Conclusions and recommendations
Deforestation and sustainable land use
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)
Supporting rainforest nations
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Managing demand
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Paying for forests
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
| 
