|
UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 30-v House of COMMONS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT COMMITTEE
REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM DEFORESTATION
MR MICHAEL FOSTER MP, JOAN RUDDOCK MP and HUW IRRANCA-DAVIES MP Evidence heard in Public Questions 182 - 256
USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
Oral Evidence Taken before the Environmental Audit Committee on Members present Mr Martin Caton Colin Challen Mr David Chaytor Martin Horwood Dr Desmond Turner Joan Walley
In the absence of the Chairman, Joan Walley was called to the Chair. ________________ Memorandum submitted by The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, The Department for International Development and The Department for Energy and Climate Change
Examination of Witnesses
Witnesses: Mr Michael Foster MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for International Development, Joan Ruddock MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy and Climate Change, and Huw Irranca-Davies MP, Minister for the Natural and Marine Environment, Wildlife and Rural Affairs, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, gave evidence. Q182 Joan Walley: It is very good that we have got a trio of ministers before the Committee on this really important inquiry that we are doing. Can I welcome you all to the Environmental Audit Select Committee. I think we would like to start by asking you whether or not you feel that the global financial situation we have at the moment and the global financial crisis could actually dwarf the ecological crisis and attempts that are being taken on a global basis to tackle deforestation at the climate change talks. We wonder how much you feel the national financial situation and all the attention and priority that is being given to that could undermine the equally important need to address the environmental impacts of deforestation. Huw Irranca-Davies: If I can begin by looking at one aspect that is very much core to Defra's work, which is the process of good governance. I think where we are currently with the economic climate, you are right, the obvious interpretation of where we are now is that could impact quite negatively on how we see deforestation and impact on biodiversity and so on and that is why the FLEG or FLEGT approach to not only changing individual behaviour on the ground but good governance behaviour amongst countries where deforestation is happening is so critical because the FLEGT process, hopefully, will ground good governance to see us through periodic downturns in the economy. Joan Ruddock: From a Government
perspective, what the Prime Minister has said repeatedly and what our Secretary
of State has said repeatedly is that we should see this economic downturn as an
opportunity to change our approach, that we should be planning for a low carbon
recovery, that we can come out of the recession, albeit it is going to be
painful and take time, but as we prepare to come out we need to be prepared not
to repeat the way in which we have run our economy with high fossil fuels in
the past but to have a low carbon economy.
Clearly that reflects on all the work that we in DECC are doing in
preparation for Mr Foster: Thank you for the opportunity to just give a brief run-through on what our assessment is of the impact on the very poorest countries in the world of the global downturn. Our best guess at the moment, and it is no more than that because circumstances do vary country-by-country, is that an additional 90 million people will have been pushed into absolute poverty as a result of the downturn. This comes on the back of the fact that 130 million additional people were pushed into poverty as a result of the food and oil price hikes that preceded the global downturns. Our concern from a development perspective is that when the upturn comes people potentially are in a much weaker state to take advantage of any global upturn and that has got to be borne in mind in the work that we do and our Department is geared to have very much a pro-poor agenda. We are looking at the range of policies that we have to tackle, the aftermath of downturn, mitigate its impact as best we can now, but mindful of the fact, of course, that climate change is there, it is not going to go away and that has got to be bedded into all of DFID's work as well. Q183 Joan Walley: Do you not think because the cost that has been calculated of deforestation is so great, and actually greater than the cost of the financial crisis at the moment, nonetheless there is a danger that could all be sidetracked because the focus is on the international fiscal situation rather than on the environmental degradation situation? Mr Foster: One of the concerns that we have is the financial pressures that all countries are now under are actually making them focus on what they do in an international sphere, be that on protecting the environment and dealing with deforestation and degradation, but also some countries have made it clear that they are no longer able to commit to the challenging targets, to the percentage of gross national income that they give to overseas aid. The Prime Minister made a commitment back in September that we were going to continue with our 0.7 per cent achievement by 2013, but some of our partners because of the financial problems and the fiscal pressures they are under are having to row back. We have to be mindful that internationally this has scope for damaging work on development but also on other issues as well. Q184 Joan
Walley: If I could just move on to the preparations
for Joan Ruddock: If I could start on
that. We think that things are going
reasonably well. We have just had this
discussion about how difficult the economic times are and clearly it would be a
lot easier if we did not have that background because we are always needing to
persuade people and re-persuade people of how incredibly important this agenda
is. Having said that, the Department is
working unbelievably hard on it, engaging with our posts around the world, in
some cases people are seconded and certainly there are constant briefs made
available, there are local round tables and discussions. In every way we are trying to embrace this
need for us to play a pivotal role, as we believe we are playing, in achieving
a Q185 Joan Walley: Does anyone else wish to add? Mr Foster: I have just a couple of
points to add. Obviously we recognise
that in terms of the importance that Huw Irranca-Davies: One other consideration to add is it is important whilst the focus, understandably and rightly, is on climate change as well, issues around biodiversity, in which Defra has a pivotal role in advancing the case, discussions led by Bob Watson, our chief scientist within Defra, have been very much advancing the case that within Copenhagen and the wider remit the biodiversity implications of deforestation, recognising, if you like, quality forests, long-term forests, the benefits that we gain from them are also a significant factor to be taken into account. We think that does sit comfortably within the wider remit as well. Q186 Joan
Walley: If I can just go back to Mr Foster's point
about trying to make sure that developing countries can have a say in how the
negotiations are going forward. We have
had evidence previously from Barry Gardiner MP who has put on the record to us
that the potential negative environmental or social impacts of a REDD mechanism
he feels has had little attention in the negotiations. He has expressed to us very genuine concerns
that the whole REDD mechanism could just overlook all of these issues in the
haste to get some kind of negotiated agreement and currently marginalised people
would be even further marginalised. I
just wonder how much that is featuring in the detailed work that each of your
Departments are doing between now and December in the run-up to Mr Foster: Certainly part of our consideration in this is to make sure that local people are represented in any form of REDD strategy, so we have got people on the ground having their best interests examined and considered when agreements are made. For us, that is the way forward. We have seen that through FLEGT but we have also seen it in terms of our individual pilot projects that we have run in community forestry, and I dare say we can give you more detail later on how those work. Those are examples where we know that we can make a difference on the ground to people in the developing world but we have to make sure that when an agreement is reached those interests are protected. That is why we are investing money in getting developing nations' voices heard because ultimately they are the ones who have got the responsibility for protecting people working and living in particular countries. Joan Ruddock: Can I just add a final word
and that is in terms of the statement that was agreed at Q187 Joan Walley: You do not share Barry Gardiner's concerns? Joan Ruddock: I think we can all share Barry Gardiner's concerns but we do not have to share what would appear to be a pessimism. Just because something is really, really difficult to do does not mean that you should not agree to try to do it. We do not have many choices in this world when it comes to climate change but addressing forestry and deforestation in the context of climate change is utterly critical. Q188 Joan Walley: Mr Irranca-Davies, do you want to comment? Huw Irranca-Davies: Only to re-emphasise a point that we made earlier. It is not only a question of money being the solution, it is actually sharing the ownership of this with the countries involved and one of the parts of that ownership is ownership of the issue of good governance to drive this forward. This is difficult because we recognise that the discussions we have here in this Committee, in the European Union, impact on the ground in different ways in different countries, however the imperative is shared and, as Joan has rightly said, the willingness of countries to engage with this both on the ground and at High Level has been quite reassuring. Whilst I understand Barry Gardiner's concerns, I think the impetus is clearly there. As three Ministers, we and our officials are very committed to working with people on the ground to embed the ownership of it and make it work. It is not only the money side of it. Joan Ruddock: I said a final word, but I
have thought of something else and that is the issue of indigenous
peoples. This is a difficult issue
because we are dealing with sovereign states so we cannot set up something that
deals with people who are not the sovereign states and make deals in that way,
but we have got to have the respect, the recognition and involvement. It is our wish that whatever deal we get in Joan Walley: I think we may come on to that in a bit more detail shortly. Mr Challen. Q189 Colin
Challen: I think we all want to see an agreement in Mr Foster: There is no doubt that the
negotiations running up to Copenhagen and at Copenhagen itself are going to be
difficult because there are a lot of competing interests that have got to be
matched together. In terms of what
happens afterwards, trying to get an assessment of looking into the future at
what an agreement might mean and how long that will take to get a grip on the
ground, there are obviously different estimates of how long that will be. We are mindful that the pressure is on now to
deal with deforestation because of how it impacts on climate change and we know
the role it can play in biodiversity, but also from DFID's perspective there is
an impact on development as well and incomes and livelihoods of the very
poorest people in the world. All three
force you in a direction of wanting to get something done as soon as possible,
but it is very difficult here in March to work out what might be an agreement
in Q190 Colin Challen: Is there not an argument for a separate track of deforestation and rather than saying we have to get it into the agreement in Copenhagen in a few months' time to say it would be better to have a separate track to deal with these issues and have an effective agreement even if it took another two years to hammer it out? Mr Foster: There is a difference between having a market up and running, which might take us through to 2020 before that is up and running and working properly across the board, and action being taken on the ground. There are examples that I suspect we will come to later on where we have got evidence of community projects working now and there are also projects that can be working between now and 2012. There is work that can be done, but having a market scheme up and running might take us through to the timescale that DFID officials referred to. Q191 Colin Challen: Is not perhaps the creation of this market scheme and its dominance in the REDD one of the stumbling blocks that might be best avoided? To what extent do you think markets should be dominating or present within any deforestation scheme? Mr Foster: Certainly in terms of how we get to fund the type of challenges that are faced with deforestation and degradation, there has got to be an avenue other than just public money. I think there is a general view that it has got to be a combination of private and public money and the market is one way in which we can lever in the private funding that is necessary. The work that we can do on the ground, we have demonstrated in Africa but also in other parts of the world where projects are ongoing that do deliver the types of benefits that I think you want to see and we want to see. I do not think there is a block by waiting for a market scheme and I do not think the market scheme puts at risk good work that can begin now or can continue now. Joan Ruddock: Can I just add to that. We cannot envisage any funding mechanism that
depended on simply public funds being collected up from donor countries that
could possibly provide the level of sustainable funding that would be
required. The estimates are between £10
billion and £20 billion a year to halve deforestation by 2030. We think those sums are just beyond the
collecting pot and we are going to have to find a market mechanism to do
that. It will take time to develop effectively
such a market mechanism and we do not underestimate the difficulties for
developing countries in terms of their management of their aspect of how this
could be delivered to them. Clearly we
have not got in place a market mechanism from the developed countries
either. Work has got to be done, but
because we think we need to understand the carbon implications and, therefore,
the carbon pricing of deforestation and degradation, it has to be part of the Q192 Colin Challen: The sums that you have mentioned there are far exceeded by the sums that we are putting in to support the financial markets, are they not, so it does go back to the Chair's original question that we are not treating this with the same urgency as the recession. Joan Ruddock: We cannot make that comparison because when you are dealing with the banking crisis, every developed country has got its absolute immediate self-interest to get its own economy re-floated and without economies being re-floated and without people coming out of the recession there will be no financing for developing countries. It is a comparison that cannot be made and stand up. Q193 Colin Challen: Exactly. This is not financing for developing countries, this is financing to reverse climate change. Joan Ruddock: I accept that, but what I am saying is if we have developed countries in permanent recession then it affects everything else that might be done and the important work that DFID does in terms of governance, growing capacity for countries, making it possible for them to participate in global agreements. That funding depends on developed countries having functional economies and functional banking systems. Q194 Colin Challen: One way of perhaps channelling a lot more money into this would be the use of auction receipts from the ETS which one estimate said might be $8 billion a year by 2020. If other countries that developed their own trading schemes did the same, would that be one way forward? Joan Ruddock: We are very interested and in principle supportive of the Norwegian proposal. The Norwegian proposal suggests that a proportion, I think they have suggested about two per cent or something of that nature, should be held back of the allowances and then they could be auctioned in order to provide the finance for developing countries. There are a number of proposals on the table. We are also very interested in what Mexico has proposed, which is a different model, and maybe they could be combined, but the attraction of Mexico, and Mexico is playing a very positive role in all of this, is that Mexico is proposing a fund in which all countries participate and then draw down differential amounts. There is an attraction in that in trying to move us away from just looking at developed countries on one side of the equation and developing countries on the other, all of us would be in it together. We are looking at all of these models, doing lots of work and meeting the relevant governments and officials. Q195 Colin Challen: Should forest credits be included in the ETS? Are there any risks attached to that? Might it not flood the market and depress the price of carbon? Joan Ruddock: Unhappily the price of carbon is being depressed at the moment anyway. Calculations have been made and they were based on the Eliasch Review which did the modelling and said that if there was a limit on supplementarity of between 35 per cent and 50 per cent then the view of the Eliasch Review was that would not distort the carbon market and that was manageable. I have no way of second-guessing that, I just have to accept that is modelling that has been done. Personally, I think there are no absolute certainties in this because we have limited experience of carbon markets, as you know only too well. Again, I would say that because things are difficult that does not mean to say we have not got to keep trying to do them. Q196 Colin Challen: We have got all the experience now in the recession of how the masters of the universe have brought us to our knees despite them being given knighthoods, peerages and all the rest of it in the past, so what faith can we have in the carbon market, crucially including forestry, that it will not suffer volatility in the future, that when we say to developing countries they will get the support, and this Committee has been to Cameroon and seen exactly the level of support that is needed, that in five or ten years' time the price of carbon is not just going to go right down to rock bottom, everything will be pulled out and we are back to square one? This calls for state intervention, does it not? Joan Ruddock: Neither you nor I can look into the future and make predictions. What we have to do, I suggest, in terms of the work that my Department and the international community does is to try to set up a framework, a financing mechanism, and model it and plan for it and put the governance structures in place and make it happen. We cannot work just on the basis that because something might happen we should not do it. I repeat: it is our view that we cannot do this simply by handing round the begging bowl, we do not think that will work, we have to have a pricing mechanism. This is the model that seems to be possible and we do have some experience in carbon trading schemes, albeit I accept it is limited, and we believe this is the way forward. Of course there are no absolute guarantees. Q197 Colin
Challen: Joan Ruddock: Yes. Q198 Colin Challen: Do you think they will now be part of the REDD as a fully compliant member? Joan Ruddock: All I can tell you directly
is that Joan Walley: Before I call Dr Turner, perhaps I could check that neither of the other two ministers wishes to comment on anything so far. Q199 Dr Turner: There are some risks associated with the use of forest credits which perhaps suggest that it would be unwise to be unduly reliant on the use of forest credits in ETS, et cetera, to offset industrial emissions. The example of the recent Australian bushfires releasing over 100 million tonnes of CO2 is an indication that forests are becoming increasingly vulnerable as a result of climate change itself. Do you think we should place limits on our reliance on that as an offset? - not that we should minimise attempts to reduce deforestation but that we should not put too much reliance on it as an offsetting mechanism. Joan Ruddock: We are not here always talking about offsetting. Offsetting is one aspect of the carbon market. In terms of an agreement, we are looking for a reliable financing mechanism that is going to recognise the value of forestry. It is likely that there will be conservative estimates of the carbon reduction that can be achieved. In the Amazon Fund there is reference to 100 tonnes of carbon per hectare rather than to the estimates that are perhaps twice or even three times that, so that when we are looking at trading mechanisms putting prices on, that will be done conservatively, and, in a sense, that lowers the risk that you quite properly identify. We are of the view that we also need to have an insurance mechanism that can back up the trading mechanisms, so we believe that it would be appropriate to have a sort of wise carbon reserve fund in order to spread the risk; that is a risk, as you have rightly identified, that could arise particularly from fires, or indeed from devastating disease. There is risk, we cannot remove risk, and therefore we should address it appropriately. 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 that. 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 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 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 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 rather than net reforestation,
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 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 reforestation, 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. 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 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 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 Q220 Martin Horwood: I do not think there is any doubt that some DFID projects are doing great things on the ground and that you are saying many of the right things to us. I suppose the concern is that you are going to press for these things as part of the international agreement. You said earlier on that we cannot bind sovereign governments, but we can more explicitly support the framework of international law, standards such as the UN Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples or International Labour Organisation Convention 169. Could we explicitly link one of those or both of those to the REDD mechanism in order to make sure that the rights of indigenous peoples were properly defended and reflected in the international agreement? Joan Ruddock: There would probably be real difficulties in getting the agreements, for the obvious reason I suggested that the sovereign governments concerned have to sign up to this international agreement, and we are battling on many, many fronts to get the international agreement. Whereas it is entirely desirable, in reality I suspect this may not come in an international agreement. We have made our position very, very clear about the respect for indigenous peoples' rights and so on and so forth. We do a lot of work with DFID in that area certainly, and, as Michael has indicated, in the Nepali project, but I suspect that much of the valuable work and most of the development that can lead to the good governance and the respect for indigenous people, and the work on enabling people to acquire their land rights, is going to be done in bilateral agreements, some multilateral agreements, projects on the ground, rather than in this overarching framework. I am just surmising, because none of us know. Q221 Martin Horwood: As you mentioned earlier in the session, just because something is difficult does not mean you should not argue for it. Joan Ruddock: No, I am only giving you an assessment, Mr Horwood, of what I think may come in the international agreement, but because of the attitudes that we have as a government, we will see practice on the ground that reflects very much what I think you and I would say ---- Q222 Martin Horwood: If, as you seem to be saying, you are broadly on the side of the angels in the debate, surely we should just hear from you at least that you are explicitly pressing for that in the international arena. We do not expect you to save the world, unlike your boss, but at least to hear that you are explicitly pressing for those linkages. Otherwise surely it opens up a colossal loophole in the whole process and undermines the whole position that you are trying to take, which is to protect the rights of tribal peoples as part of these mechanisms. Joan Ruddock: I do not think I would agree with you that it opens up a colossal loophole because clearly much work is being done, more work will be done. These sentiments are constantly being expressed in various documents and it is always a judgment what a particular country such as our own does press in the international arena. I have to say this is not one of the things that we are pressing in terms of a linkage that you have just proposed. We can go back and look at that but we have not been pressing for it. That does not diminish our commitment to do what we can and we do it clearly in the way in which we work on the ground and will continue to do that. Huw Irranca-Davies: I mentioned earlier that one of the benefits of the way in which we have been trying to take this forward as a government is to share the ownership of these issues. Joan touches rightly on this point of whether we can find a clear and absolutist way forward that puts clear duties on, or whether we engage with work, albeit that it is more messy, more tricky. I want to suggest to you that we are starting to develop that model, albeit there are critics of it occasionally, with the FLEGT model, which engages with the government on the ground, with the communities on the ground and so on, to try to make that process work and to recognise some of the issues around the impacts on the communities as well. It has a long way to go, but we note from that process the increasing number of countries who want to sign up to that, bringing them along and feeling that they are a part of it. It goes not give the absolute guarantees that you were seeking but it can deliver on the ground. Q223 Martin Horwood: I did not ask for any absolute guarantees; I simply asked to understand what the British Government's position in these negotiations is. It seems to have been clear that you are not at the moment pressing for this but you will look at it, which we will take some comfort from. But surely what you just said does rather confirm the fears of many NGOs, many of the other commentators and some of the minority peoples around the world by concentrating on the ground level advance of the FLEGT programme and so on but then allowing the REDD mechanism to take a completely different path and for there to be no inherent linkage between the two. Is that not a very dangerous situation to be in, because one might completely undermine the other in time? Huw Irranca-Davies: From a Defra perspective, I hope I have given the reassurance that we do not see that happening. Our officials are engaged in this as well, for reasons of all our departments, so we do not see that happening. But we do recognise that we are developing very good models here to work with other countries, not only with the governments of countries but with the stakeholders on the ground as well, including working with NGOs, to try to find realistic, practical ways to deliver results on the ground in terms of deforestation. So I think we do have models there. Q224 Martin Horwood: You do not think there is a risk of them being undermined by a mechanism that does not explicitly acknowledge those rights? Huw Irranca-Davies: In a model that not only delivers financial imperatives but also is based upon engaging with stakeholders on the ground, there is undoubtedly a risk that in one country it will be delivered more effectively than another. How we manage that risk then becomes the important thing. How do we make sure, as we roll this process out, that we are delivering the benefits on the ground, not only in terms of deforestation but in terms of the impact on communities and indigenous communities? Martin Horwood: Maybe by making REDD sign its condition on rights. Q225 Mr Chaytor: I want to pursue the question of the context of the REDD negotiations. We have heard that the context of biodiversity is being dealt with separately through the FLEGT process. We have heard that the Government is not pressing on criteria for the protection of rights of indigenous peoples. Joan Ruddock: Not pressing on the linkage to other conventions. Q226 Mr Chaytor: Yes. In terms of other contextual matters, what is the Government pressing on? Or do you see the REDD process as isolated from wider issues of land use, planning, sustainable forestry, or even from questions of governance? Joan Ruddock: No, we do not see them as
being separated. As you will be aware,
there have been real historical difficulties in measuring emissions accurately
from what is called LULUCF in the jargon, the Land Use Change in Forestry. Because of the difficulties, this was not
part, as you will be aware, of the first Q227 Mr Chaytor: In terms of eligibility for REDD funding, what other criteria are you pressing for? If the international consensus was that an individual country simply did not have the institutions to guarantee transparent and honest use of any income through the REDD mechanism, should that country be eligible to receive REDD funding or should there not be some governance criteria in the agreement that we hope will be achievable? Joan Ruddock: I think there have to be governance criteria. Q228 Mr Chaytor: What are the governance criteria? Joan Ruddock: Obviously we have to have transparency, we have to have monitoring, it has to be verified. It would make no sense for the international community to raise significant funds through whatever mechanism, and deliver to a country where, frankly, the money is paid over but the forest is still deforested. We know that will happen where there are poor governments or corrupt regimes or where they simply cannot handle the pressure from international consortia or where there is illegal activity and all of that. It can only work if, indeed, we have the overarching framework, but then underneath that we have done all the work to make it possible, that the recipients of the funds can receive and use appropriately in the interests of the whole international community. Getting these mechanisms in place is a long drawn-out task where we are working in many other fora, but we understand that it has to be done and that it will do no one any good if it is not done, so we are working very hard to do it. Q229 Mr Chaytor: Specifically what are we pressing for in terms of the Government's criteria as part of the REDD mechanism? Joan Ruddock: I am not sure that I am in a position to answer that in any detail. All I have been able to do is to set out to you what we believe are the main criteria. It is about transparency, it is being able to monitor, it is being able to verify, it is about co‑operation with the international community. At the end of the day, it is being able to prove that if monies are made available then there is a reduction in deforestation, in degradation and, consequently, a reduction or a continued absorption of carbon. That is what is fundamental to the scheme. Mr Foster: Perhaps I can add to that,
and it relates as well to the previous answer Huw gave to Mr Horwood about
the experiences that we have learned from FLEGT and how they inform us in terms
of what we want to see out of an agreement on REDD, and the transparency of
governance aspect that Joan has mentioned.
There is a list of things that we are looking for as a department that
we think will deliver for the people on the ground as a result of a REDD
agreement. Clearly we have to build
capacity in-country for law enforcement.
It is not the sexy end of development work but it is an important end
that we get involved with. We have gone
through the point about dealing with land tenure and getting some degree of
equity and clarity over land tenure. We
need - and this is where our experience on the ground has enabled us to inform
us of what we need - a real buy-in from the stakeholders, again in country, for
them to put pressure on internally but also to buy into the process that is
going to apply to a country project as a whole.
Stakeholder participation has to be comprehensive on this. We need both a national verification system
and an in-country system that works.
With our experience we can advise and help in terms of devising those
schemes, but we do think this needs a degree of independent monitoring of those
schemes as well to address the very real concerns that Joan expressed. I think the Committee went to Q230 Mr Chaytor: The issue we have not touched on is the question of sustainability of agriculture, sustainability of forest management. Huw, you mentioned that biodiversity issues are being dealt with outside of the REDD mechanism, but where does sustainable agriculture and sustainable forest management fit in? Is that outside or inside? Huw Irranca-Davies: It is not directly within the REDD mechanism. Defra have commissioned a study on sustainable agriculture. Curiously the Secretary of State's role, which covers food security, helps with the advocacy behind this as well. This study on sustainable agriculture is looking at solutions useful for growing populations which respect the environment and do so in a carbon friendly way as well. It is not directly embedded within the REDD UNFCCC process, but it will inform the discussion on REDD, so we are quite hopeful on the outcomes of that. Just to make it clear, the group that Bob Watson is working with will be reporting to the UNFCCC, but it is under the Convention on Biological Diversity, so again it is feeding into as opposed to being directly within. Mr Foster: Of course agriculture is important for us - the point I made earlier when I mentioned the impact on the poorest people with the food price hikes. It is important that you make the judgment that REDD is not seen in isolation and away from agriculture at all. It is all part of one deal that has to be agreed. In terms of what we have done to assist in food security, in January, Ivan Lewis, a fellow parliamentary under-secretary in DFID, helped launch the Global Partnership for Agriculture and Food Security which was calling on a range of stakeholders, both rich and poor nations, to get together with the NGOs, private sector, other financial institutions, to get a global partnership on dealing with the issues of food security, knowing of the clear linkage between agriculture and the risk of deforestation. DFID is spending some £400 million to support international agricultural research, and I am reminded that the term "agricultural research" also includes fisheries and it also includes forests as well. It is a whole entity that is being looked at. Q231 Dr Turner: One problem we have not touched on this morning is illegal logging, which is highly significant in its impact. As a country we make our own contribution by being the world's third largest importer of illegal timber. Tony Blair said eight years ago that government procurement would prohibit the use of illegal timber, yet it still seems to happen. What can we do to tighten up and monitor government and local government procurement schemes to ensure that illegal timber does not leak in that way? Huw Irranca-Davies: Dr Turner, you are right in what you say. We have mentioned already the issue around voluntary partnership agreements which are part of the way forward, but those countries involved in this have recognised the need for an EU approach to this as well. We recognise as a government that there is much more back through doing this through an EU approach. There is the issue of a product landing in one country in the EU and how, without a massive bureaucratic burden, you put incentives in place to achieve the right behaviour, but also the tracking of that and where it goes. We think that the due diligence approach is not only a workable model but an achievable one that will give the desired results of best practice that is currently out there in terms of sourcing and producing and putting products onto the market, but also not going down the line of a massive octopus of a mechanism that will be have huge burdens, that will be difficult to enforce, that may be impossible to enforce. This is what we are focusing on, and the due diligence approach is based on all operators who place timber on the market for the first time, regardless of the size of that timber import, regardless of the source of it. We think this is the right approach because it is compatible with WTO objectives as well and the parameters that they have set. We do think it is workable. It will need to be monitored, it will need to be effectively sanctioned as well, but we think it is the right and proportionate way to do it that rewards good behaviour and deals with that instance where timber is first placed onto the market. I think we are on the right way forward. Q232 Dr Turner: The EU has set its face against criminal sanctions for importation of illegal timber. Do you think there is the possibility of us doing that on a unilateral basis? Huw Irranca-Davies: To do it on a UK-only basis
would cause immense difficulties because of the convoluted route of much of
this timber and the way in which it not only lands but is then turned into
other products and so on. I think it is
much more appropriate to continue to work with other EU nations to get the
sanctions right at the European level as opposed to a Q233 Dr Turner: You clearly think that some sanction regime to back it up, preferably at an EU level obviously, is essential. Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes. It does require some sanctions. As well as incentives, it does require some sanctions. The issue then becomes where you apply those sanctions. We take the approach as the UK Government that those sanctions should be decided at a Member State level, so we need sanctions that are strong enough and proportionate as an incentive for change but which do not place undue burdens on the industry as well. Q234 Dr Turner: There is clearly a corresponding incentive. Our market is preferentially open, I take it, to clean and sustainable timber. Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes. Q235 Dr Turner: So it is worthwhile taking the trouble to get it right. Huw Irranca-Davies: Absolutely. We have to make this work, not only in our
own interests but also in the interests of those countries who want to work
with a better regulated, better driven system.
We do need to get the system right.
I know there are different opinions on this, but this approach says that
when the timber lands in the Q236 Joan
Walley: Huw Irranca-Davies: That possibly takes it slightly beyond my own remit and my own department. Q237 Joan Walley: We have joined-up government. Huw Irranca-Davies: We do, indeed. Certainly our officials engage with CLG on this very point. I do not want to make a seat-of-the-pants policy decision here today - much as it is tempting. Q238 Martin Horwood: I have to say I find this response a bit pathetic. If B&Q can do it, if lots of local authorities can do it, why on earth can the British Government not manage a sustainable procurement policy for timber? Huw Irranca-Davies: I think we can. We undoubtedly can. We are already seeing it: the take-up of these voluntary partnership agreements; our approach on due diligence through the EU. We have been pretty much at the forefront of pushing this. We have set out our policy in the strategy for sustainable construction. Q239 Joan Walley: Is that policy on sustainable construction mandatory? Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes. Defra regards it as a mandatory standard, so yes is the answer to that. Q240 Joan Walley: I hope you are not making it up as you go along. Huw Irranca-Davies: No. The published strategy for sustainable construction is as it says on the tin. The question becomes: How much do you want to? I know members of this Committee will be as concerned as I am to make sure that the response to drive forward proper, legal timber imports is proportionate, does reward good practice that is currently out there. Q241 Martin
Horwood: Huw Irranca-Davies: I have been at various Chatham House events. From April our policy is moving up a gear and we will only be sourcing timber from sustainable and legal or FLEGT licensed timber sources, so we are moving progressively. Q242 Martin Horwood: In terms of trying to implement an EU-wide certification scheme, are you pressing for that? It would simply say that timber-derived products in the European Union should be not from illegal sources. It does not seem that revolutionary to me. Huw Irranca-Davies: We have been pushing very
hard on the model I have described and will continue to do so, the idea that
the first point at which timber is placed in the market should be the point at
which we identify the responsibility. We
think that is workable and it is achievable and it will deliver results. Now we continue to monitor that approach, but
as to whether there is a different approach, whether it is the Q243 Joan Walley: Before we move on, I would like to understand this in my own mind. We have the regulations whereby we operate a points system, whereby there is weight given to different standards which the Government hopes will be achieved over the whole range of building and construction processes. As I understand it, that is what the Government is moving towards, which is slightly different from the recommendations we have had to this inquiry and previous inquiries from Chatham House, in respect of the significance of having a mandatory system of ensuring that timber used in construction is sustainable and legally sourced. It is not quite the thing to say, is it, that the Government requires this on a mandatory basis? Huw Irranca-Davies: No. You are absolutely right. Joan Walley: Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that for the record. Q244 Martin
Horwood: In terms of another aspect of sustainability,
the demand for agricultural products such as palm oil and soya, these obviously
themselves have quite a potentially powerful effect on land use and
therefore on deforestation rates. What
are you doing to assess and address the impact of the Huw Irranca-Davies: Defra currently has ongoing
research on these indirect impacts of biofuels on land use change which will
help consolidate some of the evidence that is already out there about
deforestation, particularly with soya and palm oil production. We know that at the moment there are around
one billion people going hungry and there are issues around increasing food
security to the poor as well as meeting the needs of this growing group of
population. We estimate at the moment an
increased demand for food of around 50 per cent by 2030 and 100 per cent by
2050, so the need to take an integrated approach towards this is essential,
meeting food needs whilst also sustaining, I have to say, agreement with the
natural resource base. We have commitments at the Millennium Development, goals
that we need to meet on this, so currently in the Q245 Martin Horwood: I have to say nothing will undermine food security more comprehensively than climate change, I would have thought. Eliasch supports the development of sustainability standards for different agricultural commodities. Is that the British Government's approach now? Huw Irranca-Davies: We do support standards for biofuels for transport, which I know is part of what he refers to. Q246 Martin Horwood: That is right. Of course there is this EU-wide initiative to develop sustainability standards for the transport biofuels. Is it not pretty inconsistent though to have that standard for biofuel but not for the use of palm oil and soya food products? Huw Irranca-Davies: The question of how we look at something like the Eliasch study and implement it is something we are looking at at the moment. We have not come to firm conclusions on it. I understand what you are saying about the potential difference in approach. Q247 Martin
Horwood: Just in principle, surely, it must be
sensible. If you see the importance in
terms of biofuels and the potential for land use to impact on forests of
countries like Joan Ruddock: Perhaps I could make a
contribution here. I think there is a
differing level of responsibility. One
is a great historic situation with regard to food and food growth in developing
countries that import into developed countries.
However, when it comes to biofuels this is essentially a rather new
technology for the EU. Having made a
decision that we would get up to ten per cent of our road fuels from biofuel
sources, we then had a particular responsibility to ask ourselves what we
had done by making that decision. What
impact are we going to have potentially on the displacement possibly of food
crops in order to grow biofuel crops in order to supply a market that we
ourselves have created? I think that was
the imperative. Instead of coming from
necessarily a much broader perspective and a wider global discussion, what
happened here was that the EU took its own decision, clearly saw, particularly
in the Q248 Martin Horwood: We have done a whole separate inquiry on transport biofuels. Given that that for whatever reasons did proceed faster and is proceeding faster, do you not now think there is that same imperative to look at the sustainability of all agricultural commodities, including those used for food products? Huw Irranca-Davies: Understanding what you are saying about the principle, I have made reference to the work that we are doing now with South East Asian countries in the round table process, and we recognise the problem here of the biofuels and palm oil. We do see that the way forward is working through that, because, hopefully, through that we can provide those incentives for the whole industry to move. Q249 Martin Horwood: I am struggling, though, to understand why you are so reluctant to say that in principle you should be in favour of sustainability standards for food products. Why do you not think that is just an easy thing to say: "Yes, we should be working towards that"? Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes, I think it is an easy thing to say, but then how do you deliver ----- Q250 Martin Horwood: Well, go on then, say it. Huw Irranca-Davies: We are, but delivering it on the ground becomes perhaps at least as important. Q251 Martin Horwood: One of the quick wins you could do is in public procurement, is it not? We have a bit of a theme today of just having a statement of public procurement. We have been told that some £2 billion is spent on food in the public sector each year. Would it be a good idea to develop sustainability standards for the procurement of food in the public sector, which looked at issues like palm oil and soya? Huw Irranca-Davies: Certainly we are in agreement with the thrust again towards sustainability of food in the public sector. The Cabinet Office produced the report recently Food Matters: Towards a Strategy for the 21st Century. That recommended this development of a food-based standard towards public sector organisations offering healthier, more sustainable food, and catering services as well. The healthier food markers within another department are being developed by the Department of Health, but that issue does have input from other government departments as well, including ourselves. Q252 Martin Horwood: If it covers health and sustainability, are you doing the sustainability? Huw Irranca-Davies: It will include both the health and nutritional side but also sustainability criteria as well. It has tended to reflect the practice in both voluntary and government sectors and it will consider whether it should be made compulsory by 2012. You are right, we are helping to develop the sustainability criteria. Q253 Martin Horwood: When is that likely to be in force? Huw Irranca-Davies: The HFM is going to be piloted during this year in some government departments to see how it works and how it can be made effective. We are also going on to bring together a meeting of stakeholders sometime in the spring, to put forward a vision of what we are trying to do with this scheme and get their engagement as well. So we will see some outcomes of that. Q254 Joan Walley: I cannot resist saying that I wish that you would take a closer look at the way in which the Treasury and the PFI contracts with the NHS, despite the existence of the Sustainable Development Unit within the NHS, are not, as I see it, going along that line in terms of commitments in terms of policy. We have food probably from your constituency brought up to mine, when we should really be concentrating much more in the public sector on local procurement. I could not resist coming in on that. Moving to international development, one of the things that we saw when we were out in Cameroon was that, increasingly, money that has been earmarked in the past traditionally for environmental work - and that work would have been channelled through to various governance funds and so on - rather than being spent directly through the mission of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or though international development is being subsumed within other budgets, be it the World Bank or the Congo Basin Fund. We are really quite curious as to how the commitment to all the values that we have been talking about in this session and the drivers to prevent deforestation can best be safeguarded when we are effectively handing over responsibility for the spending of funds to other organisations which might not have the same robust assessment of the standards for sustainability. Mr Foster: The title of a whole select committee review on the effectiveness of aid. DFID funded projects, solely bilateral projects, would go through a full environmental impact assessment, and, yes, there would be very tight UK Government control and oversight over the particular project, whereas with parties such as the African Development Bank or the World Bank that you mentioned, the oversight function is delivered through a framework that we as the UK do not have direct control over. Best practice in the development world is that if you went through lots of small, bilateral programmes we have found them not only to be resource intensive for the donor country but also resource-intensive for the recipient country, but the benefit, of course, is that you do get direct control, whereas through the more multilateral groups you get more effective and efficient use of money that is granted in the forms of the donation, you get much wider coverage of your particular project because more money is banded together under one roof, but of course the downside to that is that there is a risk that you lose the direct control over the very aims that you have described. The key to this is encouraging a tight framework at the beginning, making sure that there is regular oversight to see how the programme is functioning against that. In both the programmes that you mentioned, the Congo Basin Forest Fund and the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, the UK Government is represented on the governing body, so that HMG is actively involved in the oversight of those particular projects. Q255 Joan
Walley: When we were in Mr Foster: It is a good question to ask. With the CDC, separate from ECGD, DFID helps set the frameworks both on the investment policy and the investment code that the CDC have to operate under. We have set the framework but the CDC themselves, the board, will oversee the implementation, the governance by which it operates. Joan Walley: It did not seem to be manifest when we were there. Q256 Martin Horwood: They were flooding rainforest. Mr Foster: I do not know the specific project in detail, but I will certainly make sure that I look into what you have had to say on that. On the Export Credit Guarantee Department, for transactions that relate to countries that are International Development Association recognised, that the World Bank would give preferential rates to, DFID would provide the ECGD with advice on sustainable lending practices. We will also give our comments to Her Majesty's Treasury on any recommendations they may have on lending through ECGD. We have our fingers in the pie on that front. Joan Walley: I do realise you have a train to catch and I thank you very much indeed. At this stage I will draw the session to a close. Thank you. |