Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240-259)
MR MICHAEL
FOSTER MP, MR
ELWYN GRAINGER-JONES,
LORD HUNT
OF KINGS
HEATH AND
MR ANDREW
RANDALL
29 APRIL 2009
Q240 Richard Burden: Is it meant
to be?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I wonder
if I can answer this because I do have responsibility for the
SDC. You pose a relevant question. It is the Government's independent
watchdog and it is very much focused on the actions of government
departments and it regularly publishes reports comparing performance
between different government departments. They are very helpful
because they lead departments which do not look so good to look
at their performance. In that sense, of course, it does that monitoring.
As to whether its remit should be widened to encompass the areas
that you have suggested, I would be very interested in the views
of the Committee on that. Jonathan Porritt is due to retire from
the chairmanship very shortly and we will have a new chairman.
That is clearly an opportunity to look at these matters again,
but, as I say, the focus has really always been on ensuring that
individual government departments understand the sustainability
agenda and that their policies are very much focused towards that.
It is one of a number of very important planks to taking forward
government policy. Another area of great interest to you, I am
sure, will be the development of carbon budgets, which again will
introduce a discipline to individual departments in terms of the
carbon emissions that they are responsible for, but that would
very much embrace the sectors which they are responsible for and
I think will again be another very powerful tool for monitoring
performance and driving change.
Q241 Richard Burden: So far, given
the fact that the Commission has its remit across departments,
both departments focusing on the international action as well
as those that are focused on domestic action, what has been the
impression that has been coming out of the Commission about how
far DFID relates to the Commission and how far it articulates
the Strategy? For example, the UK's overall Sustainable Development
Strategy was published in 2005, the Securing the Future
document, and DFID articulated its approach to that, and two years
later it had a Sustainable Development Action Plan. Securing
the Future has got these five core principles: living within
environmental limits, ensuring a strong, healthy and just society,
achieving a sustainable economy, promoting good governance and
using sound science responsibly. My question is, if the Commission
is meant to be the watchdog across government departments on how
they are doing, what conclusions or assessments has it made about
DFID's role in that, or is it that it has not really reached its
conclusions? Does that say something about the Commission perhaps
having its advisory role strengthened or links between departments
strengthened?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Can
I just reiterate that clearly it is currently a time to review
the progress of the SDC and that I would be very happy to take
this matter on board and to discuss with DFID whether there are
ways in which the remit of the SDC should be developed. I do want
to pay tribute to the SDC. I think they have done a really fantastic
job. I remember as a Minister in the Department of Health a long
time ago when they were first appointed. At that time very few
people knew what sustainability was about and I think they have
had a hugely important role in educating and pressurising and
getting government departments into a much better state, but it
is a moment when we need to reflect on progress and what needs
to happen in the future. As I say, I would be very happy to take
the views of the Committee on this and to explore with my colleagues
whether it would be appropriate to look at a widening of their
role. I have to say, of course, that there is a lot that still
needs to be done within Whitehall in terms of demarcation of responsibility
as well, so it is a question of focus. I ought also to say, although
this is very much UK based, that one of the outputs of the Climate
Change Act was to establish an adaptation sub-committee of the
Climate Change Committee so that alongside the SDC and the Climate
Change Committee we would also have high level advice from an
adaptation sub-committee.
Mr Foster: The Sustainable Development
Commission reports very much reflect rather than drive change
but if it would help the Committee I do not think you have seen
it but we could give you a copy of DFID's latest progress report
so you get a flavour of the sort of engagement we have with the
SDC.
Q242 Chairman: Thank you for that.
I wonder, Lord Hunt, if I could turn to Copenhagen, knowing you
have only got a few minutes. We have had some discussion and evidence
to date about the likely outcomes, so perhaps in general terms
first of all you could give us an indication of what you are hoping
for or what you are looking to expect from that, and then also
looking at what the developing countries might reasonably hope
or expect from it?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Thank
you very much, Chairman. Clearly we are in a critical moment in
the lead-up to Copenhagen and it is an absolutely critical moment
for the globe in terms of getting an agreement which will hold
a climate rise to under 2oC so this is a very important focus
in the Department of Energy and Climate Change. There are, I suppose,
three core aims to our negotiations: first, a legally binding
developed country target; second, appropriate action by developing
countries; and third the right level of finance and technological
support for developing countries. The context and background is
first the action that we took unilaterally to set in legislation
a 2050 target of 80 % GHG reduction, which we think is vital in
itself to the UK but also as a signal to the international community
of the kind of actions that we would like other countries to take.
Following on from that, we came to the agreement in December within
Europe on 2020, which again very much we see as important in itself
and as a lead-up to negotiations in Copenhagen. They were around,
as I have said already, the 20 % GHG reduction target for 2020
but which would be increased to 30 % subject to international
agreement generally. There was also very important agreements
around the reduction of allowances to develop carbon capture and
storage, which has been followed on in this country by the announcement
last week of up to four demonstration projects. As far as Copenhagen
is concerned, we have been very active and my Secretary of State
has been visiting the US, China and other countries and having
discussions with the administrations there. Clearly the involvement
of the US as an active participant in these discussions is a very
helpful indicator of potential success. There was a week-long
meeting recently by officials to start the initial process of
negotiation. I cannot say that anything of substance came out
of that but they were very useful discussions. I think that if
you were to ask me in one line am I confident of success, I am
confident that we are doing everything we can to achieve success.
I believe that there are hopeful signs but there is an awful long
way to go and an awful lot of hard negotiation.
Q243 Chairman: Do you share Lord
Stern's view, somewhat optimistically perhaps, that actually a
downturn is a good time to get agreement because there is capacity
and indeed opportunity for people to get economic benefit from
adopting new technologies?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am
not sure I would ever say a downturn is a good time so I am not
sure that I necessarily share his view.
Q244 Chairman: I do not think it
is a good time; it is a good time for agreement.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: However,
I suspect that it has concentrated minds, and what the downturn
has shown is the need for international collaboration on issues
that are potentially very catastrophic. There is nothing more
vital to us internationally than a climate change agreement. In
that sense I agree with him. I also agree with him that a move
towards a low carbon economy does not mean a low growth economy.
Q245 Chairman: That is actually my
next point because obviously the developing countries' concern
is that they need growth more than anybody and they do not want
either to be shut out of growth because of the scale of a Copenhagen
agreement that does not take their needs into account or, alternatively,
to be locked into the wrong sort of technology growth which will
cost them later. Are you satisfied, and I am looking at both Ministers
I suppose, that those concerns have been fully taken into account
and, relating to that, that the cost of applying Copenhagen will
be properly allocated? I just repeat the exchange that I had with
Javier Solana where the EU was offering to fund a third of the
impact of Copenhagen on developing countries but developing countries,
not unreasonably, thought they should get 100 %, and that is a
big gap.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I think
on cost the UK is still in the position of preparing and developing
its position, but there were a lot of intense discussions at EU
Spring Councils where finance was discussed. No agreement was
reached in relation to hard figures but discussions took place
on the kind of funding mechanisms that might be taken forward.
I very much agree with your comment in relation to the fears of
developing countries that they do not want to see tough international
targets on GHG reductions impacting on necessary development in
their country, and that is understandable, which is why I believe
that climate change issues and sustainability have to come together
because clearly we wish to see countries that need to develop
developing in a sustainable way, and we have to pull that together.
Going back to what Lord Stern has said, he has made it clear,
particularly to developing countries, that a low carbon economy
does not mean a low growth economy. That is the same for this
country as it is for developing countries. As far as technology
is concerned, I very much take your point. I believe that the
announcement that we made on carbon capture and storage (CCS)
is a very important indicator of our position. 40 % of energy
at the moment is produced through the use of coal, so unless we
can develop CCS in a way that it can be used throughout the world,
we are going to be in a great deal of difficulty.
Q246 Chairman: I have a final point
and then I know Mr Bayley has a quick one and then I know you
need to go. Mr Foster earlier on said that there was difficulty
in separating out development costs and climate change costs.
Nevertheless, the Committee's view is that somehow or other that
will need to be done, not least because if there is a Copenhagen
agreement there will be some compliance implications. If it is
difficult to separate the costs out, how can you tell whether
or not you have complied with any agreement that has been reached?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I think
that Mr Foster was referring to DFID's own budgetary position
where I can well understand that there will be issues around how
you define various expenditure heads. Chairman, you are quite
right that in terms of the credibility of Copenhagen it will be
absolutely essential that whatever agreement is made that the
measurement of success—or not—has to be measured effectively,
and people have to have confidence in the integrity of the system.
I very much agree with that and clearly it is the same in relation
to emissions trading schemes, where again it would be very important
that the integrity of those systems can be relied upon. So in
terms of authentication and in terms of monitoring, I agree that
will be absolutely essential.
Q247 Hugh Bayley: I just wanted to
pursue the Chairman's point about Lord Stern's comment that the
downturn is a good time to drive forward the low carbon agenda.
I do not think he makes this comment just because he is an optimist
pursuing his cause. I think the economics underpinning that view
are right. In his report Lord Stern says that you will need something
like 2 % of global GDP invested in low carbon alternatives to
achieve a maximum 2 % increase in the temperature target. There
is a danger that you see 2 % of growth as cutting to 98 % what
we produce elsewhere and therefore a terribly difficult thing
to do in the downturn, but actually, if we think about it, that
is not what the 2 % is doing. The 2 % is additional investment.
It is not a top slice from global output; it is an additional
investment in, if you like, wind farms and so on. Is not that
the argument that should be made at Copenhagen—that increasing
investment in low carbon alternatives is both necessary in climate
change terms but also this is a perfect time to do it because
we are looking for ways in which to stimulate investment?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I do
not disagree and I think that there is a key challenge here for
the UK. A low carbon economy is inevitable. The question for the
UK is whether we are going to be at the forefront of that with
all the advantage that it brings in terms of investment, jobs,
skills and the like. Clearly, the same argument applies to other
countries as well, so if the argument is that development towards
a low carbon economy can start to fuel growth in the economy,
that is something that I would agree with. I think that the advantage
of Lord Stern's work has been that it has come from a very sober
and realistic view of the economics and I believe that it has
enhanced the credibility of the work itself.
Q248 Chairman: Thank you, Lord Hunt,
for attending. We do appreciate that you have got an important
meeting and we need to release you.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Chairman,
I am very grateful to you for allowing me to do that, thank you.
Q249 Hugh Bayley: To continue on
this theme of this great debate between low carbon strategies
and growth, DFID has objectives both of promoting economic growth,
which I think is a fine objective, and tackling climate change,
which is an equally fine and necessary objective, and yet when
you put the two side-by-side it is far easier to think of examples
of economic growth being detrimental to the climate. I remember
when the Committee went to China, flying from Beijing to Gansu,
and you looked out of the plane and saw smoke stack after smoke
stack after smoke stack of factories and power stations pumping
out pollution. So how does DFID reconcile the ambition to promote
growth in developing countries with its ambition to limit carbon
emissions? Is it actually doable?
Mr Foster: Firstly, the Government
has the wider view that it is important to break this link that
you described that you can only get economic growth through degradation
to the climate and the environment, and it is important that that
is seen not just internationally but in the UK as well, as was
suggested. What we have done so far is to fund a number of low
carbon growth studies in some of the middle-income countries where
they are experiencing rapid economic growth, and so in that way
they are a very good case study to use to get an example of how
you can manage quick growth but be climate-friendly and climate-smart
in the meantime. We have also conducted a couple of pan-regional
studies, or mini-Sterns, ourselves to look at the knowledge and
to find the best knowledge out there on how that is done. There
is a lack of evidence, I have to accept Mr Bayley, about how we
deliver at low-income country level, how we balance the two out,
because of the experience that you have described from the plane,
which is one that we must try and avoid in terms of the impact
on the environment. We have specific projects in-country which
do demonstrate how economic growth and development is being pursued
whilst actually enhancing the environment and mitigating some
of the impacts on climate change. One example that we have that
I have been lucky enough to have been to see is in Nepal, the
Forestry and Livelihoods Programme, which is about management
of the forest and, as we know, deforestation has a huge impact
on emissions and climate change so the forestry aspect is important.
The project looks to enable communities to deliver improvements
in their livelihoods from better management of the forests and
the examples I saw were the production of materials, envelopes,
books and paper, from the products of the forest, and we have
seen substantial increases in their income, so they are benefiting
developmentally from the projects but actually you are also storing
several hundred thousand tonnes of carbon in the new forests that
are being planted and better managed. We are doing the research
to find out how better to inform the process but actually in-country
we are also getting our hands dirty with bilateral programmes
such as the Forestry and Livelihoods Programme.
Q250 Hugh Bayley: How are you going
to achieve policy consistency between the output and recommendations
of the Centre for Climate and Development on the one hand and
the International Growth Centre on the other? Will they, for instance,
audit each other's reports before they are published and comment
on them? When it comes to disseminating the findings from these
bodies in your work in developing countries, how will you ensure
that there is an integrated use of the findings of both in-house
think-tanks, when you think that most of your work on growth in
the developing countries will be with finance and trade ministries
and most of your work on climate change will be with different
ministries, energy ministries and environment ministries?
Mr Foster: First of all, the International
Growth Centre to which you refer has itself got its own low carbon
element built into it, so there is already recognition in the
creation of that body of the need to tackle the low carbon element.
We are also planning to run joint internal programmes between
the Climate and Environment Group and the International Growth
Centre, so that way we do think we can get the best out of both
of those organisations in terms of policy development and research
to then enable us to inform not just our own in-country programmes
but because the interest that has been expressed by many countries
across the world we hope to be able to then inform them with the
findings on how best to take on board the knowledge and the research
and the findings.
Q251 Hugh Bayley: How then will DFID
seek to ensure that developing countries integrate climate change
resilience into their development plans?
Mr Foster: That is an on-going
challenge for us, Mr Bayley. We do it in terms of having what
we believe is a compact approach to discussions that we have,
so that we have got a very clear breakdown of responsibilities
between what the developing countries do in return for support
from the developed country. We want to have very clear and measurable
reported results as part of any compact and that fits in very
much with the Paris Declaration on the most effective use of aid.
At a national level, in terms of the discussions we are having
on the work that we do and the funding that we accrue, we are
supporting climate change advocacy officers to be placed within
civil society in developing countries to, in effect, put pressure
within developing countries so that the issue of climate change
is not forgotten. That is an important method in which we can
fund this area. We are also looking at individual bilateral support
to developing countries to enable them to have a stronger voice
in treaties and discussions internationally. For example, we funded
a part of the Nepal delegation to the recent Poznan talks. Again,
that is just a bilateral in-country plan that we know will benefit
a country that has huge potential to (a) be affected by adverse
climate change but (b) also has the ability to help mitigate the
impacts of climate change.
Q252 Hugh Bayley: I am interested
by what you say about civil society and climate change advocates.
Over the years I have seen dozens and dozens of small NGO projects
responding to environmental pressures in one way or another, doing
really good, innovatory work and often just dying when that funding
stream dries up. In East Africa we saw some really good work funded
by your Department in a very dry part of northern Kenya adapting
to a changing and worsening environment, and work with in-shore
fishermen in Tanzania to try and ensure that there was local control
of fishing stocks. They are doing good work but how do you ensure
that when you have worked out a policy response to an environmental
pressure that you roll out the knowledge?
Mr Foster: It is going to be one
of the challenges that we face, I have to be honest Mr Bayley,
in terms of keeping the pressure on with regard to advocacy, keeping
the knowledge flowing through that is being created, or will be
created through our research hub. Where we have spent some time
and made a commitment is in projects that are trying to inform
any post-2012 agreement and to demonstrate on the ground some
practical ways in which that is being addressed. We have a pilot
programme called Climate Resilience. It is under the Climate Investment
Fund package; it is managed by the World Bank; and it is designed
to look at what can be done practically to deliver on low carbon
initiatives in developing countries, and the idea is that actually
that can help inform the debate internationally and inform the
discussions that are going to go on between now and December ahead
of Copenhagen.
Q253 Andrew Stunell: Can we just
take a look at the sources of best practice when we are getting
climate change projects right. Partly it is the small on-the-ground
schemes which have been demonstrated to work. Partly it is going
to be academic and professional research. The most effective research
is probably going to be that which is found in the local area
taking account of local eco-systems and other technology barriers
and so on. Are you satisfied that the UK Government is responding
to that research and, for instance, in Africa that African-based
research is really being taken into account when support is given
for projects? I guess the inverse of that is how do you avoid
having a wallpaper approach to projects that does not feed in
the local parameters?
Mr Foster: Mr Stunell, one of
our flagship projects in this area is actually in Africa. It is
funded under the Climate Change Adaptation in Africa scheme and
it is a £24 million project over five years. It is based
in Africa so that you have got the in-country feel to the nature
of the research and the capacity building that is going on, and
for the very reasons that you outlined. We think it is that nature
of action research that really does help inform the nature of
the type of changes that we are going to be expecting in different
countries around the world. The African example is one where we
absolutely agree with you. We are doing that. I am not saying
that we are doing it perfectly or that we are doing it everywhere,
but we are conscious that that is the model that we think does
work on the ground and has been demonstrated, as I say, in this
five-year project that we have got there.
Q254 Andrew Stunell: Do you think
the scale of your decision-making or interventions is sufficiently
refined to take account of that or is there a tendency perhaps
by local governments as well as your intervention to simply look
to blanket solutions?
Mr Foster: It is a question that
is very difficult to answer in terms of what we expect local governments
to do and how they are going to respond to the challenges. What
we think we can do is to provide information and knowledge based
on good, hard evidence and research so that the debates are at
least better informed when it comes to the type of decision-making
that will go on. I do not think there is a guarantee that we can
give that countries will necessarily follow the best evidence
and the best policy, but they have a better chance of doing so
if the information and evidence is actually available for them
to look at first before they make a policy change.
Q255 Andrew Stunell: You see that
as a clear priority for you in terms of the dialogue with national
governments?
Mr Foster: It is a priority not
just in terms of informing in-country policy-making but also to
inform internationally any future deal that we might be getting
in Copenhagen. There is a bigger responsibility there as well
to take action now so that we have got some evidence and we have
got some information available to us.
Q256 Chairman: There is no doubt
at all that DFID is pulling together useful advice, practical
examples and funding those, but it is a bit like Aid for Trade,
if there is no trade agreement the aid is not much use, and the
same applies here. Do you have any indication of what the cost
of adaptation is likely to be and what sums are likely to go into
the pot for discussion at Copenhagen? There is a huge variation.
I have seen figures ranging from $4 billion to $86 billion, which
is a huge difference. In that context, how much of that should
be funded by the UK and, if any of it is to be funded by the UK,
how should it be funded in ways that do not compromise the development
budget?
Mr Foster: In term of the cost,
Chairman, you are right in pointing out the sheer variation in
estimates that are there for meeting adaptation. In terms of how
we envisage our contribution to this, we think probably a blend
of options is the best way forward. There is obviously going to
be a unilateral element from general expenditure. We are interested
in the Norwegian proposal that has been put forward which is to
set aside at auction a small percentage of emissions allowances
to fund adaptation work, so there is scope in that that would
be worthy of discussion.
Q257 Chairman: Taken from a separate
fund?
Mr Foster: Then there are other
options such as forms of global tax mechanisms. For example, there
might be a maritime bunker fuel tax or possible aviation taxes
that could kick in.
Q258 Chairman: You are interested
in things that could identify a separate finance stream for adaptation
that is clearly distinct from development?
Mr Foster: We think that the finance
has got to come from a variety of sources. It is not going to
be one that government alone are in a position to be able to deliver.
Q259 Chairman: You know that the
Committee expressed concern when the Prime Minister suggested
that the World Bank should become an environment bank. If I am
honest, the Committee slapped him down somewhat and took the view
that the World Bank was a poverty reduction bank not an environment
bank and that it was a dangerous step to take. I do not know whether
it worked but we have not heard so much of it since. You take
the point that the Committee is concerned that adaptation and
development need to be separately funded and not confused or blurred?
Mr Foster: We are conscious of
that debate that is going to go on and it is obviously part of
what is being discussed in the run-up to Copenhagen. We know of
the interest in the developing world on what is expected and what
they are likely to be able to get. We think that the key for us
is to get predictable sources of finance out of any agreement
as well so that countries can actually plan ahead properly to
make the type of adaptations that are necessary.
| 
