WWF UK                            DEF0042

Written evidence submitted by WWF UK

WWF Response

Growing the UK timber industry

1. Does the UK government, working with the devolved administrations, have an effective, joined-up plan with appropriate incentives to increase the production and use of sustainable, domestically grown timber in the UK to reduce its reliance on imports?  

Years of discussion between experts in the sectors within the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Forestry and Tree Planting have established the need for joined up plans on timber and forestry.[1] Yet, the nation's foresters across the UK are not currently supported to manage forests for both commercial and environmental benefits long term. Investment is required to embed regenerative silvicultural practices and the planting of broader tree species mix to support biodiversity, as it is in European countries with much greater proportion of productive forestry. Increasing knowledge exchange and value in our agriculture sectors across the devolved administrations could better inform and increase confidence for the transition needed to improve current forest management, for domestic production, jobs and environmental resilience.  

Recycling of timber materials and designing products including buildings for a circular economy will also be critical to reducing the import costs to UK market and reducing out environmental footprint abroad. However, it is not clear that the UK government or devolved administrations have plans to incentivise this.

The Government has committed to developing a policy roadmap on use of timber in construction, yet this has yet to be published. This should be delivered by the end of 2022 at the latest to ensure the necessary plans and incentives are in place to develop a sustainable domestic timber industry that can reduce the UK’s global land footprint and support the delivery of the UK’s climate and nature goals.

2. Are there sustainable sources of biomass for UK energy generation either from imported or domestically grown wood for pellet or woodchip? And how can future demand be met from sustainable sources?

The UK is a major importer of wood chips for energy, importing around 9.1 million tonnes in 2020. 63% of these pellets are from the US and 18% comes from Canada, both which have been rated as medium-risk countries for deforestation and ecosystem conversion by the WWF. A further 10% comes from Latvia, which are rated as lower risk, but recent assessments have indicated serious impacts of logging on Latvian forests.

The long fragmented global supply chain for wood pellets makes enforcing the UK's sustainability standards difficult, which has meant that some wood sourced from damaging logging practices, including clear-felling mature forests, has entered the UK energy market. The carbon accounting for biomass across national borders also means emissions could be missed if the LULUCF emissions accounting from the host country is weak or does not exist. Further, some emissions are not included in accounting at all (soil carbon, ILUC, and carbon debt (the time taken for the next generation of biomass to replace the lifecycle emissions associated a biomass feedstock- with woody biomass like trees this can be very long). While there may be ways that sustainability standards could be strengthened to ensure that missed emissions are better covered, the EU's experience of attempting this has proved it is difficult to do within the WTO rules on fair access. This suggests that we should be reducing the amount of woody biomass we import.  

Strict sustainability criteria would be possible to apply on domestic sources of biomass. In these cases, biomass grown on marginal, contaminated or low-quality land using fast growing, low input crops are the most likely to provide sustainable feedstocks, if it can be ensured that the implications of using land for biomass cultivation rather than for other activities (e.g., food production, habitat creation) has been fully considered through a coherent and integrated plan for land use (see answer to question 3 below) - the CCC’s scenarios for net zero see domestic biomass requiring up to 1.4mn ha of land being dedicated to energy crops, which obviously would have significant implications. New monitoring, reporting and verification above and beyond current regimes will also be required, as the Government is staking legally binding carbon budgets on the promise of BECCS delivering true ‘negative emissions’, which will rely in being able to accurately monitor and verify soil carbon, indirect land use change and carbon stock permanence, amongst other factors. 

Other than genuine waste from sawmills (e.g., sawdust, bark), the most sustainable sources of woody biomass for energy come from residues arising from sustainable management of forests, for example, thinning of trees, tops or branches to better encourage biodiversity or stimulate growth in the forest. However, controls need to be in place to ensure that some forest residues are left in the forest to maintain soil carbon stock (especially in temperate forests), and to manage the risk of excessive thinning. However, these controls might be difficult to implement if forests or woodlands are managed primarily for biomass cultivation, rather than biodiversity or climate. The indirect impact of displacing bioenergy feedstocks away from other markets or uses must also be considered, for example, waste from sawmills is currently used in the pulp and paper industries.  

The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre analysed a range of woody biomass feedstocks to identify risks posed to biodiversity and ecosystem as well as carbon emissions. Out of 24 sourcing practices, the only scenario identified as enabling short term carbon risk and low risk for biodiversity is burning fine woody debris (twigs and low diameter branches) if some are also left in the forest to maintain soil health and biodiversity7. This is only a small fraction of the biomass currently used by the UK. 

Overall, it is likely that there will be very limited ‘sustainable’ sources of biomass available, once all climate, land and biodiversity impacts are considered.  

3. How well is the UK Government managing its plans for the domestic timber industry in tandem with meeting its woodland creation targets and related climate change, biodiversity and other environmental goals? 

The UK government needs to balance a range of competing land uses going forward to ensure we are on track to meet legally binding climate ambitions and halting and reversing the loss of nature by 2030, while also meeting the needs of a growing population. Domestic timber production is one use of land that must be balanced with woodland creation for climate change and biodiversity. Currently, these goals aren’t being balanced effectively and co-benefits from woodlands are not being realised.

Although woodland cover is gradually increasing, woodland wildlife is decreasing. The UK’s woodland cover has more than doubled in the last 100 years, however much of this increase comprises non-native trees. Yet, native woods and trees provide one of the best ways to simultaneously tackle both the climate and nature crises.

Currently, standards for forestry in the UK are no higher in protected areas than outside them, which is jeopardising biodiversity in the very places where nature should be left to thrive. Many of our upland plantations are in National Parks. This means that conifer plantations can be replanted in National Parks with no consideration for additional biodiversity targets that would be more in line with the National Park’s environmental goals. For example, there’s no requirement to inter-row plant with native woodland or create a native riparian border or anything that would raise environmental and biodiversity standards and offset the damage. Counterintuitively, these standards are prioritising the carbon merits of spruce plantation over and above biodiversity goals, in areas designated for nature protection.

There is little to suggest the Government has a coherent, integrated plan for how to balance competing land uses – including forestry - in the most efficient way to meet its nature and climate targets. Critically, the Government doesn’t have a comprehensive strategy to decarbonise agriculture and land use in a way that supports nature and people, leaving both farmers, land managers and the environment at risk.

Our Land of Plenty report sets out how clearly this can be done. A key recommendation of this report is that the Government works with communities, local authorities and landowners to develop locally-driven land use frameworks and partnerships, allowing communities to shape the future of their landscapes. Guided by national targets and evidence, such frameworks should bring together policies on nature, climate and food, aligning with local opportunities, priorities and needs in order to drive public and private investment towards specific actions on the ground.

There is a growing body of evidence on land use in the UK that should be taken into account in developing land use frameworks. Analysis by Friends of the Earth and TerraSullis has identified 1.3 million hectares of land in England where woodland could be established, and Forest Research has conservatively estimated that 3.2 million hectares may be suitable for woodland creation across the UK. Much of this land is currently used for livestock production.

Similarly, our recent Future of Feed report found that grazing and crops grown for animal feed combined represent 85% of the nation’s total agricultural land footprint - at home and abroad. At home, rough grazing land makes up 46% of the UK’s permanent grassland. This refers to areas which usually have poor soils and lower productivity and support only extensive - low density - grazing, particularly of sheep. Freeing up this land could enable the restoration of semi-natural land including biodiverse mixed woodland and grassland and incorporate sustainable harvesting of timber.

Enabling these land use changes to support nature, climate and sustainable timber production also needs to be supported by a shift towards consumption of ‘less and better’ meat and dairy in the UK, and more emphasis on plant-based diets, yet there is little acknowledgement of, or policies to support, this by the Government in its food strategy (despite the links between food, diet, and land use being set out clearly in the evidence and recommendations of Henry Dimbleby’s National Food Strategy). While the commitment to a Land Use Framework is a start, we need a joined up approach to these issues that recognises the role of diets in enabling land use change.

The effectiveness of UK efforts to reduce global deforestation

4. In what ways and to what extent are UK value chains (in the form of public procurement, goods, services, or the private sector) contributing to global deforestation?

Our Riskier Business report found that between 2016 and 2018, an average annual area of 21.3 million hectares was required to supply the UK’s demand for just seven forest- and ecosystem-risk commodities: beef and leather, cocoa, palm oil, pulp and paper, rubber, soy, and timber. This is equivalent to 88% of the UK’s total land area and has increased by 15% since the previous assessment between 2011 to 2015. 28% of this land was within countries rated as having a high or very high risk of deforestation, conversion and poor social indicators.

JNCC analysis indicates that the UK’s consumption of agricultural commodities was responsible for the deforestation of an area more than twice the size of Paris in 2017, with over 20,000 ha being deforested to meet the demands of UK consumption in 2017 alone (half of this resulting from palm oil, soy and maize). An addendum to the JNCC’s analysis showed that cattle (beef and leather) had the highest embedded deforestation risk.

The UK financial sector is also highly exposed to deforestation and conversion through its investment and lending activities to companies operating in forest-risk commodity supply chains. According to our Risky Finance report and analysis from Trase, this exposure amounts to £40 billion of investment and lending to companies operating in Brazil and Indonesia for soy, palm and beef alone.

In addition to agricultural commodities, growing demand for minerals and metals poses significant risks to biodiverse ecosystems, tropical forests and the communities that rely on them.[2] We are  particularly concerned about UK gold imports. While cattle ranching and agriculture – coupled with land speculation and illegality – continue to be the main drivers of forest loss in the Amazon, illegal gold mining is rapidly growing, and disproportionally affecting carbon-rich, highly biodiversity areas, often in protected areas and Indigenous lands. The UK is the third largest importer of Brazilian gold, being the most valuable imported product to the UK from Brazil. The complexity of gold supply chains make it difficult exactly how much gold imported to the UK from Brazil comes from illegal sources. However, given the prevalence of illegal gold mining in Brazil, and UK imports gold worth millions from Brazil each year, it is a near certainty that a significant amount of the Brazilian gold entering the UK is illegally sourced and has helped drive deforestation, pollution and human rights abuses.

5. How effectively is the Government monitoring the UK’s contribution to global deforestation and its progress in tackling the issue? And what progress has been made by Government to develop an indicator on overseas environmental impacts of UK consumption of key commodities?

The UK Government’s Outcome Indicator Framework promised the development of an indicator for measuring the environmental impacts of UK consumption of key commodities. The JNCC has commenced development of an indicator for embedded deforestation based on the Pendrill deforestation dataset, however this is currently still an ‘experimental statistic’ and a ‘first step’ towards developing a suite of consumption indicators. This valuable work to develop indicators for environmental impacts must be accelerated, and expanded to consider mining, so that the UK can fully understand its contribution to global deforestation and other environmental impacts. The funding of and access to datasets like the Pendrill dataset will be critical to this indicator.

6. How effective are the measures to improve due diligence and ban imported products of illegal deforestation in the Environment Act 2021? Do these measures target the right sectors? Given that they do not extend to all products of deforestation, are they adequate?

The due diligence obligations in the Environment Act 2021 are intended to ensure “there is no place on our supermarket shelves for commodities that have been grown on land illegally occupied or used and to support other countries to strengthen and enforce their forest protection measures”. The extent to which they do in fact ensure the products we buy are not driving destruction in precious landscapes like the Amazon will depend on how well the secondary legislation is designed, implemented and enforced. Much of the detail of the due diligence obligation is still to be set out in regulations, including the scope of commodities, the threshold for determining which businesses are in scope, the enforcement mechanisms, as well as the specific guidance which will determine the specific requirements of conducting due diligence.

Scope of commodities

It is vital that the scope of commodities in the due diligence regulations is as inclusive as possible, and regularly reviewed. The effectiveness of the legislation in reducing the deforestation and conversion footprint of UK supply chains will be directly dependent on which commodities are in scope from when legislation is in force. There is strong evidence that all commodities included in the Implementing Due Diligence consultation - cattle products (beef and leather), cocoa, coffee, maize, palm oil, rubber and soy - are major drivers of deforestation and conversion linked to UK supply chains. At a minimum, these commodities should be included in the initial scope of the due diligence obligations to ensure the law is effective at curbing global deforestation driven by UK supply chains, and spurring innovation in traceability tools in sectors where it is lacking.

Companies in scope

The Government has clarified in its response to the Implementing Due Diligence consultation that it will be using turnover as the metric to determine whether companies are in scope of due diligence. We disagree with this on the basis that the volume of commodities a company provides a much more direct indication of the potential risks of (illegal) deforestation and conversion. However, if a turnover threshold must be used, it must be as low as possible to ensure that as much of the market for forest-risk commodities is covered by due diligence requirements and to ensure that all major commodity traders are captured.

Mandatory public reporting

There must be mandatory public reporting of how companies are undertaking due diligence to ensure progress and accountability. All reported data, unless justified, should be made public to facilitate due diligence across the supply chain and provide other stakeholders, such as financiers and civil society, the opportunity to access and verify information.  Public reporting on due diligence will particularly enable the UK financial sector to assess risks of, and eliminate, deforestation and conversion from their portfolios. This transparency is vital to ensuring financial institutions meet their pledges on eliminating commodity-driven deforestation made at COP26, as well as the UK’s plan to become the world’s first net zero aligned financial centre.

Clear obligations and strong enforcement

The Government should provide clear requirements for compliance in the secondary legislation itself, supported by pragmatic and comprehensive guidance to ensure businesses have a clear understanding of how to comply. Secondary legislation must clearly define what companies’ due diligence systems should achieve and what information will be required as proof of compliance by businesses. For example, the EU Due Diligence obligations, including steps required for effective due diligence, are set out in the regulations themselves. Companies have [sentence ends]

The Government must establish an independent, specialised, and sufficiently resourced enforcement body to ensure there is a sufficient deterrent to non-compliance. An independent regulatory body should be established with powers to proactively investigate non-compliance and levy fines and sanctions.  This enforcement body must have sufficient financial and other resources to build the necessary expertise and ensure the regulations are effectively enforced through regular investigations. Evidence from the EUTR and UKTR shows that, to be dissuasive, fines should be proportional to the financial gains provided by any breach of the regulation. Additional non-monetary sanctions such as injunctions on further sale and/or processing should be adopted in conjunction with strong fines. 

Legality

Although mandatory due diligence is a positive step towards addressing the UK’s overseas land use footprint, our Due Negligence report shows that the focus on illegal deforestation and conversion has significant shortcomings and excludes a significant part of the UK’s overseas land and carbon footprint. In Brazil, for example, due diligence requirements limited to illegal deforestation and conversion could fail to capture between 29 and 42,000 hectares of forests in UK supply chains by 2030[3] in addition to significant areas of non-forest habitat that are not legally protected.

A legality-based approach also provides perverse incentives for producer countries to deregulate, removing or modifying laws that provide legal protection to areas of forest and other critical natural ecosystems.[4]

It also presents particular challenges to implementation and enforcement. Past experience with the EUTR/UKTR has shown that it is difficult to prove the illegal origin of a product to the degree required for conviction or punishment.[5] In addition, the ability to enforce different components of legality has varied; whilst 88% of surveyed EUTR enforcement officials had sanctioned a company for violating laws on rights to harvest timber, only 12.5% had sanctioned based on legal rights relating to land tenure.[6] Companies will have to navigate and understand the specific (and changing) legal regimes of producer countries, including down to the subnational level. Under past due diligence obligations, including the EUTR/ UKTR, this has proven challenging; enforcement officials report that companies often do not know the exact legal requirements in their source countries and information about the legality of land conversion is difficult to access and interpret, with standards and data available to assess compliance being highly contested.[7]

The number and complexity of relevant local laws presents a considerable challenge. In Indonesia, for example, there are a substantial number of laws that govern forest conversion, as well as customary (adat) legal systems; in Sumatra alone, there are at least 22 laws that could fall in scope of ‘relevant local laws’.[8] Business stakeholders interviewed for WWF’s study with 3Keel, Designing Due Diligence, noted that verifying legality will add a significant additional task on top of their current due diligence processes which commonly address all deforestation and therefore do not require verification of legality. They also noted that guidance and tools do not yet exist to help them navigate proving legality for all producer countries.[9] Companies may have to operate in an opaque environment. Confirming whether clearance was legal requires verifying information which is rarely wholly in the public domain, and in some cases, land ownership will not be through written documentation.[10] It is therefore critical that mandatory due diligence is expanded (through the review clause in schedule 17 of the Environment Act) beyond simply proving legality, to demonstrating that commodities are free of all deforestation and conversion.

Expanded Due Diligence: Finance, Mining, Human Rights

While the GRI Finance Taskforce has provided recommendations for a similar approach for the finance sector, the Government is yet to respond to these or provide any indication it will take them forward. Given the finance sectors exposure to, and role in driving, commodity-driven deforestation, it is essential that they are subject to equivalent due diligence obligations to assess and eliminate the risks of deforestation and conversion in their portfolios. Beyond the immediate GRI recommendation of prohibiting lending and investment in illegally produced forest risk commodities, ensuring the finance sector is investing only in companies which are demonstrably sustainable, and are not driving deforestation and conversion, should form an essential element of financial institutions’ net zero transition plans.

A further shortcoming of the due diligence legislation is that it doesn’t include scope for non-agricultural forest-risk commodities. A key example of this is illegally produced gold, which is a significant driver of deforestation and impacts on indigenous people and local communities in the Amazon.  The mercury used to extract the gold is contaminating local water supplies and resulting in serious health impacts to local communities, with a WWF survey finding that one in 500 people tested had levels of Mercury in their bloodstream.[11] The UK Government should consider how to introduce policy that eliminates illegal Brazilian gold from UK supply chains.

In this context, it is worth highlighting the GRI recommendation that “a focus on forests and land conversion should only be a first step – wider environmental and human rights impacts associated with commodity production and trade must also be addressed and the lessons extended to other food commodities and beyond.”

The forthcoming German Supply Chain Act which will come into force on 1 January 2023 places due diligence obligations on companies to ensure compliance with human rights and environmental protections in their own business operations and wider supply chains. Based on the UHN guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, this new legislation is a replicable example of expanded corporate due diligence that goes beyond agricultural commodities to cover minerals, and beyond legality to cover human rights and environmental risks.

7. To what extent have the Global Resource Initiative (GRI) Taskforce’s recommendations on deforestation and land conversion been met by the Government?

Strategy and monitoring

The GRI Taskforce recommendations are a package of interconnected measures that form the building blocks of a new strategic approach to address commodity-driven deforestation. The first recommendation was that the Government publish and commit to a Strategic Sustainable Commodity Action Plan, providing a clear framework for the delivery of the recommendations and setting measurable time-bound actions for different stakeholders. The Government's response to this recommendation was evasive, and it has not published a strategic action plan. As a result, implementation of the GRI recommendations has been piecemeal. This undermines the effectiveness of the Government’s approach, as no single recommended action can alone solve the problem of deforestation: a co-ordinated approach is critical.

Similarly, there is no publicly available framework for monitoring and reporting to support the GRI recommendations. The Government must be transparent about its progress and review and publicly report on the effectiveness of its interventions given the urgency of the crises we face, and the role assumed by the UK at COP26 as a leader in global efforts to halt deforestation and drive forward sustainable supply chains.

Legally binding target

The GRI Taskforce further recommended that the government introduce a legally binding target to end conversion within UK agricultural and forestry commodity supply chains no later than 2030. While the Government did sign up to the Glasgow Leaders Declaration, it has not matched this with the recommended legally binding domestic commitment. The Government claims it requires further evidence to decide whether statutory long-term targets for deforestation is an appropriate mechanism to drive this change. However, there is ample evidence to set a target - including metrics such as the deforestation indicator released by the government's advisory body Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC).

Due Diligence

The GRI Taskforce recommended that the government urgently introduces a mandatory due diligence obligation on companies that place commodities and derived products that contribute to deforestation on the UK market, and to take action to ensure similar principles are applied to the finance industry. The introduction of a due diligence obligation in the Environment Act is welcome, however the planned system will only assess and mitigate the risks of illegal deforestation (the GRI recommendation extended to environmental and social criteria). Our comments on the shortcomings of this approach are set out in response to question 6 above.

Sustainable, healthy diets

The GRI Taskforce called on the National Food Strategy to include a review of further actions for business, government and others to take to support consumers in the transition to more sustainable and healthy diets. While the National Food Strategy independent review provided several recommendations that would support a shift towards deforestation and conversion-free (DCF) supply chains, including a Good Food Bill and introduction of a Reference Diet, the government’s food strategy in response offered not more than a few disconnected proposals rather than an integrated approach to achieve a more sustainable and healthy food system. Moreover, there was no mention of the need to encourage diet shifts away from meat and dairy towards more plant-based food, which, in addition to driving healthier diets, will be necessary to achieve DCF supply chains in the UK. The GRI’s recommendation on developing a Sustainable Food Service Action Plan also appears not to have been taken forward.

Aligning collective global action

The GRI Taskforce made several recommendations for driving collective action, including to establish new partnerships between producer and consumer countries, leading a global call for action on deforestation at COP26, mobilising global funds and blended finance facilities for sustainable land use, and supporting high integrity carbon trading. Our views on how effective these efforts have been is set out in response to question 10 below.

Accelerating change and tracking progress

It is not clear if the recommendations on funding and support for commercialisation of transformative technologies or monitoring and reporting have been taken forward. This support is essential to accelerating the change we need to see this decade and meeting the Government’s own commitments, particularly in commodity markets where traceability and monitoring tools are nascent. Businesses will also need the support of Government in developing a common data sharing mechanism or platform to enable due diligence, given the colossal amount of data that must be shared along the supply chain from producer to retailer.

8. What role can sustainable certification and Government Buying Standards (GBS), have in tackling deforestation?

The recent consultation on changes to the Government Buying Standards (GBS) for public sector food and catering showed good progress in taking forward the GRI Taskforce recommendation on procurement, by proposing mandatory requirements for legal and sustainable forest-risk commodities. We welcome the expansion of mandatory standards from palm oil to a broader scope of forest-risk commodities including soy, cocoa, coffee, tea and bananas. We recommend that at a minimum, all commodities included in scope of the due diligence regulations are brought within the GBS, including those currently not listed like beef and leather (which present the highest deforestation risk embedded in UK consumption according to JNCC analysis). Similarly, the GBS should be extended across all of Government to schools, hospitals, care homes, canteens, prisons and the military to enable a far greater impact on market demand for sustainable commodities.

The guidance on which certifications or other verification are acceptable proof of sustainability and legality needs to be carefully designed and aligned with the Accountability Framework. While certification can provide evidence of sustainability, several existing mainstream certification schemes currently do not verify that products are DCF and even those that do cannot necessarily be relied on as a guarantee that deforestation or conversion has not occurred. For example, Book-and-Claim and Mass Balance models of certification do not verify claims that a product is DCF, as they can contain volumes that are not certified or are of unknown legal origin. Only Identity Preserved or Segregated certification models can provide guarantees that volumes and derived products are DCF. The GBS should only permit certification that verifies products are deforestation and conversion free on an identity-preserved or mass balance basis.

9. How can the UK Government support the private sector to reduce its contribution to furthering deforestation?

To support the private sector to eliminate deforestation and conversion from UK supply chains, we recommend that the Government:

• Brings forward the due diligence recommendations and robust guidance as soon as possible, by:
• ensuring the range of commodities is as inclusive as possible and the timeframe for implementation is rapid. The private sector need clarity on these requirements to meaningfully achieve their voluntary commitments and level the playing field across the sector.
• ensure the turnover threshold is set as low as possible to cover as much of UK commodity supply chains as possible, and at a level such that all traders and first importers of forest-risk commodities to the UK are in scope. Traders are currently the major bottle neck in enabling transparency of supply chains, and it will be impossible for downstream companies like retailers to implement the due diligence obligations without the cooperation (or legal coercion) of these traders.
• Implements the GRI recommendation to develop transformative technologies and data platforms to drive greater traceability and transparency in commodity supply chains.
• Formally responds to and adopts the three recommendations of the GRI Finance Report at the earliest opportunity.
• At the first review of the due diligence regulations, strengthening the due diligence obligation to go beyond legality to cover all deforestation and conversion.

Working with international partners to tackle deforestation

10. How effectively is the UK engaging with international partners to tackle deforestation? Is the Glasgow Leaders Declaration on Forests and Land Use an effective mechanism for halting and reversing forest loss? How can the UK ensure its £1.5bn commitment to the Global Forest Finance Pledge is used to best effect?

At COP26, the UK Government mobilised global leaders to sign the Glasgow Leaders Declaration, supported by the Global Forest Finance pledge. It committed a package of £11.6bn to International Climate Finance, within which £3bn is earmarked for nature and £1.5bn is specifically for the Global Forest Finance Pledge. It also brought together producer and consumer countries together through the FACT Dialogue and Roadmap. These are all positive steps to engage with international partners to tackle deforestation, and it is critical that whoever forms the new government commits to driving these forward to ensure they move from development stage to driving meaningful impact on the ground.

FACT Dialogue

The FACT Dialogue has been successful in bringing producer and consumer countries together to discuss commodity-driven deforestation for the first time, with over 28 countries engaged and the key producer and consumer countries involved. However, we are concerned at the lack of ambition and accountability in the FACT Roadmap, for example, the lack of clear targets, timelines for implementation or any mention of a monitoring mechanism. Moreover, the Roadmap is stated to be non-binding, and not applicable to all countries or all circumstances, leaving little incentive for it to be progressed in the timeframes necessary to meet the Glasgow Declaration on Forests or have a meaningful impact on the climate and nature crises

Linking this initiative to the UNFCCC process and COPs will ideally enable annual progress updates at successive COPs, however given the scale and pace of global deforestation, annual progress reporting without a formalised structure is insufficient, and it is vital that the FACT Secretariat formally engages key stakeholders from across its international partners, at least quarterly, by continuing the multi-stakeholder forum developed in the lead up to COP26. This will enable some degree of accountability and representation that the Dialogue currently lacks. It could also provide expertise to the technical areas of the FACT working groups.

Clarifying the links between FACT and other initiatives like the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the New York Declaration on Forests and the Amsterdam Declaration Partnerships would also lend credibility and enable alignment, given their overlapping agendas.

Funding commitments

These commitments are welcome, however the details of how this finance will be allocated and how investments will deliver on the Glasgow Leaders Declaration are unclear. A lot of the finance announced by the UK Government at COP26 had already been committed to programmes prior to COP26, and it was difficult to ascertain from the little public information provided how much of the package announced was ‘additional’ funding. Going forward, the Government must ensure its funding commitments, how these are allocated to programmes on the ground, and the impact from these investments, is made transparent

11. What impact will the UK’s measures to tackle deforestation have on producer countries, indigenous peoples and local communities?

Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) face significant and ongoing threats from land grabbing, deliberate fires, illegal mining and deforestation – particularly in critical biomes like the Amazon and Cerrado. To the extent that the due diligence law contributes towards reducing demand for products that have resulted from deforestation and conversion, then this will have a positive impact on reducing those threats to IPLCs.

However, the scale of this impact will depend on the detail and implementation of the due diligence regulations, for example, which ‘local laws’ need to be complied with. Currently it is not clear whether the requirement to comply with local laws in relation to ‘land ownership’ and ‘land use’ includes international human rights laws, or rights of IPLC’s set out under international law. It should require companies conducting due diligence to demonstrate that commodities were produced in compliance with the customary tenure rights of IPLCs, but again, this has not been set out clearly by Government. Companies need clear regulations and guidance that will ensure that the UK’s demand for commodities is not breaching any customary land rights of IPLCs.

The impacts of due diligence on IPLCs will also come down to the extent to which ‘local laws’ provide protection to forests, ecosystems and the IPLCs that depend on them. These laws are subject to change. In August 2021, the so called ‘land-grabbing’ bill passed in the lower house of Brazil’s Congress that retrospectively granted land title to hitherto illegally occupied and deforested lands. In Indonesia, the Omnibus Law passed on 2020 has paved the way for legalisation of plantations located on land previously not designated for oil palm plantations.

The focus of the due diligence law on demonstrating legality around land ownership may pose some risks to IPLC’s where they are unable to prove land tenure, for example where the process for obtaining the relevant documentation is cumbersome or expensive. While extending due diligence to apply to all (legal and illegal) deforestation and conversion would help to alleviate this practical issue, beyond this, there is ample evidence demonstrating that securing customary land tenure rights is one of the most effective ways of conserving forests and ecosystems.[12] The pledge the UK and other governments committed under the IPLC Forest Tenures Joint Donor Statement should go some way to supporting IPLC tenure rights. However, as with other financial commitments, there needs to be significantly greater transparency around the allocation of these funds, who they are reaching and their impacts.

September 2022