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
35
Q 254 Back
36
Environmental Audit Committee, Tenth Report of Session 2005-06,
Trade, Development and Environment: The Role of DFID, HC
1014; Environmental Audit Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2006-07,
Trade, Development and Environment: The Role of FCO, HC
289 Back
37
Environmental Audit Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2006-07,
Trade, Development and Environment: The Role of FCO, HC
289 Back
38
Q 50 Back
39
International Development Committee, Fifth Report of Session
2008-09, Sustainable Development in a Changing Climate, HC 177,
para 51. Back
40
"Forest Carbon Partnership Facility: a framework for piloting
activities to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation",
The World Bank, 6 May 2009, http://wbcarbonfinance.org Back
41
Q 160 Back
42
"World Bank's forest and carbon fund is failing forests
and peoples", Forest Peoples Programme, 1 December
2009, www.forestpeoples.org Back
43
"A Review of 25 Readiness Plan Idea Notes from the World
Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility", World Resources
Institute, February 2009, www.wri.org Back
44
Food and Agriculture Association of the United Nations, Forest-based
Poverty Reduction: A Brief Review of Facts, Figures, Challenges
and Possible Ways Forward, 2002 Back
45
Q 155 Back
46
Q 155 [Ms Watson] Back
47
Q 45 Back
48
The Eliasch Review, Climate change: Financing Global Forests,
October 2008, p 44 Back
49
Ibid Back
50
Q 156 Back
51
Q 45 Back
52
Q 159 Back
53
"International Law", Survival International,
7 May 2009, www.survival-international.org Back
54
Q 215 Back
55
Q 215 Back
56
Q 188 Back
57
Environmental Audit Committee, Tenth Report of Session 2005-06,
Trade, Development and Environment: The Role of DFID, HC
1014 Back
58
The Eliasch Review, Climate change: Financing Global Forests,
October 2008, p 58 Back
59
"CDC-promoting the private sector in the developing world",
DfID, 29 April 2009, www.dfid.gov.uk Back
60
"Kudu-Zombo News", WWF, August 2008, www.panda.org Back
61
"Conservation of the Campo-Ma'an National Park and its Surroundings",
WWF, November 2005, www.panda.org Back
62
Ev 121 Back
63
National Audit Office, Session 2008-09, Investing for development:
the Department for International Development's oversight of CDC
Group plc, HC 18 Back