DFID's Performance in 2008-09 and the 2009 White Paper - International Development Committee Contents


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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 11 March 2010