Written evidence submitted by the Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)
The RSPB is Europe's largest wildlife charity
with over one million members. It is the UK member of BirdLife
International, a network of independent civil society NGOs operating
worldwide in 106 countries and territories. BirdLife is mainly
a developing world network with 86 of the 106 countries
in the network on the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC)
list, 63 of which are DAC 1 countries drawn from all
regions worldwide. The BirdLife International Partnership strives
to conserve birds, their habitats and global biodiversity, working
with people towards sustainability in the use of natural resources.
The RSPB's policy and advocacy work covers a
wide range of issues including climate change, international development,
education for sustainable development, marine, forest, water and
agriculture. The RSPB also provides financial and technical support
to BirdLife partners in Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe, including
through DFID funded community-based projects that deliver local
benefits from sustainable natural resource management. The RSPB
is an active member of the Development and Environment Group of
BOND (British Overseas NGOs for Development).
SUMMARY
1. Focusing on the 2009 White Paper
Eliminating World Poverty: Building Our Common Future,
the RSPB welcomes the revived emphasis that DFID and it's Secretary
of State have placed on environmental sustainability and welcome
a number of exciting and timely DFID initiatives to help address
this, notably on ecosystem services.
2. This submission highlights the positives
in the White Paper and raises a number of issues. Our primary
issues and concerns include the need for DFID to:
(i) Fully recognise and internalise the fundamental
role and value of healthy functioning ecosystems as key to sustainable
international development and meeting the Millennium Development
Goals.
(ii) Stress that tropical deforestation
is an urgent issue that needs immediate interim financing, including
for REDD capacity building ahead of any 2012 UNFCCC REDD
commitment.
(iii) Recognise the significance of and support
efforts to value and highlight the importance of healthy ecosystems
for climate change adaptation, including within the UNFCCC Copenhagen
outcomes.
(iv) Understand that food production systems
and the environment are inter-dependant. Agricultural growth must
be sustainable, undertaken for environmental, social and economic
reasons, and fully address climate change adaptation and mitigation.
This is key to attaining genuine food security.
3. There is growing and irrefutable evidence
linking healthy, functioning ecosystems to our future, but particularly
the future and wellbeing of some of the poorest and most vulnerable
people in Earth (for example from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), and on climate
change in the IPCC and UNEP Science Compendium 2009). The environment
should be at the centre of any development and growth agenda,
helping to build resilience, address security, fragility and conflict,
and should be a core component of how success and progress are
measured.
ELIMINATING WORLD
POVERTY: BUILDING
OUR COMMON
FUTURE (WHITE
PAPER 2009)
Introduction
4. The RSPB greatly welcomes the revived
emphasis on environmental sustainability seen in the 2009 White
Paper, Eliminating World Poverty: Building Our Common Future.
This vital dimension of poverty alleviation has been missing from
much of DFID's work over the past few years. The Secretary of
State in his preface to the White Paper highlights that "the
current [economic] crisis allows us the opportunity to address
economic and environmental sustainability together". He goes
on to say that "[We] will lead the world in 'green' development
ensuring sustainable development and the flight against climate
change and its effects are at the heart if what we do" promising
"a new focus on environmental sustainability" (page
8). These are important and wise words that the RSPB is now keen
to see translated into practice and we look forward to the 2010 Annual
Report and Resource Accounts to see progress.
5. We hope that all political parties will
recognise the links between environmental sustainability and international
development. Ensuring environmental sustainability needs to be
at the heart of any UK international development agenda. Without
this, recognising the vital significance of MDG7, any gains will
be transitory and inequitable (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,
2005). This means any government working on international development
must champion and address climate change, environmental degradation
and biodiversity loss as key development concerns. The environment
should be at the centre of any development and growth agenda,
helping to build resilience, address security, fragility and conflict,
and should be a core component of how success and progress are
measured.
"GREEN"
GROWTH
6. It is very positive to see that DFID
have recognized that "a focus on growth alone will not
be enough. The crisis, and the experience of the years immediately
preceding it have made it abundantly clear that unless the fundamental
challenges of climate change and natural resource depletion and
conflict are also tackled we will not be able to address the reverses
of the last years, let alone make progress towards the MDGs"
(page 14, para 1.17).
7. This appears to take on board the important
messages from the 2006 White Paper submission by the Development
and Environment Group (DEG) of BOND (British Overseas NGOs for
Development) that said: "Research is increasingly demonstrating
that economic growth per se is not enough. At best, economic growth
is a very blunt instrument to achieve poverty reduction; at worst
it is failing to eradicate even the most extreme poverty whilst
rapidly degrading the environment. Economic growth alone cannot
support poverty reduction; and if global growth is left unchecked,
it will continue to threaten the planet and livelihoods of millions
of poor people."
8. It is the nature of growth and the distribution
of its benefits that determine its contribution to poverty eradication
and its implications for long term environmental security. The
evidence provided by DEG in 2006 showed clearly that the
nature of growth, experienced since the 1990's has not only been
ineffective as a means of eradicating poverty, it has also had
serious and counterproductive environmental side effects—including
climate change and biodiversity loss.
9. This is further supported by a recent
report from the Sustainable Development Commission Prosperity
without growth? The transition to a sustainable economy (Tim
Jackson, 2008). Whilst the report's title (suggesting "no
growth") may have resulted in it being poorly received by
many in government and may mean it is not visibly relevant to
developing countries, the report does contain some very significant
findings and recommendations. It shows that "The myth
of [economic] growth has failed us. It has failed the two billion
people who still live on less than $2 a day. It has failed
the fragile ecological systems on which we depend for survival.
It has failed, spectacularly, in its own terms, to provide economic
stability and secure people's livelihoods." The report
outlines a pathway to a more sustainable and prosperous future
for the UK, which includes respecting ecological limits, and from
which important lessons can and should be drawn for sustainable
growth and development more broadly.
10. In the White Paper, DFID has recognized
the opportunity and need to "move to growth paths that
will prevent further damage to the planet." (page 19,
para 1.42) And that "Climate change is just one manifestation
of a more general problem; the failure to internalize the value
of the environment in decisions we make—as individuals,
firms, or nations. It is essential that this changes if forest,
biodiversity and ecosystems and the services they provide are
to be maintained." (page 40, para 2.93). This now needs
to be realised across all DFID's work, as well as championed across
government. In an interconnected world, growth here in the UK
and in Europe can have profound effects on developing countries
and their natural environment. One obvious example is increasing
demand for biofuels, which can create perverse incentives to deforest.
11. We welcome DFID's interest in exploring
"Green Development" and importantly what this means
in terms of going beyond low-carbon development. The RSPB stands
ready to help DFID deliver on this, as well as their important
commitment to "help countries value natural capital and
plan for low carbon, climate resilient and environmentally sustainable
growth" (page 38). We are well placed to support DFID
in its new international initiative on valuing natural capital,
building on the TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity)
programme and hope that this will be started soon. We look forward
to progress being reflected in DFID's next annual review.
CLIMATE CHANGE—FORESTS
12. We welcome DFID's commitment: "We
will seek new ways of raising finance to pay for forest management
and reduce deforestation and degradation" (page 58).
However, we are not convinced that this is being given the priority
and urgency it deserves, particularly the immediate need for interim
financing for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation
(REDD) capacity building ahead of any 2012 commitment.
13. Recognition in the White Paper that
the UK, as part of the EU, is seeking an agreement that helps
reduce tropical deforestation by 50% by 2020 and halt global
forest cover by 2030 is welcomed but this should be more
ambitious (page 60, para 3.44). Forests contain almost half of
all terrestrial carbon, therefore continued deforestation and
degradation at current rates would significantly hamper mitigation
efforts. It has been estimated that if tropical deforestation
were to continue at its present rate, this could result in almost
total forest clearance within a few decades. This would add as
much as 400 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere, increase
the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide by about 100ppm,
and result in an increase in global mean surface temperatures
of about 0.6°C. It would be impossible to keep the average
surface temperature rise of the Earth's to less than 2°C.
For reasons of climate change, biodiversity conservation and human
development, tropical deforestation needs to be tackled as a matter
of urgency.
14. It is also vital to stress that it is
the destruction and degradation of natural tropical forest that
is by far the most important and urgent forest-related issue,
in terms of emissions, biodiversity loss, the provision of ecosystem
services and livelihoods for indigenous and local people. The
Convention on Biological Diversity's Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group
(AHTEG) on climate change and biodiversity shows that intact primary
forest contain greatest carbon stock as well as harbouring the
highest biodiversity and have the highest resilience to climate
change. Modified natural forests (ie those that have been logged
or degraded) have lower carbon stocks, less biodiversity and less
resilience that primary forest. Monoculture and limited species
plantations have even lower carbon stocks, even less biodiversity
and even less resilience to climate change. (See table below).
There is thus great advantage and sense in conserving intact natural
forests as a priority, first and foremost. This should be much
more explicit in DFID and the UK Government's action on forests
and REDD.
TOTAL ECOSYSTEM CARBON AND BIODIVERSITY BENEFITS
OF MAIN FOREST CONTEXTS
Forest
context
| Carbon
stock
| Carbon
sequestration
potential
| Biodiversity
| Value of
ecosystem
goods and
services
|
Primary forest
| +++ |
+* | +++ | +++ |
Modified
natural forest
| ++
| ++ | ++ | ++
|
Plantations
(indigenous
species)
| + | +++
(depending on
species used
and
management)
| +(+) | + |
Plantations
(exotic
species)
| + | +++ | (depending on
species used
and
management)
| (+) |
| |
| | |
* potential for additional sequestration depends on several
elements.
Source: CBD AHTEG, 2009
15. We understand from a Parliamentary question (House
of Commons Written Answers 9 September 2009: Column
1955W) that DFID does not record expenditure on reducing deforestation.
Given that the UK is seeking an agreement that helps reduce tropical
deforestation by 50% by 2020 and halt global forest cover
by 2030, we believe that this needs to be addressed. The two categories
of expenditure required by the Development Aid Committee of the
OECD are forest policy and administrative management; and Forest
development. These do not provide sufficient information to identify
the UK contribution to the EU target and global challenge. Further
to this, there is no mention of work to address deforestation
or sustainable forest management in the 2008-09 Annual Report.
We would like to see this rectified in the next DFID Annual Report.
CLIMATE CHANGE—ADAPTATION
16. Paragraph 3.53 of the White Paper states that:
"Natural resources and ecosystems—soil, water, fisheries,
forests—are essential for life. The 2005 Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment shows that nearly two-thirds of the world's
ecosystems are now under threat from current patterns of growth.
Unchecked climate change will accelerate the collapse of ecosystems
with disproportionate consequences for the poor. Urgent action
on adaptation in vulnerable natural resource sectors is needed."
(page 63).
17. We agree that urgent action is needed on adaptation
in vulnerable natural resource sectors and that DFID has a vital
role to play in providing this, and we particularly welcome DFID's
renewed commitment to address water resource management and trans
boundary water issues. However, to address the root concerns of
this significant paragraph, the UK Government also need to consider
how it will better support and address global biodiversity loss
and ecosystem degradation per se.
18. Three outcomes from Copenhagen under the Ad Hoc Working
Group on Long term Cooperative Action (LWG-LCA) would provide
significant co-benefits for ecosystems and biodiversity. Specifically,
recognition of the value and importance of ecosystems for addressing
climate change in the text on the "Shared Vision"; recognition
of the value and importance of ecosystems for societal adaptation
in the guiding principles for enhanced action on adaptation (ie
using the ecosystem approach in all adaptation); and reference
to the Ecosystem-based Adaptation concept as defined by the CBD
AHTEG, where appropriate, under the section on Enhanced action
on adaptation. Taking the UK lead on adaptation, we urge DFID
to support this in the ongoing negotiation process and to champion
it with the EU.
19. Whatever type of societal adaptation measures are
taken (eg for water, agriculture, infrastructure, etc), we believe
that they should be environmentally sound, taking into account
the composition, resilience and productivity of ecosystems. If
this is not done, there is a risk of mal-adaptation, meaning that
the effects of climate change will, in the long run, further undermine
human well-being. There is also evidence that adaptation measures
are more cost effective if the resilience of ecosystems is taken
into account. One way to achieve this would be to apply the Ecosystem
Approach, the primary framework of implementation of the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD). DFID would be helping Parties to
the CBD meet their CBD commitments in addition to address climate
change effectively.
20. Complimenting this, support should also be given
to "Ecosystem-based Adaptation" (EbA)—a term which
defined by the CBD AHTEG[93]
as "the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services as
part of an overall adaptation strategy to help people to adapt
to the adverse effects of climate change". It focuses
on adaptation activities that make specific use of biodiversity
and associated ecosystem services to help human adaptation. It
includes the management, conservation and restoration of key ecosystems,
for example coastal defence through the maintenance and/or restoration
of mangroves and other coastal wetlands to reduce coastal flooding
and coastal erosion and conservation of agro-biodiversity to provide
specific gene pools for crop and livestock adaptation to climate
change. Through EbA, clear and cost-effective benefits can be
achieved for societal adaptation, with complimentary co-benefits
for biodiversity conservation, ecosystems and the services they
provide.
21. This, of course, all sits within the context of achieving
an overall good deal in Copenhagen that keeps global warming to
below 2 degrees C and includes substantial new and additional
funds[94] (including
near-term adaptation funding for urgent needs between now and
2012 (as set out in NAPAs) and interim forest finance). The
UK needs to contribute its fair share of the estimated $160 Billion
annual investment needed help poor countries pursue low-carbon
growth and to adapt and respond to climate change.
DFID NEEDS TO
MAINSTREAM ENVIRONMENT
AND ADDRESS
CONTRADICTIONS
22. The White Paper states that: "Development,
as a means of reducing poverty, is the most effective way to build
resilience to the consequences of climate and to preserve our
natural resource base" (para 3.49, page 62) We do not
believe that this is automatically so. Certain development could
lock developing countries into carbon intensive pathways and much
development leads to biodiversity loss and environmental degradation.
To realise this, DFID will need to work with and call upon different
departments in developing country governments, and different civil
society groups including those with local environmental expertise
as well as development knowledge.
23. Whilst the rhetoric is all good, there also appear
to be some inherent contradictions in the way that DFID goes on
to address critical development sectors in the White Paper, such
as agriculture. Many of the contradictions, including DFID"s
research focus and it"s promotion and support for intensive
farming systems are set out in a recent report by GM Freeze, Blind
Alley? Is DFID's policy on agriculture in danger of failing to
deliver and environmental security? (June 2009).
24. Food production systems and the environment are inter-dependant
and key to attaining genuine food security. The recently published
UN and World Bank sponsored IAASTD report (International Assessment
of Agricultural Science & Technology for Development) which
DFID is signatory to, has made it clear that conventional, industrial
agricultural systems have degraded the environment to such an
extent that "business as usual is not an option".
25. Nonetheless, DFID's three "best bets" are
framed very much within a continuation of the status quo—ie
ensuring that yields of current staple crop varieties are at least
maintained and the nutritional value enhanced. Although these
are not in themselves negative, they do not tackle head on the
fundamental challenges facing agriculture—climate change,
natural resource depletion and degradation (including biodiversity)
and reliance on unsustainable inputs (oil, agro-chemicals)—it
is also vital that contributions to climate change from agriculture
are minimised. There is no reference to the importance of retaining
and applying indigenous knowledge, traditional crop varieties
or the development of "alternative" agricultural systems
or anything different to the conventional agricultural model prevalent
in the West and seemingly DFID's preferred development approach.
26. Section 2.74 refers to a doubling the productivity
of food staples across Africa by 2020. This could happen, but
must be pursued in a sustainable and regionally appropriate way.
Again, the western model of agriculture must not merely be cut
and pasted. In section 2.77 the document refers to the original
"Green Revolution"—it is vital that it is made
clear that the term "green" was not reflecting environmentally
sensitive methods of production. It meant more crops being produced—the
green revolution certainly fed more people but it was reliant
on chemical inputs and drove mono-cropping (larger tracts of single
crops with less or no crop rotation). Simply inserting "on
a sustainable basis" isn't enough of a caveat.
27. The IAASTD report for Latin America and the Caribbean
states that: "Biodiversity…is the main source of opportunities
for the development of new products and ecological functions that
help meet the growing demand for food and other products, in a
context of economic and climate change". The RSPB believes
that this is true globally. Environmental degradation has been
estimated to cost many developing countries 4-6% of their Gross
Domestic Product every year.[95]
Unsustainable agriculture that damages the environment also has
a disproportionate effect on the poorest people and countries.
By pursuing sustainable methods of farming, developing countries
should be able to secure a win-win scenario for the environment
and rural society as well as protecting their natural capital
for future generations of farmers.
28. Securing agricultural growth in a sustainable way,
that also addresses climate change (adaptation and mitigation),
is a considerable challenge but one which must be undertaken for
social and economic, as well as environmental, reasons. Section
2.76 refers to climate resilience. This is extremely important
but, as mentioned above, agriculture is as much a perpetrator
as a victim when it comes to climate change and there must be
clear and explicit support for research into low carbon farming
techniques, not just crops that can still grow in stressed conditions.
This will also help developing countries gain market advantage
in a carbon sensitive world.
29. The points on research are also framed very much
in yield and profit increases. All laudable but no mention is
made of ensuring this research combines enhanced productivity
with improved resilience and protection of the natural environment.
This is vital. There is also no mention within the Paper about
low/no tech methods to improve food security, ie through reducing
post harvest waste. This kind of easy win would require no (or
very little) new research.
30. Finally, paragraph 2.81 of the White Paper refers
to the UK Foresight project on global food production. Despite
DFID being a signatory to the IAASTD Agriculture at a Crossroads
report, as mentioned above, there is no mention of it even though
it provides a sound, peer-reviewed, evidence base upon which the
Global Food and Farming Futures project could (and really should)
build. The key messages of IAASTD should inform and drive DFID's
agriculture work (as well as the Foresight work) but the report,
and its messages, is conspicuous by its absence.
31. We also feel that it is worth pointing out possible
inconsistencies linked to the White Paper's reference to biofuels
(para 2.82). The RSPB was actively involved with lobbying on the
EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED)—whilst it has environmental
sustainability criteria, it does not have social criteria, despite
best efforts of NGOs. As far as we know, nobody is assessing the
criteria at present—the current focus is on how to implement
them. We welcome that DFID has recognised that biofuel policy
has an impact food security, but feel they should also focus on
the indirect land use changes that can arise from biofuel policy
and support work that is going on now to address this.
IMPROVING EFFICIENCY
32. This is an important issue, however there is a danger
that a drive towards greater and greater efficiency and value
for money could focus on short term easily measured wins and could
result in declining support for vitally important longer-term
transformational change, such as towards environmentally sustainable
development. This requires a long-term commitment to support better
environmental governance, including better understanding and valuing
of ecosystems and the services they provide and how biodiversity
and ecosystems helps build resilience in the face of climate change.
INVESTING IN
CIVIL SOCIETY
33. We welcome the "New approach to working with
civil society" and DFID commitments ("We will…"
page 132), particularly the increase in funding, and expanding
Partnership Programme Arrangements to those in developing countries
and working on new issues.
34. Recognition of the role of civil society organisations
(CSOs) both as campaigners and deliverers of development (p. 7;
page 132 para 7.40) is encouraging, including the "power
and value of international voice and advocacy" (page 132,
para 7.42). There is a clear indication that DFID sees civil society
as a vital component of their continuing efforts to promote good
governance and build strong, effective, accountable states and
state institutions in the South.
35. The RSPB and WWF have recently funded the Overseas
Development Institute to carry out research, working with CSOs
in developing countries, to look at how the environment fares
in the new relationship that is slowly emerging between donor
countries and aid-receiving countries.[96]
It acknowledges the primacy of national ownership over the development
process and that that national ownership needs to go beyond government.
This means a critical role needs to be played by civil society.
The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda
for Action are DFID commitments and key drivers of this agenda,
and critically important to improving the overall effectiveness
of aid.
36. Much focus to-date, however, has been on strengthening
the systems of national government delivery. Greater attention
is now needs to be given to the strategic support of civil society
organizations—and this must include environment-focused
organisations if development is to be sustainable and effective
in the long term. In particular, accountability for environmental
outcomes needs to be strengthened. Those communities most affected
by ecosystem degradation often lack political weight and organisational
capacity to advocate for their interests. Similarly, environmental
issues are often neglected in political processes and environment
departments are often weak and under resourced. The RSPB and BirdLife
are working to build capacity in developing countries—and
poor communities within those countries—to address and advocate
for environmental issues of concern to them. We would like to
encourage DFID to do more to recognise this governance gap and
would be keen to support then in this.
September 2009
93
United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Ad Hoc
Technical Expert group (AHTEG) on Biodiversity and Climate Change. Back
94
Additional to current 0.7% ODA commitments. Back
95
World Bank Environment Strategy 2004. Back
96
Neil Bird and Alice Caravani (July 2009) Environmental Substainability
within the new devleopment agenda: opportunities and challenges
for civil society. Overseas Development Institute, London. Back
| 
