Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
40-59)
RT HON
EDWARD MILIBAND
MP, MR PETER
BETTS AND
MS JAN
THOMPSON
10 MARCH 2010
Q40 Mark Lazarowicz: One of the areas
in which there seems to have been some progress at Copenhagen
was in tackling deforestation and reforestation. Can you give
us your assessment of what progress was actually made?
Edward Miliband: Yes, I think
that progress was made, and I know this has been a big issue that
the Committee has raised and I will let Pete say something further
about it. There was an important commitment around fast-start
finance to tackle deforestation of $3½ billion and I think
that was an important commitment, and I also think it is worth
saying that countries like Brazil made very, very important commitments
around their emissions and indeed around deforestation.
Mr Betts: The Accord calls for
immediate implementation of a REDD-plus mechanism. In the margins
of Copenhagen, the Prime Minister and five other leaders signalled
that they would be willing to provide $3½ billion over the
period 2010-12 to support reduction in deforestation. The Prime
Minister also said, with Prime Minister Sarkozy, that they thought
that $25 billion would be needed over the period up to 2015, the
bulk of it from developed countries, to support a 25% reduction
in deforestation and, following that, work is now going on led
by France and Norway, and Joan Ruddock is attending a meeting
tomorrow, to try to really make this an immediate reality and
to start the action happening on the ground.
Q41 Mark Lazarowicz: How close are
we then to actually getting an agreement, do you think? Can we
get one in short order?
Mr Betts: Well, one does not want
to be too sanguine, these are always complex areas, but I think
there is a great appetite amongst many of the forest nations to
make progress in this area. I know that there is an appetite on
the part of donors, including the US, for whom this is not such
a difficult issue as some other funding issues might be.
Edward Miliband: I think it is
somewhere where we can be optimistic about getting an agreement.
Ms Thompson: There was a separate
decision taken in Copenhagen, not part of the Copenhagen Accord,
about some of the methodological issues underlying the forestry
measurement issues and that sort of thing, looking at the drivers
of deforestation and how IPCC guidelines are used to estimate
emissions and how reference levels can be set in forest countries
so that you can be sure that there is additionality in terms of
emissions saved, and that decision is a good basis for trying
to move forward next year. There was also progress made in Copenhagen
on some of the texts that are still not fully agreed, but will
be carried forward next year, looking at safeguards for indigenous
peoples and also looking at biodiversity, so there has been some
progress, although not fully reflected in the Accord.
Q42 Mark Lazarowicz: By "next
year", do you mean in Mexico this year?
Mr Betts: Yes.
Ms Thompson: Yes, sorry.
Q43 Mark Lazarowicz: Is there a possibility
then that we will actually have a mechanism in place by 2013,
which I think is still the UN objective, is it not, and that is
still a realistic possibility?
Ms Thompson: I hope so.
Edward Miliband: Definitely.
Q44 Mark Lazarowicz: Can I ask something
about the question of funding for that mechanism, assuming it
is agreed. We discussed funding more generally, I think, earlier
on, but specifically on the issue of deforestation, the suggestion
is that the funds required are between $11-20 billion each year
and, whatever happens with market finance, that is not going to
happen to that level in the medium term. What other discussions
or what other thinking is there about how deforestation action
could be funded?
Edward Miliband: We do think there
needs to be funding upfront from public finance because we think
that the carbon market will kick in later, and that is why, as
an initial start, we, along with some other countries, made this
$3½ billion commitment and indeed we even led a working group
with Norway, which actually came out of a meeting that His Royal
Highness Prince Charles had in April, to look at some of the financing
needs that were required. We hope that other countries would join
us in providing some of this early forest finance. We are really
talking about the period between now and 2015 before the carbon
market gets going when we think that this finance is necessary
and we have made an initial commitment around this $3½ billion,
but we want to build on that basically.
Q45 Mark Lazarowicz: Is the Tobin
tax still a possibility for funding this, some form of a tax on
speculative transactions?
Edward Miliband: You will know
that the Prime Minister has commented on the potential for some
of these mechanisms and I think that one of the roles of this
high-level panel is to look at what are the longer-term sources
of finance for this 100 billion because I think one of the points,
which indeed was emphasised, I am sure, by this Committee and
others in the run-up to the negotiations, is for these longer-term
sums of money. We know in the past that sometimes they have not
come to fruition and, therefore, we do need to look at what are
the innovative mechanisms which will make possible some greater
certainty about the finance being available, and that is one of
the mechanisms that is possible.
Q46 Mark Lazarowicz: Turning to some
of the specifics of a REDD scheme, this Committee, as you know,
did a report on this issue and one of the issues which struck
us particularly, I think, in our visit to Cameroon was the concern
about the effects of such mechanisms on indigenous native peoples.
What reassurance can you give us that those concerns will be taken
on board at these negotiations?
Ms Thompson: That was one of the
issues on which some progress was made in Copenhagen. It is not,
as I say, reflected in the Copenhagen Accord, but in some of the
texts that were being worked on under the long-term co-operative
action track, some of those texts have now got some good language
in around safeguards for indigenous people as well as around biodiversity.
Those texts, although they were not then adopted and agreed at
the end of Copenhagen, they, so to speak, have been banked and
they will move forward and roll forward to this year so that,
when we begin the negotiations on some of the forestry issues
this year, those should be reflected going forward because some
agreement has already been reached on those.
Q47 Mark Lazarowicz: What about the
issue of conversion of natural forests to oil palm or commercial
tree plantations? Is that also something which has been agreed?
Ms Thompson: No, that is something
which will still need to roll forward for negotiations this year.
Q48 Mark Lazarowicz: The negotiations
which, you say, are taking place almost at the moment?
Ms Thompson: Yes.
Q49 Martin Horwood: Can I quickly
declare an interest here as Chair of the All-Party Group for Tribal
Peoples, which is partly funded by Survival International. You
said that there was positive wording around indigenous peoples.
Can you give us a short summary of what that positive wording
might be?
Edward Miliband: We will write
to you.
Q50 Martin Horwood: Well, that would
be helpful, but particularly whether it relates to the land rights
of indigenous peoples which is a crucial factor.
Ms Thompson: I think that is factored
in it, but we will give you the section.
Mark Lazarowicz: And very much the mechanisms
for ensuring that that positive language is actually then followed
up with policies as well.[4]
Q51 Chair: Why was there no mention of
shipping emissions in the Accord?
Edward Miliband: Aviation and
maritime was an issue which we hoped would be part of the Accord
and it did not prove possible to make it so. Again it is one of
these issues which is partly difficult because of the question
of how do you ensure for developing countries common but differentiated
responsibilities around aviation and shipping, so these across-the-world
issues. When you look at a sector, and we talked earlier about
energy or electricity, when you look at a sector as a whole, I
think there is a real issue for developing countries, if you are
introducing some kind of mechanism to limit emissions, about how
do you do it in a way which reflects that principle. Jan, do you
want to add anything about the negotiations on aviation and maritime?
Ms Thompson: They proved very
difficult for this reason, that it is very difficult to set up
an effective system to address aviation and maritime emissions
that is not a global system and does not, therefore, take account
of all countries' involvement in that. For developing countries,
it has been very difficult to accept that that is the kind of
way the negotiations should go because they will tend to view
it as some kind of violation of the principle of common but differentiated
responsibilities. Some of the discussions on this have been going
forward in the IMO and the ICAO, as you probably know, but it
was not possible in the end to have some kind of reference in
the Copenhagen Accord, but it would be something we would be looking
at to continue.
Edward Miliband: One prospect
just to add, Chair, is that there was some discussion around the
margins of Copenhagen and indeed in the run-up to it about whether,
if you had some mechanism for carbon reduction in these sectors,
some of that money could be used to help developing countries
and that that might be a way of getting wider agreement, and I
think that might be something that can be returned to in the high-level
panel.
Q52 Chair: I think the work that
we have done in the last four years suggests that, although progress
on both aviation and shipping was pretty abysmal, there is now
a much significantly greater acceptance in the aviation industry
that progress has got to be made and, after all, the EU is bringing
it into the ETS. On shipping, the progress is absolutely glacial
and in fact the report that we published last year seemed to produce
quite a shockwave in the maritime industry, but on this point
about the common but differentiated responsibilities, by not having
it in the Accord, the function goes back to the IMO of course
who do not want common but differentiated responsibilities to
be recognised, so actually, if that is the concern and one of
the difficulties, the outcome is to make the matter worse rather
than better, is it not?
Edward Miliband: Worse in what
sense?
Q53 Chair: Worse in the sense that
it goes back to the IMO who have shown a singular lack of urgency
in dealing with the matter and who seem to have suffered absolutely
from producer capture, in my observation. They said that the British
taxpayers have spent a huge amount of money refurbishing their
already extremely luxurious headquarters just across the river
which came in vastly over budget and, if you have been there,
and I would recommend it with their excellent lunches and things—
Edward Miliband: I am relieved
that I have not had lunch there!
Q54 Chair: There are beautiful conference
rooms which most Whitehall departments would give their right
arms for, but the IMO, apart from displaying this extraordinary
lack of urgency, as I say, wants to treat everyone precisely the
same, which is going to make the situation more difficult to resolve
rather than easier.
Edward Miliband: I think you make
an important point and I think it will need to be part of the
resumed negotiations and, in a way, this is one of the frustrations
about Copenhagen, and the way the Accord had to be negotiated
in the end was that it made it much more difficult to get into
those knotty issues and we will have to return to it, I completely
agree with you.
Q55 Joan Walley: Can I just add to
that because you talked earlier on about bilaterals and talking
with different countries in different ways to try and get them
to where they need to be, so would you not be able to make the
same case for dealing with the IMO in the same way because they
have really indicated that they are not prepared to move unless
everybody moves altogether at one and the same time, and there
is a lot of work that needs to be done there?
Edward Miliband: I definitely
acknowledge the work that needs to be done—and it obviously
needs to involve the IMO and the ICAO—but I think that the
vehicle of the negotiations is an important opportunity and I
think we should not under-estimate the difficulties of getting
everyone into this, but I think it does not mean that we should
not be pushing on it.
Q56 Colin Challen: I suppose the
slogan for COP16 this year will be something like "Yes, we
Cancun"! But who will be the people to make it, "Yes,
we can"? Is it going to be the G20, the Major Economies Forum,
or the European Union, which perhaps did not cover itself in glory
in Copenhagen as much as people hoped? Why do we not just say,
even now, "We'll go straight to 30% and we want to be deal-makers",
or deal-breakers, whichever way round it is?
Edward Miliband: There are different
aspects to that question. First of all, on who are going to be
the persuaders for an ambitious agreement, I think I indicated
earlier on, and I want to return to it, that we need a broad alliance
of countries and there is a meeting in Colombia in the next couple
of weeks of different countries who are developed and developing
who are interested in an ambitious agreement, self-styled progressive
countries, which I think is an important development because I
think that the longer this continues to be either Europe versus
the rest or Europe, the US and developed countries versus developing
countries, frankly, we are not going to get anywhere. We have
got to reflect the variety of voices, including from vulnerable
developing countries, and that is why, just to go back to an earlier
point, I think the MEF is an imperfect vehicle because it does
not have those vulnerable voices, or at least it did not during
the last year, so everyone needs to be persuaded, but I think
it needs to be a broad alliance; the first point. The second point
is I do not want to defend everything Europe did because I think
it could have been stronger in various ways in Copenhagen, but
the fact is that Europe led on some important things, like $100
billion of finance which eventually got agreed in Copenhagen,
but Europe does need to be a persuader. I personally think that
Europe does need to find a way of going to 30%, but 30% does need
to be, if it possibly can, a lever to get other countries to do
more. There is a strong feeling among other European countries
in particular that Europe went out there and offered 20% unilaterally
and nobody else matched our commitment. There are different ways
that you can see that commitment about what is comparable and
what is not comparable, so I take your point about Europe pushing
forward, Europe being a persuader, Europe looking at whether it
can do more than 20% and indeed whether it is in our own interests
to do more than 20% and to move towards 30%, but also Europe needs
to find a way which can lever in other commitments from other
countries and indeed the legal framework that we want in the future.
Q57 Colin Challen: I recognise that
argument and I think it is a very powerful one, but we tried to
use the lever in December and it did not quite work because people
knew that the offer was on the table if they came along and yet
they did not really bite. Is that because they did not really
believe us? In the same way, if you can do it, why do you not
do it anyway because it is such an important agenda?
Edward Miliband: No, I think it
was more complex than that. I think countries came to Copenhagen,
knowing what they wanted to do and maybe did not want to go further,
but I do not think there is any disagreement between us. You are
saying that Europe in these negotiations needs to move up its
offer, and I agree with you, we need to find the best way of doing
that once we get into those negotiations, but I also think, and
I think this is implicit in your question, that the negotiations
are really important, but Europe also needs to examine, and the
Commission is now going to do this, the case that there is in
Europe to move to higher levels of ambition because of first-mover
advantage and what it will do for the carbon market and all that,
so there is an independent case and there is a multilateral case
for moving.
Q58 Colin Challen: Can I just make
a slight digression which I think does have a bearing on all of
this and that is to refer to the Corus steelworks on Teesside
where, as you will know, the accusation was made that one of the
reasons why Corus did not find a buyer for it was because they
were able to capitalise on £250 million worth of carbon allowances
and it is cheaper then to go elsewhere. That kind of story obviously
is very damaging to the public perception of carbon markets and
the way that we are approaching this issue makes people very cynical.
Has DECC looked into that suggestion? Have there been any discussions
with Corus as to their thinking and indeed what they would do
with surplus carbon allowances as a consequence of closing down
a plant in this country?
Edward Miliband: I have not specifically
looked at that issue, but I am happy to look into it and write
to you about it.[5]
Colin Challen: I think that would be
very interesting.
Q59 Chair: Just pausing one moment
on Europe and the EU and the 30% commitment, although going with
that unilaterally might involve in the short term a very slight
cost for some of Europe's industries, many of us feel, and I suspect
you might sympathise with this view, that the scientific probabilities
are now so strong that those countries or those trading blocs
that have successfully decarbonised their economies in 10 or 15
years' time may enjoy an enormous economic advantage, quite apart
from having done the right thing environmentally, so is there
not actually quite a strong argument on economic grounds for Europe
to show rather clearer leadership and to say, "We think that
we will be more credible in our response to the science if we
have set this more challenging target"?
Edward Miliband: I am very sympathetic
to that argument, Chair, and I think it is a shame that both the
optics and dynamics of Copenhagen and the feeling of the European
centre of gravity was not for more movement. I think we need to
build that case in Europe for movement during the course of the
coming months because I think it is important. I think it is also
important to try, if we can, to get greater ambition from others.
If you look at the situation in Australia, for example, they are
somewhere between minus five and minus 25 in terms of the emissions
reductions that they are offering. That is a very wide range and
we want to push countries like that to higher levels of ambition,
and we also want the legal Treaty, but I think that the case that
you make is a very important case.
4 Ev 16 Back
5
Ev 16 Back
|
