Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280-288)
MR MICHAEL
FOSTER MP, MR
ELWYN GRAINGER-JONES,
LORD HUNT
OF KINGS
HEATH AND
MR ANDREW
RANDALL
29 APRIL 2009
Q280 Chairman: It seemed to be the
case that one sponsoring department took a decision but it does
not appear to have been a Government decision, just a departmental
one.
Mr Foster: Let me have a look,
Chairman, to see what we can do.
Q281 Hugh Bayley: To tag a point
on to that, it struck me that in East Africa there are some forms
of tourism which are a great deal better than others in terms
of the pro-poor focus and indeed in terms of the environmental
impact. It did cross my mind that it would be a good thing to
encourage some fair trading classification of tours offered for
sale in developed countries so that consumers could put their
tourism pounds behind better rather than more damaging tours.
The difficulty is that there are, we were told, dozens of different
tourism classifications for quality of hotels and the way staff
are treated and carbon consumption. Would it not make sense for
the Government to advocate a simpler system so that consumers
really knew which of the logos or rosettes matter and could therefore
make more rational choices? Incidentally, would that not be a
good reason for the UK to maintain a presence in the UN World
Tourism Organisation so that we could advocate a more rational
classification system?
Mr Foster: On the concept of having
a better label or recognition or trademark of what is a green
or sustainable tourist package that somebody might want to buy,
I think you are absolutely right and the Foreign Office actually
is supporting the establishment of a green rating system already
for the hospitality industry in South Africa and they want it
to be operational by the 2010 World Cup. This is a direction with
which the Government would concur.
Q282 Chairman: Is there a case for
DFID re-engaging in tourism, not because the promotion of tourism
requires DFID's engagement, but is the extension of pro-poor tourism
something that would be legitimate for them to promote, following
Mr Bayley's point?
Mr Foster: We do not necessarily
think that we have any comparative advantage in tourism as a department
compared to other countries who do tend to lead more on tourism
compared to ourselves, so it is a conscious decision that we do
not promote ourselves as a major sales team for the benefit of
tourism.
Q283 Hugh Bayley: Could I come back.
The Minister has kindly said that he will look at the World Tourism
Organisation issue specifically, and perhaps he can look at the
bundle of issues that we are putting to him on tourism. The Dutch
Government certainly has taken a much greater interest in tourism
and development, and I understand the Minister's view about sharing
out the responsibilities on development policy rather than have
every donor replicating work that others are doing. Given that
DFID takes a very strong interest in explaining its work to the
public in Britain, where you do have good work done by another
reputable development agency would it not make sense to seek in
the UK as one of DFID's jobs to disseminate that information?
For instance, just as an example, one of the things that I learned
from the Dutch in East Africa is that by far the most pro-poor
part of a European tourism package to East Africa is the handicraft
sector and the local culture, where the money you spend on handicrafts
goes almost entirely to poor people whereas the money you spend
on food in a restaurant will go largely to an international company.
Mr Foster: First of all, I think
there is some scope for DFID to support as part of our growth
policy perhaps niche markets within the tourist sector that might
need some support, and a Challenge Fund approach may well be a
good incentive to help private industry within the developing
countries engage better in promoting a pro-poor aspect to tourism.
I think there is scope there. On the general promotion of tourism
and the dissemination of what we do as a Department, you are probably
aware of the Developments magazine that the Department
produces. In January 2010 the edition is dedicated to tourism.
Although we are not a major player in tourism—we leave that
to other countries—we have not forgotten that it has an
important role to play in terms of development, and that magazine
is featuring tourism.
Q284 John Bercow: How is DFID assisting
poor people to access appropriate low-carbon, affordable technologies
to provide their basic energy needs?
Mr Foster: In terms of the agreements
that we want to get, one of the key development tests that the
Secretary of State has laid out ahead of Copenhagen, one of them
in particular, is to support the ability to diffuse low carbon
technologies to developing countries. We think that has got to
be part of whatever comes out in Copenhagen. In terms of specific
on-going operational programmes, Elwyn, I think you have got one
or two that you might want to mention.
Mr Grainger-Jones: There are a
few initiatives that we are working on. The Sustainable Renewable
Energy Programme (SREP) is a fund that we are working with other
donors to design. It is part of the Climate Investment Funds.
Q285 John Bercow: What is its value?
Mr Grainger-Jones: It depends
how much the donors will contribute and we have not yet had the
pledging meeting. I believe we are looking at a £25 million
contribution, subject to it being satisfactorily designed. There
is also the Global Village Energy Partnership (GVEP) which is
a UK-based NGO which provides support to small businesses to provide
basic energy products. We are also working with ESMAP[8],
a World Bank programme, to provide information and support at
a country level. As the Minister said, there is also the overall
framework to incentivise the development of low carbon technologies
internationally which we hope the Copenhagen agreement will provide.
Q286 John Bercow: Of course some
of these initiatives, which are by way of being at a formative
stage, adjudged by your talk about pledging meetings and what
people will contribute, and the emphasis very much on the future
tense, nevertheless will result, I assume, from discussions that
you have had with, amongst others, energy companies. One would
assume that some of the discussions that you have been having
will have been with these energy companies. Far be it for me to
sniff at or diminish the significance of what has already happened,
but would it not be a broadly accurate summary of the status quo
to say that people think that this is a jolly good idea and discussions
have been held about what a jolly good idea it is. In support
of this jolly good idea, funds will be required, and all of the
discussants think that it is indeed a jolly good idea that funds
should be contributed, but it is perhaps not quite such a jolly
good idea that they themselves should be expected to contribute
all that much, or at any rate not until they have discovered what
somebody else is going to contribute. It may be that I am drenched
in cynicism, Mr Grainger-Jones, but I just have a hunch that as
is very common in multilateral initiatives, and with some justification,
not just by companies but by governments, that institutions are
slightly reluctant to show their hand and to say, "We will
contribute X," until they have got a sense of what others
are prepared to contribute. I think it would probably be chronically
unfair of me to use the words "long grass" to suggest
that this is where these initiatives currently reside, but, equally,
might it be fair to say that though conception is well-advanced,
execution is still some way off? If you will forgive me, I had
a sense there was quite a lot going on but I did not have a huge
sense of urgency about these important matters.
Mr Grainger-Jones: From my perspective
there is a great deal of urgency in terms of really ramping up
the assistance that is being provided, as we set out in our memorandum.
There has been a surge of activity especially over the last few
years to step up the provision, for example by setting up the
Clean Technology Funds (CTF), which was a brand new initiative
which from design to concrete programming has been developed very
quickly. It was a 6 billion commitment to provision of funding
to that initiative at the G8 last year. We are already providing
our first contribution. In addition, the fund that I was just
talking about, GVEP, has been up and running for a few years.
ESMAP is up and running. SREP from design to pledging, and one
hopes to programming, will be pretty rapidly developed. It is
not an overnight thing especially if we are going to work with
developing country partners to design them. It is something that
we will hope to see designed from its conception about six months
ago. We hope to finalise that within the next few months and get
some pledging actually to start the programme.
Q287 John Bercow: Right, that is
intriguing, because there was I, probably misguided fool that
I am, thinking that there are three phases here, one was the conceptualisation
of the scheme, the second was the pledging and the third was the
implementation. I had missed out the fourth spoke which you neatly
introduced in programming, so it is actually conceptualisation,
pledging and programming, and what I am tentatively inclined to
ask you is: at what point when all the conceptualising, which
is very important, all the pledging and all the programming has
been done do we actually get to the point where some resources
might hit the street? In other words, it was helpful for you to
say what you did in elaborating timescales about the next few
months et cetera, but would I be a Panglossian optimist if I expressed
the hope that in 12 months' time you might be able to come to
this Committee and to tell us, with all guns blazing so to speak,
with great alacrity, the first X million pounds-worth of funds
had actually been distributed?
Mr Grainger-Jones: I think the
CTF will start delivering projects this year. We are happy to
provide the Committee with further information on what GVEP has
been doing and, similarly, with ESMAP. I would just make the point
that if we are spending taxpayers' money and that is being programmed
in quite complex and difficult environments, designing those projects
is not an overnight activity but, just to assure the Committee,
certainly the urgency is there in the way that we are managing
these funds and at an international level we are pushing for rapid
deployment.
Q288 John Bercow: It literally occurred
to me off the top of my head—and I really do not doubt the
Department's commitment and I do not think there is any difference
on that between us—that it is broadly analogous to something
that the late John Biffen once said in a different context. I
remember John Biffen when he was Chief Secretary of the Treasury
saying that in terms of dealing particularly with constraining
or cutting or restricting public expenditure you have to run very
fast to stand still, the point being that there are all sorts
of statutory obligations and expenditures that have to be made
whether the government likes it or not, so the scope for discretionary
expenditure or restriction thereof is comparatively limited. You
just have to work incredibly hard to stand still. I sometimes
feel that in these multilateral initiatives where you are having
to engage with some other governments and perhaps some private
sector institutions, it is quite Kafkaesque. Every time you take
a step forward and think you are nearer the castle you find that
you are a step further away. In a sense, one has to remind oneself
to go harder and faster. My final question, if I may, is this:
we have been looking at it very much in terms of what we are doing
for these chaps and chapesses in a slightly British imperialist
model of how we must help these people, et cetera. There is no
doubt something to be said for that but often the most appropriate
low carbon technologies for poor countries are developed by the
countries themselves, so the other element of the equation about
which I would like briefly to ask you is how DFID supports South-South
knowledge transfer on such technologies?
Mr Grainger-Jones: In terms of
the South-South aspect, some of that South-South transfer of technology
does not need government support or public subsidy. The progress
of China and India in developing their green technology industries
is quite remarkable, so some of that is already happening. I guess
the key aspects for us are, firstly, developing the overall framework
so that, essentially, there are incentives internationally such
that carbon is priced such that those investments take place and
prices decline. For example, we are hoping that with continued
use the solar price will start declining and it will become more
affordable for small communities to purchase solar and implement
it. Secondly, we are looking quite actively at whether we can
support capacity at a national level in terms of low carbon innovation.
That is happening through a number of levels, working with governments
on their overall policy, working out whether they have got the
staff required to work with the private sector on this and also
supporting multilateral development banks.
John Bercow: That is extremely helpful,
thank you very much. I have to leave and there is no discourtesy
intended because I have rather enjoyed this session.
Chairman: We must finish and you cannot
go because we would be inquorate.
John Bercow: We must hear the Prime Minister
and the Rt Hon Member for Witney, I am all agog, beads of sweat
on brow. We must see Prime Minister's questions!
Chairman: Thank you very much. You will
appreciate that what we are looking at is practical identifiable
measurable outcomes that will actually deliver. I also would say
that you have offered a number of information follow-ups.[9]
Can I point out that we are working and our staff are working
now to produce the report to a very tight timetable to conform
to the White Paper consultation deadline, so anything you give
us as quickly as possible, we would appreciate it. Thank you and
thank you, in his absence, to Lord Hunt.
8 Energy Sector Management Assistance Programme Back
9
Ev 199 Back
|
