Conclusions and recommendations
DFID's approach to sustainable development and
climate change
1. We
are disappointed that DFID could not provide us with more evidence
of progress it has made since 2002 towards fully integrating climate
change into its poverty alleviation programmes, especially in
Africa. DFID's programme in Bangladesh, which seeks to combine
climate change and development objectives in practical ways, its
pilot climate screening project and its assistance to the government
to develop a Climate Change Strategy are steps in the right direction.
At present, however, they appear to be one-off projects rather
than clear evidence of a mainstreamed approach. We believe that
such initiatives should become the norm throughout DFID's country
programmes. The Department should be able to demonstrate much
more clearly that climate change is informing its policy decisions
in all the countries in which it works. We invite the Secretary
of State, in responding to this Report, to set out the steps
planned to achieve this. (Paragraph 16)
2. We support the
focus in DFID's Sustainable Development Action Plan on ensuring
that sustainability is at the centre of the Department's development
work and that development objectives are reflected in both domestic
and international sustainability policies and programmes. We were,
however, surprised that the Minister was unable to tell us more
about how the Plan influenced DFID's work in practice. There is
a need for greater coherence across Government on sustainable
development. In an increasingly inter-dependent world DFID needs
to work more closely with other Government Departments, particularly
Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, to increase their
awareness of the international dimensions of sustainable development.
The UK's Sustainable Development Commission has not been engaged
meaningfully in international development issues and could contribute
more in this area. It should have an international as well as
a domestic focus. We welcome the commitment from the Minister
of State for Sustainable Development to review the focus of the
Commission. We request that the Government, in its response to
this Report, provides an update on progress with this review.
(Paragraph 20)
3. We are encouraged
by the Government's strong position on emissions reductions adopted
in the lead-up to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
conference in December. We believe that this will provide greater
leverage in encouraging other industrialised countries to make
similar commitments. It is, however, critically important that
the UK makes progress towards meeting its own targets. Failure
to do so risks not only dangerous climate change but might well
also undermine global resolve to tackle the problem. (Paragraph
29)
Linking climate change and development
4. We
welcome the creation of the Department for Energy and Climate
Change. We expect it to improve the coherence of the Government's
response to climate change. Addressing the impact of climate change
in developing countries should not be viewed as the sole responsibility
of DFID. Other Departments, such as Business, Enterprise and Regulatory
Reform, the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office,
have roles to play. There are important linkages which can be
made between mitigation policies in the UK and adaptation policies
in developing countries which a more coherent Government approach
would strengthen. (Paragraph 38)
Development in a hostile climate
5. DFID
should set out clearly how it intends to ensure that climate change
forms an integral part of all its country programmes. In particular,
greater clarity is needed on how DFID plans to scale up one-off
projects which seek to build resilience amongst local communities
and ensure lessons learned from them are communicated widely and
acted upon. (Paragraph 43)
6. We welcome DFID's
support for initiatives such as the Climate Change Adaptation
in Africa Programme and the Africa Climate Policy Centre which
are making a valid contribution to African-led research. DFID
should also be commended for its support for funding streams and
pilot programmes which aim to promote climate resilience, although
we note that it will be some time before these can be evaluated
and built upon. The capacity of developing countries to tackle
climate change needs to be strengthened through support for national
and multi-stakeholder dialogues and for the further development
of National Adaptation Programmes of Action. We request that
DFID, in response to this Report, provides more information on
how these key elements of its climate change work will be funded
and taken forward. (Paragraph 47)
Economic growth and natural resource management
7. Economic
growth cannot be sustained unless it takes into account the proper
value of the resources upon which it depends. Conservation and
preservation of natural resources are therefore contributors to
sustainable development. DFID has not been directly involved in
the marine or forestry sectors for some time and yet they are
vital to poverty reduction in some countries. We believe that
the Department needs to begin to re-establish its engagement in
them. DFID has a water resources management strategy. It should
also now urgently consider developing marine and forestry management
strategies. The potential for development in these sectors should
also be included in the work of the new International Growth Centre.
(Paragraph 51)
Funding adaptation
8. Estimates
of the cost of adaptation vary widely. Funding sources are currently
inadequate and the implications of the global economic downturn
for the availability of future funding have not yet been properly
assessed. We believe DFID should make clear its own plans for
expenditure on climate change measures and that it should encourage
other donors to do the same, in advance of the Copenhagen conference
in December. (Paragraph 60)
9. We support Lord
Stern's call for an increase in the percentage of gross national
income which donors allocate to assistance to poor countries to
fund adaptation. Adaptation represents an additional cost for
developing countries which have made negligible contributions
to greenhouse gas emissions. We believe that developed countries,
who bear the greatest responsibility for climate change, should
therefore provide new, additional and predictable financial flows
to assist poor countries to tackle its impacts. DFID must take
the lead on making clear its commitment to the principle that
climate change funding will be additional to its existing pledges
on official development assistance. The UK will then be in a strong
position to exert pressure on the international community to adopt
this approach. (Paragraph 61)
10. The Government
has allocated £800 million from the Environmental Transformation
Fund (ETF) to be used for climate change work as part of the World
Bank's Climate Investment Funds. This is a substantial sum of
money and it is important that the way it is spent is properly
scrutinised to ensure that it is achieving its intended objectives.
We request that, in response to this Report, DFID provides us
with an evaluation of the use of this ETF expenditure to date,
including how it is contributing to poverty reduction, and that
this information is regularly updated. (Paragraph 65)
11. Donors cannot
and should not manage developing country government budgets. It
is, however, important that donors work with partner governments
to establish mechanisms which would help to provide greater certainty
that the large sums of money allocated for adaptation to climate
change are used effectively for this purpose. We believe DFID
should apply the same rigour to this as it seeks to put in place
for development assistance expenditure. We request that, in response
to this Report, DFID provides further information on the monitoring
and evaluation mechanisms which it has or plans to put in place
to ensure that adaptation funding is used for its intended purposes.
(Paragraph 67)
Aviation emissions
12. An
air travel levy aimed at reducing aviation emissions is likely
to have a greater impact on behaviour in relation to short-haul
flights because travellers have more choice of alternative modes
of transport for short journeys. Air passenger duty may influence
a decision about whether to fly to Paris but not to Tanzania,
for example. Taxation could therefore be a useful tool for changing
behaviour and reducing emissions in relation to short-haul flights
but is less likely to have a similar impact on long-haul journeys.
(Paragraph 73)
13. We
believe that an international aviation levy would be a welcome
additional source of funds for adaptation. The International Civil
Aviation Organisation may be successful in securing agreement
for its proposed scheme, which it is estimated could raise up
to $10 billion a year. However, if there seems to be insufficient
progress in this forum, we recommend that the UK Government consider
supporting the Group of Least Developed Countries' proposal for
a similar scheme, as part of the measures to be discussed at the
Copenhagen summit. (Paragraph 76)
14. We
are concerned about a possible decrease in the number of UK tourists
visiting developing countries which an increase in air passenger
duty might cause. We therefore also recommend that, for flights
originating in the UK, compensation is given for any new Adaptation
Levy on an economy fare by making an equivalent reduction in the
UK air passenger duty for passengers travelling to long-haul destinations
in developing countries. This could form part of any new financial
commitment under the Copenhagen agreement. (Paragraph 77)
Tourism
15. We
understand that it is not possible for DFID to be involved in
every sector in developing countries and appreciate that tourism
may be an area where it feels it no longer has a comparative advantage.
However, given the economic importance of the tourism industry
to so many developing countries in which DFID has a programme,
and its inclusion in many Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, the
Department cannot afford to ignore it. Capacity-building in the
sector, including training and development for local employees,
could form part of DFID's livelihoods and growth programmes in
countries where tourism makes, or has the potential to make, a
significant contribution to the economy. (Paragraph 89)
16. We accept the
argument that it is important for the UK to maintain its engagement
with the UN World Tourism Organisation. If the Department for
Culture, Media and Sport is not able to continue to find the membership
fee, we believe that DFID should take this over. We believe that
membership of the UN World Tourism Organisation would sit comfortably
within DFID's remit and would enable it to influence wider debates
on the contribution that tourism can make to poverty reduction
and on the need for the tourism sector to address climate change.
(Paragraph 91)
Food and horticulture exports from developing
countries
17. There
is a danger that steps taken by consumers in the UK to reduce
their contribution to carbon emissions may lead them to avoid
buying produce from developing countries in the mistaken belief
that air-freighted food and flowers necessarily have a higher
carbon footprint. We believe that consumers need accurate information
about the way products have been grown as well as transported.
Labelling imported fresh produce to show total carbon emissions
for the whole production cycle would be a useful tool to enable
consumers to make informed choices about the goods that they buy.
We believe the UK Government should conduct research on how such
a scheme might be introduced and carry out an assessment of the
potential benefits to producers in developing countries. (Paragraph
100)
18. The Government
could also consider paying to offset the air freight emissions
of horticultural products from developing countries. Ideally this
would be done through funding sustainable mitigation projects
in the exporting countries, which would provide poor countries
with a double dividend of supporting their export earnings and
contributing to their domestic low-carbon development. This proposal
could be a worthwhile use of funds, particularly if it could be
counted against compliance with any financial commitment made
as part of a new global agreement reached at the Copenhagen summit.
We therefore recommend that the Government explore its feasibility
prior to the Copenhagen conference and report back to us on its
conclusions. (Paragraph 101)
Towards low carbon development
19. We
are pleased that DFID has begun to engage in research on low carbon
development paths. There is a pressing need for more research
into options for low-income countries. We believe that DFID should
build this capacity in developing countries and facilitate greater
research collaboration between them. We welcome the establishment
of the Centre for Climate and Development and recommend that its
remit include development of knowledge which is relevant to, and
driven by demand from, low-income countries. (Paragraph 113)
20. We appreciate
that the Clean Development Mechanism is a relatively new mechanism
and that there are bound to be teething problems. However these
need to be resolved urgently. The CDM has the potential to make
a significant contribution to emissions reductions in developing
countries but to date it has had little impact in poorer developing
countries and there are few projects in Africa outside South Africa.
The geographical distribution of CDM projects needs to shift towards
Africa in any new iteration of the Mechanism. Proposals to reform
the CDM should have this as a primary objective. We recommend
that DFID consider funding appropriate demonstration projects
in Africa to encourage this. "Additionality" of projects
also needs to be properly defined to help provide confidence that
the Mechanism is achieving its objectives. We are also cautious
about a mechanism which could be seen purely as a technical solution
to harmful emissions. If developing countries are to benefit,
and if the sustainable development objectives of the UNFCCC are
to be met, the CDM should be more closely linked to poverty reduction
strategies in developing countries. We believe that DFID should
seek to address these issues at the Copenhagen conference. (Paragraph
124)
21. The transfer of
low carbon technologies to developing countries is essential if
they are to avoid high carbon growth. Greater effort is required
to ensure that the benefits of rapid technical progress in developed
countries are shared with developing countries, where such technologies
are appropriate. Facilitating appropriate low carbon technology
in developing countries is an initiative which offers potential
for a joined up UK development and trade policy approach and is
one which the Government should explore. The private sector has
an important role to play and should be encouraged to participate.
We recommend that DFID examine how it can work with the Department
for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to establish a
programme to facilitate UK private sector involvement in low carbon
technology transfer to poor countries. (Paragraph 130)
Meeting the energy needs of the poorest
22. It
is inevitable that many developing countries will continue to
rely on fossil fuels and biomass for their energy requirements
for some time to come. However these countries are historically
low emitters and equity demands that they should be permitted
to ensure that the poorest people are able to meet their basic
energy needs even where this relies on high carbon methods. Emphasis
on low carbon growth should not take precedence over ensuring
developing countries can tackle more immediate social needs. Small-scale
initiatives such as the jatropha fuel project we saw in Kenya
provide innovative opportunities to improve the livelihoods of
the poorest whilst meeting their energy needs in a sustainable
manner. Scaling up such small-scale projects and replicating them
across developing countries is the next essential stage and requires
the support of donors, including DFID. (Paragraph 135)
23. Meeting the energy
needs of the poorest in a sustainable way means that low carbon
technologies must be made available, free or at a low cost with
high incentives, to the poorest and most vulnerable. This includes
biofuel technologies where opportunities exist to develop these
sustainably and without negative repercussions on food security.
We understand that more research is needed into how best to ensure
low carbon technology and know-how is transferred from developed
to developing countries, and between developing countries. Methods
of scaling-up from pilot projects to commercialisation also needs
examination. This research should form part of the remit for DFID's
new Centre for Climate and Development and where possible should
be undertaken in developing countries. While many developing countries
are currently low emitters it is important that research is carried
out quickly so that it is available as they begin to move towards
increased industrialisation. (Paragraph 138)
The Copenhagen conference
24. It
is vital that rich countries set very rigorous targets for reducing
their greenhouse gas emissions. These countries bear primary responsibility
for current levels of gases in the atmosphere. Emerging economies
and industrialising countries will also need to take actions but
these should be proportionate to their historic level of emissions.
The principles of reducing global emissions and sharing common
but differentiated responsibility should provide the over-arching
framework for the UK's negotiating stance in Copenhagen. (Paragraph
148)
25. We are concerned
however that only months away from the Copenhagen conference many
countries are unwilling to put figures on the table. The Government
should take a strong lead in encouraging other high emitters to
take the tough decisions necessary. The EU is apparently waiting
to see what others do before making a commitment to the stringent
targets which are deemed necessary. We understand that this is
a negotiating tactic, but consider it to be a high-risk strategy.
Too many important decisions are being left until the last minute,
with the danger that agreement may not then be secured. A commitment
to achieving a successful outcome and a willingness to be flexible
must be demonstrated by all parties, including the UK and the
EU. The UK should put pressure on its EU partners to make progress
on establishing an agreed negotiating position now. (Paragraph
149)
26. We are pleased
that industrialising countries such as China are beginning to
consider appropriate mitigation actions. The UK Government should
encourage such initiatives. As we said in our recent report into
DFID and China "the path that China chooses, in terms of
carbon emissions, energy use and its sourcing of natural resources,
will strongly affect the international community's efforts to
address climate change." We recommend that DFID ensure that
the new Centre for Climate and Development includes research and
policy analysis on climate change in China as one of its focus
areas. (Paragraph 152)
27. Establishing the
principle of additional funding for adaptation is crucial to securing
agreement in Copenhagen. We appreciate that it may be too sensitive
for developed countries to make firm commitments at this stage,
but the UK Government should show moral leadership and confirm
that it will indeed be putting new funding on the table in Copenhagen.
This would send out an important signal to poor countries that
the developed world is prepared to meets its responsibilities
towards them. It might also encourage other donors to be equally
bold in fulfilling their clear obligations on adaptation costs.
(Paragraph 155)
| 
