Examination of Witness (Questions 20-35)
MR SIMON
ANDERSON
27 JANUARY 2009
Q20 Chairman: You can also look at
mineral and other extractions in a pro-poor way.
Mr Anderson: Yes.
Q21 Chairman: That clearly is a useful
development role. Of course this is only the start of this inquiry
but we might consider making a recommendation that DFID should
look back into that. One of our colleagues who is not here at
the moment said, "DFID does not support tourism, so why do
we look at it?" But the question is that we should be looking
at whether they should be. You are saying that they should be.
Mr Anderson: Yes, we are very
firmly of the opinion that that has great potential.
Chairman: That is very helpful.
Q22 John Battle: Could I return to
the idea of environmental integration, in particular the concept
that might be helpful of environmental governance. For a long
time in the 1960s it used to be put in the tabloid form of "setting
the people against the trees" in the South American example,
and so there was a tension between environmental concerns and
trying to tackle poverty. We then went through the economic arguments
of exponential growth versus limits to growth—to use a phrase
that was used. If I were to caricature what has happened in the
debate now, just as labour standards were introduced and then
poor countries said, "That's a barrier introduced by the
West," to some extent the response now is "You're putting
environmental barriers in boxes that we have to tick before we
can get there." We have not taken a positive integration
at the country level of this agenda. I do not think we have done
it here in Britain, never mind asking other people to do it. Could
we explore a bit more that concept of environmental governance
bedding in, the binding together of tackling poverty and ensuring
it is sustainable. That might change the mindset all around, might
it not? What would be the main elements of that concept of environmental
governance, in your view?
Mr Anderson: The key aspect of
that is access to environmental resources. Part of the reason
those who are poor are poor, is the fact that they do not have
rights of access. You will be familiar with Amartya Sen's conceptualising
of poverty as a lack of freedom. In terms of rights of access
to natural resources, environmental governance has a huge role
to play in enabling poorer people to roll back some of the processes
that have excluded them from access to water and to forest and
to common land, et cetera. There is a very strong movement across
different sectors to explore how those constraints of access to
resources is imposing greater levels of poverty than otherwise
might be the case. This is not just a rural issue because there
is access to environmental goods and services that urban and peri-urban
populations suffer as well. Of course, the management of the environment
in the rural sphere, the way that it is managed and perhaps democratising
that management, will mean that there will be a better distribution
of the benefits from it. The crucial element of that environmental
governance is to increase the right of access of those who are
dependent on the natural resource base.
Q23 John Battle: I can see that at
the local level but perhaps I could push it a bit further and
say I am really interested to see how environmental governance—and
I underline the word governance, because sometimes we use that
about governments and institutions as well—at the local
level can build into institution building. To make it practical,
there is criticism that DFID gave assistance in the form of budget
support—that is the idea. To draw an analogy, it could be
said in Britain, in my city, inner city Leeds, the biggest demand
at the moment is people queuing up to get allotments. But it is
not enough for climate change as a whole. There is a little thinking
going on "Yes, think global and act local" but we need
to both at the same time. It is a bit more complicated than just
having your own allotment. Are we really suggesting going back
to spectacular environmental governance projects at the local
level, or is there some way of embedding the concept of environmental
governance into the institutions so that budget support can be
seen as not harmful to environmental development? At the moment
your evidence suggests that it is.
Mr Anderson: There is a trade-off
there between economic development and managing the environment
for longer-term development issues. We would suggest that direct
budgetary support needs to be accompanied by a strengthening of
civil society, or organisations certainly, so that for governments
that are managing governance systems at the different scales there
is a process in place that makes them accountable and that enables
them to listen better to environmental concerns—environmental
concerns both from the local level through to the public good
of the environmental services. We would prefer to see that, alongside
direct budgetary support, there was an encouragement, a dialogue
with the Government to strengthen civil society.
Q24 John Battle: Without civil society
you do not get good governance anyway.
Mr Anderson: Civil society is
very important for demanding good governance. For example, last
week I had the good fortune to meet the Minister for Northern
Kenya and the Arid Lands and we were talking about incorporating
climate projection information into his ministry's planning. One
of the things that he was keen on was the fact that the organisations
and advocates of the pastoralists, the agro-pastoralists and other
arid land users, similarly were able to scrutinise and to use
projection evidence in their emerging dialogue with the planning
agency, with his ministry. He was very aware of this reciprocal
nature. I think that is something that DFID could build elsewhere.
Q25 Mr Singh: What were the expectations
of the Poznan Conference? How important was it? Were those expectations
met?
Mr Anderson: I think the expectations
were quite realistic. We knew this would not be the culmination,
that before the change in the US Administration there would be
little movement certainly on mitigation, probably on technology
transfer issues, and that was borne out to be the case. On REDD[2]
and also on adaptation there was greater movement. I should say
that the movement at the Adaptation Fund and its operation in
large part is due to the board members. It is not so much due
to the parties' contribution at the conference. However, there
was an Adaptation Fund board meeting directly following Poznan,
and on the role of the secretariat and the trustees, the monetarisation
of the carbon credits, the legal status of the board and its members
there was significant progress made. From our perspective, concentrating
mainly on climate adaptation in these developing countries or
the most vulnerable countries, we came away with a very favourable
impression of progress made. However, it still remains to be seen
how much movement there will be, to whether the adaptation funds
will become adequate and reliable in a way that the group of 77
and other parties are insisting.
Q26 Mr Singh: That sounds as though you
would not agree with Oxfam, who categorised the outcome as a shameful
lack of progress.
Mr Anderson: IIED are working
quite closely with the Adaptation Fund. We have offered support
through the chair to that process. As I say, the Adaptation Fund
board has achieved more perhaps than might have been expected.
The conference of parties provided a framework for that to happen
but there are still parties who are less than helpful in terms
of the development of that funding stream for adaptation. Yes,
we are still looking forward to the outcome in Copenhagen.
Q27 Mr Singh: Given that Poznan was
the stepping stone towards Copenhagen, what are the major issues
that we need to resolve in 2009, before Copenhagen, so that Copenhagen
can be a success?
Mr Anderson: I prefer to talk
to the areas I know best, which is reduced emissions for deforestation
and degradation and also the adaptation issues. However, progress
on those will be thwarted if parties cannot agree on a set of
mitigation targets. In terms of the adaptation issue, there is
a major discrepancy between parties' opinions of the way that
adaptation should be funded. There is a major polemic around what
constitutes adequate and reliable funding. Personally I think
there is a lack of evidence as to the balance between what is
called planned adaptation, through state and other major intervention
bodies, and autonomous adaptation by the private sector, individuals,
households and firms. Understanding that balance, getting evidence
of that and how adaptation finance can be channelled in the most
effective ways, needs to happen in the interim. Part of the work
IIED is doing is contributing to that, the level of knowledge
as to what is the most effective way of supporting adaptation
processes in poorer countries. In terms of the way that adaptation
and REDD are linked, as I mentioned in the corridor to your scientific
adviser there is a problem of a divorce between these four pillars.
Adaptation and mitigation—it is a false dichotomy into the
future—that realisation has to happen. If there are going
to be trade-offs in the way the negotiations proceed, perhaps
a better understanding of the way that mitigation and adaptation
need to be linked into the future needs to happen and looking
at the possibilities for that. Similarly, in looking at the emissions
reductions objectives of reduced deforestation and enabling local
communities to adapt better to climate change effects, we need
to open up that overlap. We need to unpack those overlaps for
a more effective negotiating process to take place.
Q28 Mr Singh: What would you advise
DFID to do between now and Copenhagen to ensure that Copenhagen
achieves its aims?
Mr Anderson: DFID as a contributing
element to the EU delegation needs to push hard on the link between
adaptation measures and poverty reduction. I think it needs to
re-examine the urgency with which adaptation needs to be put in
place, so that the development, poverty reduction targets, the
MDGs can be achieved or better achieved, or in fact sustained
where achievements have been made. We need to have a better understanding,
and to share that with parties, of climate change impacts on poverty.
There is evidence emerging. The World Development report that
was released just before the Bali meeting the year before last,
has the basis and the starting point for very good evidence on
the way that climate effects will hinder poverty reduction. I
think DFID should be emphasising that in terms of the negotiation
process. We also welcome the fact that DFID has provided further
financial support to the Adaptation Fund board. That board and
its operations need to be brought on line as soon a possible.
We need adaptation planning through the National Adaptation Plans
of Action to be taken seriously. We need pilots on adaptation
to be far more widespread than they are. We need all developing
countries to be learning what it means, not only to plan but to
implement adaptation activities, and that in an environment where
the transactional costs of that lesson learning are recognised
and to some extent subsidised from Annex I countries.[3]
Q29 Chairman: Is adaptation, funding
pilots and so forth, something that has to be an add-on because
there is a clear suspicion about diversion? Or is it possible
to integrate it in ways that genuinely deliver poverty reduction?
We are concerned about a situation where DFID will badge things
it is doing and say, "This is the environment." It would
be quite helpful to get an idea of what should be additional and
what can genuinely be a poverty reduction component and simply
orientated that way.
Mr Anderson: I think we need to
realise that, without adequate climate foresight (that is, the
use of reliable climate projections), it is difficult to say that
good development overlaps completely with adaptation. The reason
for investing in certain adaptation activities will differ from
purely development objectives. There are climate change effects
that will affect certain sectors of the population more than others.
There is an overlap, of course, with populations of the poorest
and quite often the most climate prone. It is not sufficient to
say that good development will solve adaptation needs. There are
other objectives to be addressed. There is also the issue that
a large number of parties to the convention consider that, where
there is an ethical element to the way that compensation is paid
on a polluter pays principle, then to allocate part of Official
Development Assistance for adaptation is seen as a reduction in
the resource flow, and actually the need for adaptation is such
that we cannot really afford a reduction in the funding available.
If we look at a number of parameters—the adaptation costing
estimates that have been made, the way that pledges, particularly
to Africa, around climate adaptation have not been fulfilled,
the way that some adaptation funding has not been as efficient
as it might have been—they are all indicators that there
needs to be a special dedicated effort to test and to prove the
effectiveness of adaptation activities. It may well be that, once
that testing has taken place, the development allocation by DFID
and other agencies can be better and that that overlap will genuinely
be there, but up until that stage I think it is too early to say.
Q30 Mr Singh: Given the global economic
downturn and in fact, in some countries like our own, recession,
do you think there will be any real appetite to have a new agreement
on climate change at Copenhagen?
Mr Anderson: Talking to the man
on the street, the taxi driver, the people you meet through the
hazards of life, as it were, yes there is a reticence to take
seriously the need to increase flows of funds to developing countries.
However, if we look at the responses where there are climate-related
disasters, that speaks to the fact that people are able to identify
adaptation or certainly relief measures from extreme events as
special cases, and so there may well be a greater appetite than
we would suspect. In addition, since different governments around
the world have addressed the financial crisis with such huge quantities
of finance and funding, what is possible? The £50 billion
for adaptation costs per year compared to the massive amounts
that have been pumped into the financial sector. I think, yes,
people's mindset, the way people look at it, has changed. The
key to this is to demonstrate the effectiveness of adaptation
investments and to have better evidence around the counterfactuals:
What would have happened? What will happen if we do not do this?
This is not stuff that is happening over there. There are very
real effects of climate change in developing countries that will
have repercussions for us elsewhere.
Q31 Chairman: There is a conference
going on at the moment in the House where these issues are being
discussed. One contributor said that he was worried about Copenhagen,
that the danger was that we would go in, we would try to cobble
together an agreement, and then say we had fixed it.
Mr Anderson: Yes.
Q32 Chairman: His suggestion was
that we needed to ensure that we get the tightest agreement in
terms of commitment we can, with enough flexibility to recognise
that it has to be continually updated, that it is not a deal you
walk away from. Just as a matter of interest, the scientific evidence
we have been given is saying that the targets now need to be brought
down to 350 parts per million to achieve those targets, and we
are not even getting to the higher ones. The suggestion was that
we are 10 years from the tipping point.
Mr Anderson: Yes.
Q33 Chairman: The plus point, which
is to take Mr Singh's question, is that the current global downturn
just buys us enough space and time, but if we were able to find
all that money for financial rescue surely we could find some
now as a result of the time frame. What do you think the possibility
is of Copenhagen being conducted in that climate, perhaps with
the American Administration taking a different view?
Mr Anderson: I continue to be
an optimist in terms of the way that the incoming Administration
will slightly move the goalposts on a number of issues, the way
that they were prepared to have a dialogue around these important
aspects of climate change whereas the previous Administration
was not. I think there is a danger that Copenhagen might be seen
as the end of the road rather than the beginning. Most of our
partners in developing countries see adaptation to climate change
as a journey, not as a destination. Whatever happens at Copenhagen,
there are surprises, there are thresholds in terms of climate
effects that we are not anticipating. An agreement that enables
us to (1) articulate those concerns and (2) allocate resources
to deal with them is necessary. Of course the process will not
put in place all the plans that are necessary but, hopefully,
a framework that will allow us over the succeeding years to work
out how implementation of those commitments should be conducted.
Again referring back to DFID's role, there will be the need to
monitor very closely how adaptation activities and investments
are contributing to sustainable development objectives. The way
that those investments are made needs to be scrutinised on that
basis. That is a very important issue for DFID to develop its
modus operandi.
Q34 Chairman: I did find your written
evidence had a lot of very useful data we could use. You have
been involved in doing the adaptation funds in some of the least
developed countries. Would you be able to give us a little bit
more indication of how that could be applied because that seems
to be very relevant to things that DFID could plug into.
Mr Anderson: DFID has made resources
available through the World Bank for its pilot programme on climate
resilience. There is some criticism of the type of funding that
has been available through that channel in terms of whether it
should be loans money—even soft loans—or grant money.
We criticised the initial planning. Indeed, DFID has responded
in terms of the way the Bank will manage that process more democratically
with the interests of developing countries closer to the centre.
Of course that is part of a piloting process that needs to happen
but it needs to be far wider than that. We would like to see DFID
supporting a greater number of countries in piloting adaptation
actions. We would also like to see, as I have mentioned previously,
the National Adaptation Plans of Action taken more seriously.
A small increment in the funds of the Global Environment Facility,
for example, would enable all these developing countries to pilot
the first one or two of the priorities that came out of their
National Adaptation Plans of Action. That would be a relatively
small investment that DFID could perhaps lead the way on, choosing
the countries that are its highest priority, and many other donor
partners would come in and support that. That we see as a necessary
next step. Making loans available through the Bank is just one
means of supporting adaptation. There need to be others and we
need to have an impartial objective assessment of the effectiveness
of the different channels.
Q35 Chairman: The Committee is always
in favour of helping DFID get a better return for its diminishing
pounds. That is a practical suggestion. Thank you very much. That
has been very helpful to us.
Mr Anderson: I have brought along
some other documents that you might like to consider.
Chairman: Thank you very much.
2 Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest
Degradation Back
3
Annex I to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change. The Annex I countries are those which committed themselves
as a group to reducing their emissions of the six greenhouse gases
by at least 5% below 1990 levels over the period between 2008
and 2012. Specific targets vary from country to country. Back
|
