House of Commons - Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation: No hope without forests

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation: No hope without forests - Environmental Audit Committee Contents

3 Supporting rainforest nations

Governance

16. Key to tackling deforestation is effective governance in rainforest nations. This includes effective forest management but also wider reforms of governance including the establishment of effective and independent judicial systems, legal and tax reforms, and action on issues associated with land tenure.[23]

17. Chatham House estimated that some $550 million to $3.7 billion would be required over the next five years to reform governance in the forty rainforest nations that might participate in a mechanism to pay for reduced deforestation.[24] But it cautioned that its analysis was based on projects that had often failed to achieve the desired outcome; the actual costs of successfully addressing governance problems could be larger.[25] Five years might be enough time for some countries to undertake the necessary reforms, but others will need longer.[26] Chatham House also cautioned that governance reforms are unlikely to succeed without the political will to implement change, and this was unlikely to be forthcoming "unless some of the overwhelming current economic incentives for deforestation are reduced".[27]

18. When we visited Cameroon we saw first hand that poor governance prevents sustainable forestry management. Although Cameroon has some of the most developed forestry laws and policies in the region these are undermined by:

a lack of enforcement of legislation;
ineffective or corrupt collection of forest revenues;
ineffective distribution of benefits to local communities; and
a lack of land tenure rights for local communities.

The recent Tropical Forest Tenure Assessment published by the Rights and Resources initiative found that reform of land tenure in the Congo basin was proceeding very slowly and would take 260 years to achieve the levels of recognised ownership or rights by local communities as in the Amazonian countries; if reforms were increased to match the pace of reform in Amazonian countries it would take only sixteen years.[28]

19. In October 2008, a European Commission Communication recognised that there would need to be financial support for developing countries to undertake the necessary reforms, but that this support would be 'performance-based and provided on the basis of verified results'.[29] The UK Government is pressing for financial support to be linked to reductions in deforestation.[30] Joan Ruddock MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) recognised the challenges in this area but argued that there was cause for optimism given the strong signals being sent by a number of countries that they were willing to make a forest agreement work.[31]

20. Countries that face the greatest governance challenges might not be able to participate in a forest payment mechanism from its start.[32] This could lead to 'leakage'—protecting forests in one country could increase deforestation in a country that is not participating, so that emissions are not reduced overall. To ensure that countries with major governance problems are not excluded from a payment mechanism a sectoral approach could be taken—rewarding countries for initiating reforms that will protect forests rather than only for changes to deforestation rates. For example, countries could be rewarded for successfully implementing the legal reforms necessary, even if these do not result in verifiable emissions reductions.

21. 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.

BILATERAL SUPPORT FOR GOOD FOREST GOVERNANCE

22. DfID has a five-year, £24 million, Forest Governance and Trade Programme that "aims to tackle the problems of illegal logging in developing countries and the associated international trade in illegally logged timber".[33] A number of witnesses and the Rights and Resources Initiative (a coalition of international, regional and community organisations engaged in conservation, research and development) commended this work, and the Government's involvement in moving forward the EU's Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Programme.[34]

23. Funding for forest governance is increasingly being channelled through multilateral organisations, such as the recently launched £50 million Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF) (managed by the African Development Bank) and the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) (managed by the World Bank). Michael Foster MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, DfID, argued that while bilateral projects give the government very tight control and ownership of projects, they can be resource intensive for both the donor and recipient countries. By channelling funds through multilateral organisations such as the World Bank "you get more effective and efficient use of money [and] you get much wider coverage of your particular project because more money is banded together under one roof".[35] The Minister acknowledged that it was essential to have clear oversight of multilateral funds. The Government is represented on the governing bodies of the CBFF and FCPF.

24. 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.

25. A disadvantage of a shift to funding through multilateral organisations might be the loss of civil service expertise. We have raised concerns about the loss of environmental experts at DfID and FCO over the past few years.[36] We have been concerned that this might damage the ability of these departments to integrate environmental issues into their broader work programme.[37] Robin Webster, Friends of the Earth, argued that there needs to be more support for departments working in forest governance:

[…] there are under-resourced and struggling parts of [the Government] and parts of the European Commission working on the FLEGT process which have developed considerable expertise on this over the years in terms of working on issues like governance, issues like land tenure, how you work intensively with one country in order to tackle these issues. If that had more resource—and it is about finance, it is about expertise, it is about a real sharing of knowledge, it is about a long-term commitment and process—that is the way we can start to tackle these issues, rather than a headlong rush into a carbon market process.[38]

26. DfID plans to close its bilateral programme with Cameroon in 2011. When we were in Cameroon some interlocutors thought that this closure indicated a lack of UK Government commitment to tackling environmental issues in the region. This is of considerable concern given the need to encourage the Cameroonian government to protect the Congo Basin forest—the second largest rainforest after the Amazon.

27. 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. We welcome the call by the International Development Committee for DfID to re-establish engagement in the forestry sector.[39]

THE FOREST CARBON PARTNERSHIP FUND

28. The Forest Carbon Partnership Fund (FCPF) was launched by the World Bank in 2007 to assist developing countries in reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation, and to influence global thinking about how to achieve this as part of a UNFCCC agreement. The process was meant to be fully integrated with other sectors and existing programmes, especially with regard to biodiversity and development.[40] Saskia Ozinga, of FERN (a forest NGO), told us that there has been a failure to ensure that FCPF work was complementary to other good governance processes and that it had caused a shift in focus from governance reform to a debate simply about how to channel funds to developing countries in the quickest way possible.[41] FERN and the Forest People's Programme claimed that:

[…] the process has been rushed, is implicitly linked to a market based REDD, is dominated by central governments, and has so far involved little or no consultation with indigenous peoples, local communities or civil society organisations. Furthermore […] the World Bank's forest fund is not following its own rules or safeguard policies.[42]

29. In February 2009, the World Resources Institute published a review of the governance plans of countries participating in the FCPF. This found that several governance issues were "generally and conspicuously" missing:

inadequate consideration of law enforcement requirements;
limited analysis of existing land tenure issues and potential obstacles to reform;
a lack of attention given to achieving coordination across sectors with few countries acknowledging "potential conflicts between policies to reduce deforestation and policies in the agricultural or infrastructure sectors"; and
inadequate consideration of how to manage and disburse REDD payments, "significantly [raising] the risk of corruption and elite capture".

The review concluded that the countries participating in the FCPF need to focus more on overcoming governance difficulties.[43]

30. 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.

Forest dependent people

31. Around 1.6 billion people rely "heavily" on forest resources for their livelihoods, including "60 million indigenous people living in the rainforests of Latin America, Southeast Asia and West Africa".[44] Any changes to forest governance, or access to forest resources, could have a large impact on such people. Fiona Watson, of Survival International, pointed out that indigenous peoples are "possibly the most marginalised of any groups; people who have very little and in some cases no access to any information about potential developments on their land and what their rights are under national let alone international law".[45] She argued that forest carbon payments could lead to a land grab, with governments or others seeking to restrict access to forests leading to an erosion of forest dependent peoples' rights.[46]

32. Charlie Kronick of Friends of the Earth saw the protection of forests and the protection of forests peoples as being mutually reinforcing. He pointed to evidence that one of the most effective and cheapest methods for protecting forests is to protect the rights of indigenous peoples to their land.[47] The Eliasch Review found that lack of clear and secure land tenure is a "major factor driving deforestation in many nations".[48] It found that "only when property rights are secure, on paper and in practice, do longer-term investments in sustainable management become worthwhile".[49]

33. A number of witnesses were concerned that the international climate change negotiations were failing to consult forest dependent peoples or take into account the potential impacts of a forest payment mechanism on them. Tom Griffiths of the Forest Peoples Programme pointed out that indigenous peoples' representatives had protested that governments "had not paid heed" to them, noting "[a]lthough there had been some mention by the EU, and, indeed, the UK, actual firm commitments were not forthcoming at Poznan [which] is a real concern [to] indigenous peoples and groups that support them".[50] Robin Webster of Friends of the Earth agreed that only "lip service" had been paid to the issue in both the negotiations and the FCPF.[51] Saskia Ozinga of FERN argued that "recognition of rights [of local communities and indigenous peoples] should be a precondition for any programme or REDD scheme coming into operation".[52] Survival International also called for the Government to ratify International Labour Organisation Convention 169 (ILO 169), which recognises tribal peoples' rights to:

the land they traditionally use and live on
meaningful consultation about projects affecting them
freedom from discrimination.[53]

34. The Government recognised that in order to protect local people "we clearly have to strengthen rights and governance".[54] The DFID Minister believed that the UNFCCC negotiations recognised the needs of local communities and indigenous peoples and that in Poznan there had been a "very clear commitment" to consultation with such groups. The Government was seeking to ensure that the rights of local people to their land were established, and that part of this process would be to ensure effective governance more widely.[55] Joan Ruddock MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, DECC, cautioned that it was a challenge negotiating on this issue with sovereign states but that the Government hoped that a deal at Copenhagen "will have an element in it which recognises the rights of indigenous peoples".[56] The Committee is aware of new British technologies that could play an increasing part in helping local communities to map their forests and secure their land rights.

35. 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.

Wider aspects of development policy

36. In 2006 we concluded that DfID's climate change policy lacked coherence, saying: "On one hand it highlights the seriously detrimental impacts of climate change […] on the other hand it is directly and indirectly responsible for very significant emissions[…] through the projects it funds".[57]

37. The Eliasch Review acknowledged the difficulties associated with balancing infrastructure development and the environment. It found that the "rigorous application of environmental and social impact assessments [are] a key means to expose the inevitable trade-offs between different policy objectives, make decisions in the full knowledge of the likely impact on deforestation and rural livelihoods, and put in place mitigation strategies where necessary".[58] It also found negative impacts will only be avoided if forestry objectives are mainstreamed into national growth and development strategies.

38. DfID, through CDC Group plc (CDC), invests in developing country infrastructure projects. CDC aims "to maximise the creation and growth of viable businesses in poorer developing countries, through responsible investment and mobilising private finance". Its Investment Policy "requires it to[…] follow best practice in corporate governance and business ethics, as set out in its Business Principles".[59] In August 2007 a subsidiary of CDC was granted a concession to "develop, finance, build and operate" a dam in Cameroon at the Memve'ele waterfalls on the Southern edge of the Campo Ma'an National Park. The project was to be located close to the park's "richest part in terms of wildlife", which was to be "seriously affected by the dam construction".[60] The park is home to gorillas, elephants and other endangered species.[61] CDC said it was "confident that there have been high environmental, social and governance standards in place throughout [its] involvement with the Memve'ele dam", that the proposed dam was a "relatively small, run-of-river hydro project and most of the area where the dam would be located has already been designated for forestry concessions". On 6 April 2009 CDC informed us that "unfortunately, due to lack of progress on a number of issues, Globeleq [the CDC subsidiary company] have just informed the Prime Minister of Cameroon that it is withdrawing from development of this project".[62]

39. The National Audit Office has pointed out that DfID uses CDC's financial performance as the principle indicator of development impact. It noted financial performance was not necessarily correlated with environmental and social performance or wider economic improvements. It recommended "DFID should[…] require CDC to provide validated, summarised information on the extent of actual adherence to business principles across its portfolio".[63]

40. 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.

23 Q 93 Back

24 Ev 58 Back

25 Ev 58 Back

26 Q 98 Back

27 Ev 58 Back

28 Rights and Resources Initiative, Tropical Forest Tenure Assessment: Trends, Challenges and Opportunities, May 2009 Back

29 European Commission Communication, Addressing the challenges of deforestation and forest degradation to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss, 17 October 2008 Back

30 Q 229 Back

31 Q 186 [Joan Ruddock] Back

32 Q 104 Back

33 "Forest Governance and Trade Programme (2006-11)", Department for International Development, 24 April 2009, www.dfid.gov.uk Back

34 Q 157 Back