
research, given the impact of global food shortages and the price
hikes which were so damaging to the 130 million people who were
pushed into poverty. We have taken the decision that we need to
look at agriculture in terms of the impact it has on the food
markets for various people, so that is one of the areas of difficulty
that we took as a priority..
Q201 Dr Turner: Would you like to
comment on the validity baselines, because they are so important
in this context.
Joan Ruddock: There is an important
recognition that baselines do not remain static and will need
to be adjusted as deforestation rates are reduced, but I think
the key to it is to recognise standing forests and to develop
a baseline that recognises deforestation rates and standing forest.
There has been work done on this. I am just going to take some
advice from my officials and then I will give you an answer.
Q202 Joan Walley: If you wish to
provide us with further information in writing on that, we would
be very happy to receive it from you.
Joan Ruddock: Perhaps that is
the easier way of dealing with it. Thank you.
Q203 Dr Turner: Do you think there
is a case for some independent international body to monitor and
verify existing forestry baselines and deforestation rates, especially
given that it is not just the area of forest that is important
but the quality of that forest.
Joan Ruddock: I agree with the
questions that you ask in terms of the quality and the area of
establishing all of that. Whether there is a need for yet another
international, independent body, I am less certain, but, again,
this is all part of the discussion that has to lead to finalising
an agreement, because there is no doubt the verification and monitoring
is essential to this and how it is done. At the end of the day,
we will or will not see that emissions have reduced, so we are
going to be at a point where we will understand what we have done
and how effective it has been.
Q204 Dr Turner: What is the Government
doing to ensure there is valid, accurate monitoring and evaluation?
Joan Ruddock: This is not something
for this Government to ensure. This has to come through an international
agreement. In some cases we are providing technical assistance.
We have a joint project with Brazil which is for satellite monitoring,
and we are assisting—again DFID may want to say something
about this—in helping countries to be prepared and able
to do the task that will be required of them as well as of the
international community.
Q205 Dr Turner: Someone is going
to have to be ultimately responsible. There does need to be an
authoritative body, obviously with international support, that
can fulfil this function. It does not necessarily have to be like
the creation of a new quango, but bringing together elements that
exist already. If they are not effectively co-ordinated they could
go badly astray.
Joan Ruddock: Sure. All we can
say is that this is part of a UNFCCC review process. We have not
come to a conclusion about exactly how this should be done. This
is ongoing work involving everybody but we are playing a big part
in trying to develop international methodology and, indeed, we
have given some finance to that end.
Q206 Joan Walley: If it is something
that should be achieved through the UNFCCC process, are there
actions that the UK Government from whatever department are taking,
to try to get that incorporated into the shape of the proposals
going forward?
Joan Ruddock: Yes. As I indicated
at the beginning, our officials are working very hard on trying
to bring about an agreement at Copenhagen that includes forestry.
To that end obviously this detailed work is essential, because,
as has been rightly suggested, it has to be possible to monitor,
to record, to verify what is happening and forestry countries
of course will have to develop their own inventory of their forestry
and they will need a great deal of help with that. Again, there
is international finance being gathered in order to assist that
process because the cost is very significant.
Huw Irranca-Davies: I do not think
we are in the position at the moment to put specific proposals
in front of the Committee to say this is the way we can see that
done, but we do recognise that there are a number of facets here.
One is developing proper means for the countries themselves to
engage with and own this issue and monitor it for themselves rather
than have some large bureaucratic entity come on top. But there
is an issue around the monitoring of it. The UK-Brazil initiative
in terms of satellite monitoring is an interesting way forward.
There is best practice out there but we are actively engaged in
this to see that. The interests that Defra has in this of course
is in terms of biodiversity and the impact that deforestation
has on biodiversity. We share with colleagues here the need to
find the best way of monitoring this as this process moves forward,
but I do not think we are in a position yet to share specific
or firm proposals as to how that would work. It is still a process
of engagement with partners in this.
Mr Foster: The collaboration with
Brazil and satellite monitoring has been mentioned and we are
more than happy to have African countries share that technology
and have access to that as well.
Q207 Mr Caton: You said earlier that
whilst climate change is the major challenge, we have to take
care of biodiversity and other ecosystems issues. It has been
put to us that a mechanism that simply pays for forest carbon
or forest area could lead to the replacement of natural forests
with plantations and the biodiversity loss that would result.
How does the Government propose that those sorts of potential
negative environmental impacts of a REDD mechanism can be avoided?
Huw Irranca-Davies: Mr Caton,
we all recognise that what are termed "primary forests"
are of a much higher quality, both in terms of carbon density
but also in cases of their resilience and the range of biodiversity
within the primary forests. The idea of deforesting one area and
replacing it with new growth is not ideal from a biodiversity
perspective. This is why we are quite reassured by the December
EU Council outcomes which looked at the use of gross deforestation
rates, the idea being that that puts the emphasis on primary forests
rather than clearance of forests and then replanting. The Bali
Action Plan also recognised the provisions of the Convention on
Biological Diversity and other international agreements that have
gone on for some years in this, to ensure that the maximum environmental
benefits of paying for carbon mitigation is achieved, so I do
not think you can take out the biodiversity from this entirely.
We are keen to ensure that that does play a part in these discussions
and in the REDD process. Just to reiterate, Dr Bob Watson, our
Chief Scientist, has been engaged with this process all the way
through and continues to be as well. He is chairing a sub-committee
of experts on biodiversity and climate change and the first part
of this work was presented to the UNFCCC in Poznan, and the next
meeting is in March, so it is very much embedded within the process.
Q208 Mr Caton: Are we looking for
specific environmental protection aims in the REDD mechanism?
Huw Irranca-Davies: I think we
are looking for it to be recognised within the REDD mechanism.
That is what we are hopeful of, that whilst the primary focus
is on issues around carbon, the importance of forestry, the important
impact of deforestation upon biodiversity is so significant that
we would wish to see it recognised within there as well and not
forgotten about.
Q209 Mr Caton: Do you agree with
what some of our witnesses have said, that the mechanism should
be structured in a way that preferentially rewards the protection
of ecologically important forests? From what you have said it
sounds like you would, but are we talking about getting this into
the REDD mechanism?
Huw Irranca-Davies: That is what
we are trying to tease out here in this process, yes. You are
right in interpreting my comments in that way. We would like to
see a way within the REDD process of identifying the important
issues that I have mentioned around whether you put as the baseline
net deforestation, which is the approach of some countries currently,
or gross deforestation, which puts the focus very firmly on primary,
high quality forests and all the biodiversity benefits. That is
what we are trying to tease out in this process, of how much we
can embed that within the REDD process.
Q210 Mr Caton: How near are we to
having a practical answer to that?
Huw Irranca-Davies: We are not
fully there yet, but we are fully engaged. It is an ongoing issue
but, as I say, thanks to the work done by our officials and Dr
Bob Watson we are hopeful that we will be able to get an outcome
that gives not only the carbon benefits of this process but also
the biodiversity aspects as well which are critical. Mention has
been made about the current economic climate and its effect on
this process. We are as aware as Defra of the potential impact
of the economic climate on biodiversity, so we want to make sure
it is within that, but we do not have a firm outcome yet, as I
know you know.
Q211 Mr Caton: Returning to our pessimistic
colleague Barry Gardiner, a positive that he put to us was that
the countries with low historic rates of deforestation should
be protected first to ensure that deforestation does not increase
there. What do you think about that approach?
Joan Ruddock: I am now answering
off the top of my head here, rather than from any briefing that
I have had on this, but it seems to me that it would be very difficult
to pick and choose within any international agreement. There is
a need to work on all aspects because it would not be acceptable,
would it, if we were to say, "Let's protect those who have
done the best, they deserve it" and those who have done the
worst with the greatest deforestation should continue to do so
while we were looking elsewhere. It has to be a comprehensive
agreement and then trying to get everybody to work to their capabilities.
There will be plenty of scope for people who do want to be rewarded
for what they have done, and we are very clear that there should
not be an international agreement that leaves out those who have
looked after their forests. There are some countries which have
relatively little deforestation and degradation, and, because
we concentrate so much on deforestation and degradation, it would
be very easy not to recognise them and their needs. Clearly, if
we as an international community are able to halt or to halve,
as we hope, by 2030 then of course industrial interests might
well switch and put huge pressure on the countries that have not
previously deforested. We need to protect and to work simultaneously,
as far as is possible, right across the board, from those who
have done best to those who have done worst.
Huw Irranca-Davies: Recognising
that there are different approaches to this in different countries
in the world, recognising that some are at different stages in
this, I think we do need a system or a mechanism that is flexible
enough to encourage everybody along that line, those who have
done well historically and those who need to do well too. We need
some flexibility. We have tried to design a system that reflects
this, that will be a further incentive to those who are more advanced
along this line but which will also bring others along. We know
that this has to be a comprehensive approach.
Joan Ruddock: It also does rest
on establishing the global deforestation baselines, because that
is the only way in which it will then be possible to recognise
where each nation sits in relation to the global deforestation
baseline.
Q212 Joan Walley: Could I just be
clear, if it is the case that Eliasch has said that it is unlikely
that environment protection safeguards can be incorporated into
the REDD agreement, are you saying, Mr Irranca-Davies, that you
feel the work your department is doing with Mr Bob Watson could
end up with some kind of corresponding UNFCCC that could take
account of these concerns about environmental protection, consistent
with the REDD agreement going forward?
Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, through
the UNFCCC. That is where this work is focused, with the team
of experts.
Q213 Martin Horwood: I want to start
with a follow-up question on the last set, because there seemed
to be a slight contradiction in your answers there. Mr Irranca-Davies
was suggesting, I think rightly, that the whole REDD implementation
process was bound to be in stages and could discriminate between
different situations, not least on issues like whether governance
structures were properly in place to implement it, whereas in
your reply on Barry Gardiner's question about whether we should
start by focusing on those areas with low historic rates of deforestation,
you almost seemed to be implying that we should not implement
REDD anywhere until we can implement it everywhere. That is surely
not right.
Joan Ruddock: No, I did not attempt
to suggest that in any way. I think I did say that countries would
be coming forward and being assisted according to their capabilities
and so on. I see that there would be a need not to exclude any
particular category of country. The agreement has to be comprehensive
but the order in which countries come forward for action will
of course vary right across the spectrum.
Q214 Martin Horwood: In which case
surely you should be open, at least, to thinking about Barry Gardiner's
suggestion about focusing, perhaps earlier, on those with low
historic rates of deforestation because that might be a particularly
effective way to stop further degradation there—or at least
to think about it.
Joan Ruddock: I have thought about
it and, again, unless I am being contradicted by my officials
I cannot see the logic in doing that. As I repeat, I think it
has to be comprehensive agreement. Countries will come forward
in different orders according to their needs and their capabilities.
Some press already. Guyana is one where there has not been huge
deforestation and degradation and they want to be recognised for
what they have done with the good stewardship. So there is a range
of activity. I repeat also that we spoke about the different stages
of funding mechanisms, and some of those are bilateral funds,
some of them are specific to a particular country that perhaps
is looking after its forestry well, and some others are trying
to tackle where there has been considerable deforestation.
Q215 Martin Horwood: I am sure Barry
was not arguing that we should not have a comprehensive agreement.
But, anyway, let us leave that. I need to come back to the issue
of indigenous peoples and I need to declare an interest here.
I am also Chairman of the All-Party Group for Tribal Peoples and
that is supported by Survival International which is a non governmental
organisation. We have heard from a number of witnesses that the
involvement of indigenous peoples in practice, both in things
like the World Bank Carbon Forest Partnership Programme and in
some of the negotiations to date, has been pretty poor in practice.
What has the British Government done to ensure that that situation
has improved?
Mr Foster: We recognise that if
there is going to be a financial mechanism that works we have
to deal with land ownership—which of course is fundamental
to the issue you have outlined; that we have governance structures
in the country concerned that can enforce the legal titles that
have been established and, yes, that the rights of local users
and indigenous groups are recognised and respected. That has been
the UK view. In terms of what that means for an agreement, clearly
we have to strengthen rights and governance. We have to create
incentives for communities, so that there is in a sense an accounting
mechanism by which the funding system ensures that the right people
benefit from any funding scheme that kicks off. The monitoring
systems that are in place to do this have to be transparent to
gain the credibility of the people's concerned and the public,
and we do think there is scope for independent advice and independent
auditing of the structures that are in place. In Bali 2007, part
of the agreement was clearly to recognise the needs of local communities
and indigenous people when any action is taken to do with reducing
emissions from deforestation. In Poznan last year, again there
was a very clear commitment to make sure that any schemes that
come up are transparent but also consultative of user groups themselves.
Q216 Martin Horwood: I am very, very
encouraged by the language you have used there, which was very
much about the language of rights, but you quite rightly did not
use the language of rights in connection with either Bali or Poznan.
Certainly in Bali I do not think the word "rights" was
used. There is a lot about consultation, about trying to recognise
the needs, but the language you have used is much stronger than
that. There are other governments, Australia and Japan and Norway,
which have tried to get the explicit language of rights included
in the international agreement. From what you say, that will also
be the UK Government's position. Is that right?
Mr Foster: Bali mentioned the
word "needs" as opposed to "rights", but we
believe that to establish the proper funding mechanism to work
you have to have the legal title, the legal rights of the land
that is involved to begin with, otherwise you cannot get the funding
going to the very people who need it.
Q217 Martin Horwood: Can we be absolutely
clear on the question I have just asked, which is that you will
be arguing for that explicit language of rights to be reflected
in the international agreement.
Mr Foster: As far as I am concerned,
the view we are looking at is to get the title of the land of
the forests, to make sure that the funding schemes that we are
trying to negotiate deliver the funding to the very people concerned,
and it is backed up by—
Q218 Martin Horwood: So that is a
yes?
Mr Foster: It is an establishment
of title of right, yes. It is an establishment of governance as
well, because you have to get the governance in place to enforce
any title or right that you recognise in the process.
Q219 Martin Horwood: It is encouraging
that we are talking about good governance in that context. Do
you think that REDD funds ought to be conditional on the recognition
of the rights of tribal people and indigenous peoples?
Mr Foster: In terms of the process
that we are going to go through, we have recognised all along,
as I have said, the key aspects to it. We want to see that in
national strategies, but we obviously want a comprehensive agreement
as well and that is obviously going to be part of the discussions
that go on. In terms of what I have seen on the ground, in terms
of where forest user groups are being supported by DFID, I was
in Nepal at the back end of last year, a place called Terathun,
where we looked in detail at the forest user group programme that
we have. We are using, in effect, a pilot to see how REDD strategies
can be adopted across a wide scale. The community forest programme
we have in Nepal covers 527,000 households and 4,600 forest user
groups. It is roughly 11% of the Nepali population, so we are
talking large scale involvement. In terms of the impact it has
on deforestation and degradation, of the user groups that were
asked about the environmental impact that they have seen, 82%
said that their forests were now in better condition than before
the community project was established, 86% reported there have
been improvements in water and wildlife, and these forests capture
around 700,000 tonnes of carbon per year, so there is real benefits
of these particular projects on the ground.
| 
