Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories

House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee

Written evidence

Only those submissions written specifically for the Committee for the inquiry into Sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories and accepted as written evidence are included

List of written evidence

Page 1 UK Government 3 2 UK Overseas Territories 13 3 National Trust for the Cayman Islands 20 4 RSPB 30 5 Government of Tristan da Cunha 50 6 South Georgia Heritage Trust 52 7 Environmental Management Directorate, St Helena Government 57 8 Marine Reserves Coalition 66 9 Pew Environmental Group 73 10 UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum 83 11 Falklands Conservation 111 12 Cayman Islands Department of Environment 115 13 Turks and Caicos Islands, Dept of Environment and Maritime Affairs 119 14 Chagos Conservation Trust 122 15 British Antarctic Survey 126 16 Christine Rose-Smyth 131 17 WWF-UK 136 18 Government of Pitcairn Islands 140 19 Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) 143 20 Buglife 146 21 Governor of Gibraltar 154 22 Governor of Bermuda 156 23 Cayman Islands Department of Environment 159 24 Governor of Falkland Islands 162 25 Commissioner for South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands 165 26 Governor of British Virgin Islands 167 27 Governor of Anguilla 170 28 Environmental Management Division St Helena 171 29 Governor of Montserrat 177 30 Governor of Cayman Islands 179 31 Governor of St Helena 182 32 Falkland Islands Government Environmental Planning Department 187 33 Anguilla Department of the Environment 191 34 Governor of Turks and Caicos Islands 195 3

Written evidence submitted by UK Government

Introduction

1. The UK Overseas Territories (UKOTs) White Paper “The Overseas Territories, Security, Success and Sustainability” published in June 2012, confirms the Government’s objective to ensure that the rich, and internationally recognised, environmental assets of the UKOTs1are cherished. The UKOTs are home to many species and environments found nowhere else in the world – including an estimated 90% of the biodiversity found within the UK and the Territories combined. This biodiversity is crucial in underpinning sustainable development across the UKOTs, as it is across the world; and is of fundamental importance to the provision of social and economic benefits across our local communities.

2. Since the publication of the White Paper, the Government has launched a new funding mechanism to support environmental protection and climate change adaptation initiatives in the UKOTs. “Darwin Plus” is jointly funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) and Department for International Development (DFID), and will provide around £2m per year for UKOT initiatives. This new Fund provides a simpler and more co-ordinated source of funding, whilst maintaining the breadth of funding opportunities offered by Darwin and the previous Overseas Territories Environment Programme. Each of the three funding Departments have committed to maintain their spending commitments over the current spending review period, on natural environmental issues in the Overseas Territories.

3. In addition to the launch of this new Fund, the Government has also continued to roll out its Overseas Territories “Environmental Mainstreaming” programme, which had proved successful in the Falkland Islands and British Virgin Islands during 2011/12. Similar initiatives are underway, or in development for Anguilla, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. The aim of this programme is to support policies to ensure green growth and sustainable development, underpinning the Government’s determination to support successful economic development, including through strengthened economic planning, management of public finances, promotion of free trade and protection of vital ecosystem services and natural resources. All Territories, which wish to participate in this programme, will be given the opportunity to do so by 2014.

1 The UK Overseas Territories are: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, the Pitcairn Islands (including, Pitcairn, Henderson, and Ducie and Oeno), St Helena and St Helena Dependencies (Ascension and Tristan da Cunha), South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia (on the island of Cyprus), The Turks & Caicos Islands.

4. Work is ongoing to support the delivery of the ‘United Kingdom Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy’, published in 2009. The overarching objective of this strategy is ‘to enable the UK and Overseas Territory Governments to meet their international obligations for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the Overseas Territories’. It envisages the Government working in partnership with the UKOTs to establish a set of shared values in respect of biodiversity conservation.

5. In addition to supporting on-going OTEP projects, the FCO has provided funding during this year to support a number of strategic projects in the Territories. This includes a grant to the Joint Nature Conservation Committee to develop a Falklands Islands and wider South Atlantic Information Management System (identified as a priority action from the Environmental Mainstreaming project in the Falklands) and a separate grant to begin developing a lionfish response strategy for the Caribbean region. This year the FCO is also supporting a number of projects addressing invasive species eradication, waste management, sustainable fisheries and environmental monitoring across both its inhabited and uninhabited Territories.

6. DFID through the provision of budgetary support to St Helena and Montserrat is funding two full time international environmental expert posts: Director of Environmental Management Directorate St. Helena and Special Technical Adviser on Environmental Management – DoE/Montserrat.

7. Defra and DECC Ministers and officials represent the interests of the UK and UKOTs at a number of multilateral fora including this year at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting in Doha, Rio+20 in Rio and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Hyderabad.

8. In the last 12 months Defra has committed funding of approximately £2.7 million to biodiversity projects in the UKOTs. The majority of this funding (£1.7m) came from the Darwin Initiative including a three-year project to develop a Biodiversity Action Plan for Ascension Island and a scoping project under the Darwin Challenge Fund to look at marine ecosystem management in Anguilla and Montserrat.

9. Defra has also committed a further £1m to other projects in the UKOTs including over £500k on rodent eradication in the South Atlantic (South Georgia and Gough Island) and environmental mainstreaming in Anguilla. These funds came from Defra’s budgets for international biodiversity and its research budget as well as the Flagship Species Fund.

10. Environmental challenges are, however, increasingly threatening the future security and safety of the Overseas Territories and in particular their biodiversity which directly supports the livelihoods of their people. The Government remains fully committed to continuing to work closely with the Governments of the Overseas

Territories, and with non-government organisations, to ensure that these valuable natural resources are protected for the future.

The extent to which UK Government strategy on the UKOTs embodies the principles of sustainable development and appropriately trades-off environmental protection, social development and economic growth?

11. The Government Strategy towards sustainable development in the UKOTs is set out in the White Paper. Economic, social and environmental development are not mutually exclusive and the UK Government strategy looks to harness advances in one of the three strands to effect positive changes in the other two.

12. Each of the UKOTs is responsible for shaping the future of its own community through proactive management of their environmental and economic resources. The UK Government strategy is based on providing the necessary tools to enable UKOT Governments to enshrine sustainable development within their policies, and to promote the capabilities required to implement these policies. Due to their small scale and isolation, many of the UKOTs face similar challenges, providing the opportunity to share information and best practices.

13. The two environmental mainstreaming pilot projects funded by the UK Government, in the British Virgin Islands and the Falkland Islands highlight this ability to share information and best practice. The aim of these stakeholder-led projects has been to raise awareness of the value of the environment in economic growth and development, and human wellbeing, and to identify ways to integrate or ‘mainstream’ that awareness into UKOT policies, regulatory frameworks and decision-making. By taking account of the goods and services delivered by the environment, such as flood protection, prevention of coastal erosion, and mitigation of climate change impacts, UKOT Governments decisions can be more balanced and help to provide a stronger foundation for sustainable economic growth and development. This in turn can help to ensure a healthy, productive and biodiverse natural environment, whose contribution to the economy is recognised and sustainably managed. The UK Government hopes that the Overseas Territories will welcome the opportunity to engage in similar initiatives in their Territories over the next 2 years.

14. By insuring that the natural environment and the ecosystem services it provides are intrinsically valued by Territory Governments we can ensure that development and growth in the UKOTs is sustainable, green and beneficial for their inhabitants.

How the UK Government is fulfilling its responsibilities to protect biodiversity in the UKOTs?

15. The UKOTs support a diverse range of unique ecosystems and habitats, sustaining a large number of rare and threatened species. It is estimated that over 90% of the UK’s biodiversity is located in its Overseas Territories, with more priority ecosystem types (including mangrove, coral, sea-grass beds, peatlands etc) occurring in the UKOTs than in the metropolitan UK. This biodiversity underpins many of the ecosystem goods and services that provide economic and social benefits to local populations.

16. The UK Government continues to offer advice on environment, climate and renewable energy issues and we will continue to work together across Government to deliver co-ordinated support on natural environment issues with each Department leading in their respective areas of responsibility.

17. Overseas Territories Governments are responsible for environmental management in their Territory. The UK Government, however, recognises that it has an important role to play in supporting the OTs, for example through capacity building and the provision and development of the specialist skills required to ensure the protection of the local environment. This is enshrined within the Environment Charters between the UK Government and Territory Governments which are delivered through the UKOT Biodiversity Strategy.

18. Defra leads for the UK Government on developing and implementing biodiversity strategies with the UKOTs; this is outlined in the UKOT Biodiversity Strategy2. The Strategy sets out clear objectives on biodiversity and ensures co-ordination between Defra, FCO and DFID on biodiversity. Defra chairs an Overseas Territories’ Biodiversity Group (OTBG) comprising officials from Defra, the FCO, DFID, JNCC and the UK Overseas Territories Association (UKOTA), which meets quarterly to discuss progress on the UKOT Biodiversity Strategy. Following a recent request from civil society organisations3 closely engaged with some of the UKOTs4, Defra, in collaboration and consultation with the OTs and relevant NGOs, will explore the options for continued implementation of this Strategy.

19. Defra and its Agencies also represent the needs and concerns of the UKOTs at regional and international meetings, providing advice and financial support in meeting the requirements of international agreements and instruments. The UK Government has actively supported the attendance and engagement by officials

2 UK Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy (2009). Defra. http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13335-uk-ot-strat- 091201.pdf

3 Falklands Conservation, RSPB, St Helena National Trust, UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum 4 Falkland Islands and St Helena

from UKOTs at regional and international meetings, which has led to greater understanding and integration of biodiversity related policies.

20. Funding for biodiversity projects in the UKOTs has historically come from a range of sources from formal grant schemes, such as the new ‘Darwin Plus’ scheme, through to one-off grants to fund priority issues as and when funds were available. In the current negotiation for a new LIFE Regulation, the UK has been a strong advocate for UKOTs to be able use this fund for biodiversity and other environmental projects.

How the UK Government is helping the UKOTs adapt to the impact of climate change?

21. A key long-term threat faced by the UKOTs is climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has identified the UKOTs as amongst the “most vulnerable” and “virtually certain to experience the most severe impacts” of climate change. Such impacts could include sea level rise; changes in weather patterns, more frequent extreme weather events; coral bleaching; ocean acidification; and sea temperature changes.

22. Between 2007 and 2011, DFID funded a project to enhance Capacity for Adaptation to Climate Change (ECACC) in the UK Caribbean Overseas Territories5. The main objective of the ECACC project was to support efforts by the UKOTs in the Caribbean to adapt to climate change and climate variability within the context of sustainable development. The project was implemented by the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre (CCCCC) and helped establish National Climate Change Committees in Anguilla, British Virgin Islands (BVI), Cayman Islands (CI), Montserrat, and Turks and Caicos Islands. Other outputs achieved by the project were the development and implementation of public education and outreach (PEO) programmes and the completion of Vulnerability and Capacity Assessments. Climate change policy documents were also produced for each of the 5 UKOTs.

23. In addition to HMG providing technical advice and support to the UKOTs through funding on the ground personnel and providing access to departmental reports and expertise on an ad-hoc basis, Darwin Plus funding will support projects seeking to deliver outcomes in the areas of climate change resilience, mitigation and adaption and be accessible to projects linked to green energy initiatives.

5 http://www.caribbeanclimate.bz/closed‐projects/enhancing‐capacity‐for‐adaptation‐to‐climate‐change‐ ecacc‐in‐the‐uk‐caribbean‐overseas‐territories‐project.html

24. The Government has also recently published a Foresight Project on the International Dimensions of Climate Change6. The project looked at climate change impacts overseas which could have an impact on the UK. A section of this report considered climate change impacts on the UKOTs, which could help UKOTs prioritise further work on climate change adaptation.

Whether the recommendations in our 2008 Report, Halting biodiversity loss, on safeguarding biodiversity and practising joined-up government to further conservation have been implemented?

25. Since Halting biodiversity loss was published in 2008 the Government has undertaken a number of measures which have contributed towards achieving the recommendations made in the report.

26. The UK Government and UKOT Governments have made good progress towards valuing the natural environment in the UKOTs. In order to meet the specific needs of the individual UKOTs, baseline data and ecosystem assessments are essential for developing biodiversity policy response options. This type of work is being undertaken in the UKOTs, with support from the UK Government and its agencies. Examples of this include terrestrial and marine habitat mapping exercises (such as the Darwin Initiative supported marine mapping in St Helena; and JNCC supported marine and terrestrial mapping in Anguilla), application of a National Ecosystem Assessment approach and assessment of the economic value of environmental goods and services to UKOT economies.

27. The National Ecosystem Assessment approach, pioneered in the UK, is being extended to the UKOTs through Darwin Challenge funded projects in Anguilla and the Falklands/South Georgia. These two projects, due for completion by 2015, will provide models for the application of this form of ecosystem assessment at the appropriate scale and in a way suited to support policy development in the UKOTs. These projects also provide an opportunity for the transfer of UK skills to the UKOTs.

28. The economies of the UKOTs are highly dependent on their natural assets. Understanding the economic role and value of ecosystems, and the geographical distribution of these values, underpins most, if not all, of the actions needed to integrate the environment into decision-making. Generally, a good understanding of the value of the environment, including the elements that contribute to this value and their geographical distribution, can assist in the development of a sound economic model for the creation of a green economy. Such studies are currently in progress, or planned, for the Falkland Islands, Anguilla and the British Virgin Islands.

6 International Dimensions of Climate Change – Final Report (2011). BIS. http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/bispartners/foresight/docs/international-dimensions/11-1042-international-dimensions-of-climate- change.pdf

29. This strategic approach provides the opportunity to link baseline biodiversity survey work and economic analysis to policy development with integrated ecosystem assessments and policy scenarios. Inherent in this approach is the need to transfer skills to UKOT personnel wherever possible (in the use of the appropriate computer skills and economic techniques) to make them more self-reliant. At the same time opportunities are being created for mutually beneficial links to be established between UKOT organisations and UK institutions.

30. Current work in Anguilla funded by the FCO, Defra and the JNCC demonstrates the value of UKOT specific projects tailored to capacity and needs. Here, marine and terrestrial habitat mapping and the development of GIS capacity (including training UKOT personnel) forms the basis for environmental economic studies, all of which will be integrated through an National Ecosystem Assessment to assist the Anguillan Government to determine its policy options in developing a green economy.

31. The UK Government has been practising a joined up approach towards its responsibilities to the UKOTs. In the recently launched White Paper on the Overseas Territories, the UK Government committed to deliver co-ordinated support on Overseas Territory natural environment issues, and to develop with the UKOTs a strategic approach to managing their rich environmental assets. The Government also committed to maintaining its spending commitments on UKOT natural environment issues over the current spending review period.

32. Following agreement of the Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy in 2009, Defra has taken the lead in coordinating a partnership of Government Departments overseeing its implementation. This partnership comprises Defra, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the Department for International Development (DFID), and is supported by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). As part of this partnership, Defra established the Overseas Territories Biodiversity Group (OTBG), comprising officials from Defra, the FCO, DFID, JNCC and the UK Overseas Territories Association (UKOTA). Chaired by Defra, the OTBG is responsible for overseeing the delivery of the Strategy.

Whether UK Government strategy on the UKOTs is consistent with the conclusions and commitments on protecting biodiversity reached at the recent United Nations Rio+20 conference?

33. The outcome document from Rio+20 ‘the Future We Want’ provided assurance to the UK Government that its strategy for protecting the vital biodiversity in the UKOTs is in line with current international consensus.

34. Rio+20 identified that the promotion of sustainable tourism is key for many small island developing states for which tourism is the major industry. The UK Government’s strategy for achieving sustainable tourism in the UKOTs is outlined throughout the White Paper.

35. The sustainable use of oceans, seas and coastal areas through the designations of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) was also highlighted by Rio+20 as a vital cornerstone in protecting global biodiversity. The designation of MPAs is a sustainable method of ensuring that environmental protection and economic benefits are balanced for the benefit of the communities which rely on the marine biodiversity for their livelihoods. The UK government’s progress on designating MPAs in the biodiversity rich uninhabited UKOTs is outlined on page 12 of the White Paper.

36. Rio+20 advocated the application of an ecosystems approach to valuing the contribution of the natural environment to development. The UK Government strategy of providing the necessary tools and skills for Territory Governments to conduct ecosystem assessments and adopt policies which promote the valuation of the natural environment are consistent with this Rio+20 conclusion. This is also an excellent example of how the UK Government encourages the Territory Governments to make best use of an exchange of technology, information and methods of best practice to the benefit of the people of the UKOTs.

37. The UK Government has long recognised that the majority of UKOTs, as small island developing states, are unique concerning sustainable development and biodiversity protection due to their diverse biodiversity, unique vulnerabilities, size, remoteness, narrow resource and export base and exposure to climate change impacts and extreme weather. Through the UKOT Biodiversity Strategy7 the UK Government is delivering its commitments to protect the biodiversity of the Overseas Territories which underpins their sustainable development.

How weaknesses in civil society and democracy in the UKOTs impact on conservation

38. The UK Government has a vision of making government work better. We believe in sound public finances, building economic resilience and effective regulation. We want to increase efficiency and effectiveness, ensure public funds are spent wisely, and foster a fairer, more open and mobile society.

39. The UK government continues to provide support for conservation in Overseas Territories through a number of organisations who, in line with the UK strategy, advise Overseas Territories on their specific area of policy competence. Defra

7 http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13335‐uk‐ot‐strat‐091201.pdf

provided funding for a wide range of projects to enhance research capacity in the UKOTs, and support small conservation projects identified as priorities by UKOT Governments. The Royal Botanic Gardens Kew’s Millennium Seed Bank Partnership (MSBP) has a dedicated seed conservation programme in UKOTs which comprises training in seed collection and storage techniques. JNCC has also provided project support for a wide range of conservation projects in the UKOTs. Important work strands in recent years include developing guidelines for the use of economic analysis in biodiversity; habitat mapping in the Caribbean; and marine and terrestrial invasive alien species control projects in the Caribbean and South Atlantic.

40. Conservation and the combating of environmental pressures offer opportunities for civil society and UKOT Governments to interact on environmental issues. Through utilising tools such as environmental mainstreaming it is possible to increases local engagement on environment issues as well as identify policy and knowledge gaps which highlight areas where priority action needs to be taken. However, some UKOTs lack adequate environmental legislation, which can hamper conservation. Environment is a devolved issue, but the UK Government are ready to offer advice and guidance to the UKOTs where needed.

How the introduction of ‘Marine Protected Areas’ could safeguard the marine environment in the uninhabited territories

41. The UK is committed to the principle of designating Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in international waters. Specifically, we supported the call in 2010 by governments of States party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to strive for MPA and other area-based mechanisms covering 10% of our oceans by 2020.

42. Ensuring that this CBD target is met will mean that at least 10% of coastal and marine areas are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well connected systems.

43. The UK is therefore striving to lead the way in the environmental management of its uninhabited UKOTs. These UKOTs cover many millions of square kilometres and we are developing a strategic approach to large-scale marine management including through the establishment of the world’s largest MPAs.

44. Through continued efforts, each of the uninhabited UKOTs (South Georgia & the South Sandwich Islands, the British Indian Ocean Territory and the British Antarctic Territory) already have in place marine protection measures and are now some of the world’s most sustainable and well managed marine areas.

45. In February 2012 the Government of South Georgia & the South Sandwich Islands declared a sustainable-use MPA covering over 1,000,000 km2 of the Territory’s

maritime zone, including 20,000 km2 of no-fishing zones. This establishes the waters around South Georgia & the South Sandwich Islands as one of the largest areas of sustainably managed ocean in the world. The declaration of the MPA builds upon the management measures already in place which exceed the requirements of the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). As a result, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) has certified the island’s toothfish fishery, which is rated as the third highest scoring MSC-certified fishery in the world. The declaration of this MPA also contributes to the World Summit on Sustainable Development’s global commitment to establish representative networks of MPAs by 2012. The MPA will be monitored through scientific programmes and enforced through a dedicated patrol vessel.

46. The Administration of the British Indian Ocean Territory has developed a legislative framework which underpins the protection of sites and species of particular importance, and has designated special reserves. These include an area of Diego Garcia which has been designated as a Wetland of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. This work, together with the establishment of the no-take marine protected area in 2010, has contributed to the very high levels of nature conservation achieved in the Territory and highlights the UK’s intention to ensure the on-going protection of this unique environment.

47. In the region of the British Antarctic Territory, the UK secured agreement, in 2009 at the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), to the designation of the world’s first high seas MPA. The UK Government is continuing to work within CCAMLR for additional marine protection areas in the Southern Ocean.

48. The environmental stewardship of the marine environments of the uninhabited Territories in particular is exemplary. These delicate and vital ecosystems which provide for highly biodiversity rich environments are being protected through identified measures with the intention to ensure they continue to thrive.

29 November 2012

Written evidence submitted by the UK Overseas Territories Association

1. Introduction The United Kingdom Overseas Territories Association (UKOTA) welcomes the Environmental Audit Committee’s Inquiry on this important issue. We will respond to several of the specific questions posed by the Committee.

1.2 The Territories are home to approximately 90% of the UK’s biodiversity, including many species which are endemic to the territories. All the territories depend on these assets in some way—for example, tourism or fisheries.

1.3 UKOTA offer membership to all inhabited territories; the current members are Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, St Helena and Tristan da Cunha.

2. The extent to which UK Government strategy on the UKOTs embodies the principles of sustainable development and appropriately trades‐off environmental protection, social development and economic growth.

2.1 The UK Government White Paper (June 2012) embodies the principles of sustainable development with an explicit focus on economy, society and the environment – the three pillars of sustainable development.

2.2 Funding has been provided, in particular to the Official Development Assistance (ODA) eligible territories through DFID to stimulate economic development. All projects are subject to "Climate and Environment Assessment" (CEA) process. This is mandatory for all projects over £400.

3. How the UK Government is fulfilling its responsibilities to protect biodiversity in the UKOTs 14

3.1 Following the publication of the United Kingdom Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy in December 2009, the Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy Group (OTBG) was set up to monitor the progress. The FCO, DFID, JNCC, RBG Kew, DEFRA, DECC and UKOTA are all represented on this group. There is evidence of a significant improvement with cross HMG department input into biodiversity in the OTs and engagement with the territories. The Strategy is being implemented by a wide range of UK Government actions, which have grown in scope and significance since publication of the document.

3.2 The OTBG organised a workshop in September 2011 for the London based Representatives of the territories on Multilateral Environment Agreements (MEAs). This was a useful session but links into MEA processes need to be specifically tailored to the OT situation and capacity – this will reduce the burden of the OTs signing up to MEAs.

3.3 A workshop organised by JNCC on behalf DEFRA “Review of Progress on Implementation of the UK OT Biodiversity Strategy” will be held on 14 March 2013. DEFRA will provide funding to enable participation from the OTs. It is important that the views of the people in the territories who are involved on a day‐to‐day basis are taken into account in respect of progress on the strategy rather than the perceived views of outside organisations. UKOTA is also working with JNCC to engage the services of a consultant in order to help the OTs prepare for the meeting in March and assist them to collate information which can provide the basis for understanding biodiversity priorities established by the OTs themselves, the actions already taken to address these priorities and further actions required.

3.4 JNCC has worked with UKOTA to provide funding for two Scholarships to build capacity in the OTs. A student (from Bermuda) completed BSc (Hons) degree in Applied Ecology and Conservation and another student (from Anguilla) completed a MSc in Environmental Management – both at the University of Reading.

3.5 HMG has provided support to the OTs via dedicated contact points in the relevant HMG departments. 15

3.6 Funding for projects has been made available. While there is never enough in the current financial climate, UKOTA welcomed the announcement in October 2012 of Darwin Plus which combines all previous HMG funding sources. This fund will disburse around £2 million per year dedicated to environmental and conservation projects in the OTs. The remit of the new fund will be broad, incorporating both biodiversity‐related issues funded under the Darwin Initiative, as well as the broader range of environment and climate‐related issues funded under OTEP. The new Fund will continue to be accessible to OT Governments, NGOs, research institutions, the private sector and other stakeholders.

3.7 OTEP dispersed £8m through more than 140 projects across the Territories. Through the Darwin Initiative, approximately £5.2m has been spent to date on OT projects.

3.8 JNCC has closely aligned its OT work to the Strategy and, with the exception of climate change, worked to address the key strategic themes identified by the Strategy. This support involves funding of approximately £1.4 million on a wide range of small scale projects within the OTs; implementing strategic projects on its own behalf and on behalf of UK Government departments; working to increase the capacity of the OTs through training and also by establish working links between the OTs and relevant UK institutions. JNCC is currently managing, or involved in, approximately 30 projects ranging from support for small scale OT specific projects through to strategic projects managed on behalf of the FCO or DEFRA, including the environmental mainstreaming work. The environmental mainstreaming which started with BVI and the Falklands has now been extended to Cayman and Anguilla.

3.9 UKOTA welcomes the support of HMG (DEFRA and FCO) in their efforts to have the Regulations for Life Plus amended to enable OTs to access this import source of funding.

3.10 UKOTA is of the view that while there has been considerable focus on the Terrestrial environment there has been less focus on the Marine environment. Of particular concern is rapid increase of lionfish in the Caribbean waters and the impact this will have on the native species.

4. How the UK Government is helping the OTs adapt to climate change

4.1 The key long‐term threat faced by the Territories is climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has identified the Territories as amongst the “most vulnerable” and “virtually certain to experience the most severe impacts” of climate change. This will mean sea level rise; changes in weather patterns, including higher intensity of extreme weather events; coral bleaching; ocean acidification; and sea temperature changes. Other immediate threats include land use change; waste management; invasive species; and threats to habitats from unsustainable development.

4.2 A desk study entitled “Addressing Climate Change by Promoting Low Carbon Climate Resilient Development in the UK Overseas Territories “was funded by DFID, IMC was contracted in February 2012 to undertake the research. On reflection the TORs were too ambitious and the quality of the data collected questionable. The project steering group, on which UKOTA was represented, is in the process of deciding what the next steps are.

4.3 The DFID funded a project over a four year period which enabled the Caribbean Territories to participate in the regional project “Enhancing Capacity for Adaptation to Climate Change in the Caribbean Overseas Territories”. The report was largely welcomed; the recommendations were applicable and relevant to the needs of the territories. Some UK OTs produced a Climate Change strategy as a result of this, but funding was not available to implement the recommendations. With the current financial climate territories do not have the resources to implement the recommendations of the strategy – funding from DFID is restricted to the OAD eligible territories.

4.4 Climate Change impacts on all OTs and access to funding is crucial (for all) if OTs are to implement appropriate Adaptation and Mitigating strategies. As OTs we are unable to access international funding streams for example Global Environment Facility (GEF). HMG created the £2.9 billion UK International Climate Fund (ICF) in 2011 to cover the period 2011 – 2015 – however, OTs do not appear to be in a position to benefit from this fund. Whilst in theory they are eligible, none of them fall into any priority categories that govern spending decisions of the fund. 17

4.5 UKOTA recommends that a dedicated fund is set up to address Climate Change in the OTs.

5. Whether the recommendations in the 2008 report “Halting biodiversity loss” on safeguarding biodiversity and practising joined‐up government to further conservation have been implemented.

5.1 The Government has a clear moral and legal duty to help protect the biodiversity of the UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, where it is the eleventh hour for many species. We are extremely concerned that recommendations that we have made in the past that would have helped to protect the environment of the Overseas Territories have been ignored. The Government must: adopt a truly joined‐up approach to environmental protection the UKOTs and Crown Dependencies, by bringing together all relevant departments including the FCO, MoJ, DfID, Defra, DCMS and MoD with the governments of the UKOTs. The Overseas Territories Biodiversity Group (OTBG) has been created to provide the linkages suggested in the recommendation. UKOTA provides the OT representation on the group. This is also evident with the creation of the Darwin Plus, bringing together the funds from the HMG departments for environmental projects.

5.2 make better use of the Inter‐Departmental Group on biodiversity This was superseded by the OTBG. There has been significant increase in the engagement with the OTs. Environmental contact persons were identified by the territories.

5.3 to provide more oversight and support for the development and implementation of effective environmental protection policy in the UKOTs, and expand the Group to include other relevant departments; Some OTs has received support in this area. The Environment mainstreaming projects assist OTs to incorporate environmental policy into their strategic planning process. Some OTs have also received assistance with drafting of legislation etc. Assistance has also been provided through DFID to ODA eligible OTs with TC funded personnel to provide specialist advice and support these areas. 18

5.4 have Defra assume joint responsibility for the UKOTs, and reflect this in future spending settlements; DEFRA lead on the OTBG, and lead on the recently created ‘Darwin Plus’ project funding which provides a cross HMG combined approach to funding biodiversity and environment projects in the OTs.

5.6 address the dire lack of funds and information for environmental protection in the UKOTs. This has been addressed in sections 3 and 4.

5.7 An ecosystem assessment should be conducted in partnership with each UKOT in order to provide the baseline environmental data required and to outline the effective response options needed to halt biodiversity loss.

5.8 With leadership, and a relatively small sum of money, the incredible biodiversity found in our overseas territories can be safeguarded into the future. One of the most important contributions that the Government could make to slowing the catastrophic global biodiversity loss currently occurring would be to accept its responsibilities and to provide more support for the UK Overseas Territories in this area. Biodiversity protection has to be collaboration between OTs and HMG. Funding is an important and vital component of this collaboration as are other areas of technical and advisory support. The short‐term nature of project funding does not enable long‐term sustainable planning and implementation. It is recommended that a long‐term, programme approach to funding is considered as an alternative. One size does not fit all OTs, there are many similarities but there are also many differences in terms of scale, location, population etc that have significant impacts on conservation in each OT and their ability to manage all of the threats to biodiversity.

6. Whether UK Government strategy on the UK OTs is consistent with the conclusions and commitments on protecting biodiversity reached at the recent United Nations Rio + 20 conference. 19

6.1 While UKOTA does not wish to respond directly to the question posed, an area of weakness and concern to the territories is the lack of an established mechanism to advise territories of, and to solicit their views prior to International conferences which discuss environmental issues that could impact on the territories.

7. How weaknesses in civil society and governance in the UK OTs impact on conservation.

7.1 UKOTA does not wish to comment on this.

8. How the introduction of “Marine Protected Areas” could safeguard the marine environment in the uninhabited territories.

8.1 UKOTA does not represent the uninhabited territories and cannot, therefore, make any comment directly related to the question. However, we are aware that the Pew Group has been in contact with some of our members with a view to developing MPAs. Their representatives are currently on Tristan da Cunha having discussions. While there is value in investigating this, it is important that the Territory Governments are engaged to ensure the livelihoods of the people are not compromised.

29 November 2012 20

Written evidence submitted by National Trust for the Cayman Islands

Executive Summary

• The National Trust for the Cayman Islands (“NTCI”) supports the position of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum for the increase in capacity building and funding to the UKOTS from DIFID, and The Heritage Lottery Fund. • NTCI also supports the call for DEFRA and the FCO to negotiate access to LIFE+ EU funding. At present, The Cayman Islands along with other UKOTS are curtailed by lack of access to such UK and EU funds. • In relation to the Cayman Islands specifically, the UK Government (“UKG”) devolved responsibility for the protection of the environment to the Cayman Islands Government (“CIG”). However, UKG has failed to ensure that CIG implements sustainable development and protects the Island’s biodiversity. • Neither the Environmental Charter signed with the UKG in September 2001 nor other Multilateral Environmental Agreements have been implemented. The UKG has therefore failed in its obligations to the people of the Cayman Islands and NTCI urges it to redress these issues. • Due to the CIG’s lack of environmental policy and conservation implementation, the NTCI has been forced to assume many of the responsibilities of the CIG. It alone has raised the necessary funds to purchase terrestrial areas of significant biodiversity for flora and fauna which has contributed to the protection of 5% of the land mass. • The NTCI urges the UKG to require the CIG to implement a conservation policy that includes conservation laws, development plans for the three islands, national parks and use of the environmental protection fund (“EPF”) to support conservation.

Introduction

The National Trust for the Cayman Islands

The NTCI is a membership based, non‐governmental, not for profit organization created by statute, The National Trust Law in 1987. It is the only NGO in the Cayman Islands with a mandate for terrestrial conservation. NTCI was established to preserve natural environments and places of historic significance in the Cayman Islands for present and future generations. Environmentally significant areas owned by NTCI are protected in perpetuity when NTCI declares them inalienable pursuant to the National Trust Law (as revised).

Responsibility for NTCI rests with the Council who are elected annually by the membership along with three CIG appointed representatives. The Chairperson and three Executive Officers are elected bi‐annually. There are nine full time staff, one part time and one full time volunteer.

Submissions

1. How the UK Government is fulfilling its responsibility to protect biodiversity in the Cayman Islands

Recommendations:

A. The UKG should require the CIG to meet its obligations under the Environmental Charter, the various MEA’s and its obligation to the people of the Cayman Islands as set out in the Bill of Rights contained in the Cayman Islands Constitution Order 2009 (“Constitution”). B. The UKG should require the Governor to address environmental governance issues including the passage and implementation of long stalled conservation legislation. UKG must require the Governor to assist the UKG in discharging its responsibilities under the EC and MEA’s. C. The UKG should require the CIG to implement a sustainable Development Plan for the three islands.

1.1 The UKG is not fulfilling its obligation to protect biodiversity in the Cayman Islands in that it is failing to require the CIG to adopt a sustainable Development Plan, enact proposed local conservation legislation and establish a system of protected areas to fulfill the obligations set out below.

(a) In September 2001, the CIG and the UKG signed an Environment Charter under which both governments committed to the preservation of our environment. Additionally, the Cayman Islands is party to a number of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEA’s), notably the Convention on Biological Diversity (the "Rio Convention" or CBD), the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (“Ramsar Convention”), the Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife

protocol to the Cartagena Convention (the "SPAW Protocol") and Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (“Bonn Convention”).

(b) The Bill of Rights as contained in the Cayman Islands Constitution Order 2009 provides for the Protection of the environment [emphasis added]: ‐ Government shall, in all its decisions, have due regard to the need to foster and protect an environment that is not harmful to the health or well‐being of present and future generations, while promoting justifiable economic and social development.

‐ To this end government should adopt reasonable legislative and other measures to protect the heritage and wildlife and the land and sea biodiversity of the Cayman Islands that— (i) limit pollution and ecological degradation; (ii) promote conservation and biodiversity; and (iii) secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources.

(c) In accordance with the Rio Convention the Department of Environment has developed a National Biodiversity Action Plan (“NBAP”) which calls for the protection of certain native species of flora and fauna and their habitats. The NBAP has not however been adopted by the CIG and is only being implemented through NTCI.

1.2 There is a draft Conservation Bill first proposed in 2000 which is intended to replace the majority of the Animals Law and has been reviewed by successive Governments for the past twelve years despite inclusion as a policy by successive political parties. The Animals Law (2003 Revision) originally protected five sites as Animal Sanctuaries, two of which have been deregulated (both of which are on Cayman Brac) and of the remaining three, one is owned by the NTCI. Despite calls to do so, no other suitable areas have been protected in mitigation of the deregulated areas. No terrestrial national parks have been legally established.

1.3 The Development Plan (“The Plan”) for Grand Cayman enacted in 1977 had no environmental zones. The Plan, intended to be reviewed every five years, was last reviewed but not revised in 2002 despite recommendations to include environmental overlay. There is no Development Plan for Cayman Brac and Little Cayman.

2. How weaknesses in civil society and governance in the Cayman Islands impact on conservation;

Recommendations

D. The UKG should address environmental governance gaps to give primacy to environmental considerations in the Development Plan, Planning Laws, the National Roads Law, CIG conservation policies and Conservation Law.

E. The Crown owned wetlands and forests of environmental significance on the three Islands should be vested in NTCI to ensure their continued preservation as experience shows that government designation does not offer permanent protect (viz the deregulation of two Animal Sanctuaries in Cayman Brac). F. The UKG should require the CIG to utilize the EPF for purchase of areas of significant biodiversity which should then be vested in the NTCI to ensure their protection in perpetuity. G. The UKG should require the CIG to fund adequately the work the NTCI carries out on behalf of the CIG through the EPF.

2.1 Weakness in civil society and governance in the CI is severely impacting conservation as the only means of halting biodiversity loss is for the NTCI to purchase areas of significant biodiversity for protection under the National Trust Law while funds collected by the CIG for the purposes of protecting the environment are not being used for the intended purpose.

2.2 Environmentally sensitive areas owned by the Crown, such as the George Town Ironwood Forest which is the primary habitat for the endemic Ghost Orchid Dendrophylax fawcettii, one of the 100 most endangered species in the worldi, remains unprotected.

2.3 Whilst progress has been made by CIG in submarine conservation, very little has been done in relation to terrestrial conservation except that over the past 20 years CIG has vested certain environmentally significant sites in the NTCI. NTCI continues to expand these protected areas and over the past 7 years alone the Trust has raised approximately CI$7million through grants and private donors for land purchase of 1093.47 acres, thereby significantly increasing the protected areas on all three islands which now stand at a total of 3,141 acres (approximately 5% of the land mass).

2.4 CIG has therefore been spared both the expense of land purchase, and the ongoing cost of management, for the majority of Cayman's terrestrial protected area system to date. While not yet sufficient to achieve the goals implicit in the MEAs, the NTCI has

been responsible for the majority of progress in this area over the last decade. A brief analysis of the contributions of NTCI, relevant to the MEAs, is annexed hereto as “Schedule of MEAs and NTCI Contributions”. This analysis demonstrates the substantial role that NTCI plays in the overall conservation of biodiversity in the Cayman Islands, which otherwise would fall on CIG at a considerably greater cost.

2.5 While NTCI receives a small subvention from CIG annually (approximately CI$230,000 for the 2012/13 year), it covers less than 25% of the organization’s operating costs and does not adequately represent the cost of the services provided. In addition, this funding is subject to budgetary constraints and has been cut by approximately 30% over the past two years. NTCI has written to His Excellency the Governor Mr. Duncan Taylor on 2nd May 2012 and again on 30th August 2012 outlining the responsibilities NTCI has taken on behalf of CIG and requesting his cooperation to obtain additional funding from the EPF (copies of these letters are enclosed), however NTCI is still awaiting an official response.

2.6 The Environmental Protection Fund (“EPF”) was established and recorded in the Hansard as Government Motion No. 14/97 for the purposes of “...defraying expenditure incurred in protecting and preserving the environment of the Islands.” A small fee is levied on every visitor to the islands who believes he is contributing to an environmental tax for conservation. This is a total misrepresentation by CIG. Approximately CI$5M is collected annually in the name of the environment, however, since its inception the EPF has rarely been spent on the purposes for which it was established and at present, the fund of approximately CI$43 million, forms part of the general reserves and is used to meet CIG’s requirement for cash reserves under the Public Management and Finance Law.

2.7 Although this memorandum deals with NTCI environmental mandate, it is important to note that NTCI is also charged with preserving sites of historic significance. NTCI currently owns and maintains 12 historic heritage sites. As NTCI has been forced to focus its efforts on protecting the biodiversity of the Islands by expanding its protected areas, it is becoming increasingly difficult to fulfill its statutory obligations. Specifically, NTCI has been unable to fund the education programme which includes an Education Officer post and is a vital component of our environmental and historic mandate.

3. How the UKG is helping the Cayman Islands adapt to the impact of climate change

Recommendations:

H. To mitigate the impact of climate change the UKG should require the CIG to protect the Central Mangrove Wetlands (“CMW”) on Grand Cayman.

3.1 The UKG is not helping the Cayman Islands to adapt to the impact of climate change.

3.2 One of the guiding principles of mitigating the impacts of climate change is to conserve existing biodiversity, and as stated above this is not being done by the CIG. The CMW, approximately 8500 acres, is widely considered the ecological heart of Grand Cayman and is the largest contiguous mangrove wetland in the Caribbean. 19% of the CWR is protected under the marine conservation law, 7% owned and protected by NTCI, 9% owned by the Crown and unprotected and 75% privately owned and unprotected. These wetlands are under threat due to planned road corridors and increased development projects and the Marine Parks Law will not prevent such developments.

SCHEDULE OF MEA’s AND NTCI’s CONTRIBUTIONS

Convention/Treaty & relevant commitments NTCI Contribution

ENVIRONMENT CHARTER CAYMAN ISLANDS Signed on Sept 2001

Objectives: NTCI collaborates extensively with: 1. Bring together government departments, ‐ Government departments: Department of representatives of local industry and commerce, Tourism, Department of Environment and environment and heritage organisations, the Department of Environmental Health Governor’s office, individual environmental ‐ Heritage organisations: CI National Archive and CI champions and other community representatives: National Museum

2. Ensuring the protection & restoration of key NTCI protects and manages the following: habitats and species: ‐Blue Iguana species through the Blue Iguana Recovery Program and its habitat (Salina and East End Colliers Reserve) ‐Wetland and woodland bird habitats, (Governor Gore’s Bird Sanctuary, Uncle Sammy’s Pond, Central Mangrove Wetlands, Salina Reserve, Mastic Reserve, Cayman Brac Parrot Reserve, The Splitts) ‐Sea bird nesting habitats ‐ Booby Pond Nature Reserve,) ‐Sister Island Rock Iguana species and its habitat (Little Cayman Nature Trail property, Booby Pond Nature Reserve and Preston Bay nesting site) ‐ Queen Elizabeth II Botanic Park (50% ownership) ‐ Endangered and Critically endangered flora and fauna contained on all reserves

6. Implement effectively Multilateral NTCI contributes to the implementation of Environmental Agreements already extended to Multilateral Environmental Agreements already the Cayman islands as listed herein extended to the Cayman islands as listed herein

9. Encourage teaching within schools to promote NTCI promotes the value of our natural and built the value of our local environment (natural and heritage in schools by: built) : ‐ producing environmental and historic educational material for inclusion in national school curriculum. ‐ leading 60 educational events through our Historical , Environmental and Education programmes within school system

10. Promote publications that spread public NTCI promotes the special features of the awareness of the special feature of the environment in the following publications: environment ‐ Weekly “Know your Island” articles in the national paper of record ‐ Informative articles in various publications including “What’s Hot”, “Destination Cayman”, ‐ The Trust Times, Quarterly Newsletter to General Membership and sponsors

11. Abide by the principles set out in the Rio ‐For the purpose of conservation, NTCI owns 5% of Declaration on Environment: the country’s land mass (see further details below) CONVENTION ON WETLANDS OF INTERNATIONAL NTCI contributes to the country’s obligations IMPORTANCE (Ramsar) under this MEA in the following manner: ‐ NTCI owns and manages the only Ramsar Objective: designated site, Little Cayman Booby Nature "the conservation and wise use of all wetlands Reserve. Total Acreage protected: 334 acres through local and national actions and ‐ Built and maintains a visitor centre on the site international cooperation, as a contribution towards achieving sustainable development which is open daily and has informational signage throughout the world". and displays, hosts talks and bird watching groups. ‐ NTCI owns and manages 765 acres in Central Mangrove Wetlands in accordance with Ramsar best practice. ‐ NTCI owns the following fresh water ponds/pools: 3 acres at Governor Gore’s Bird Sanctuary 3.5 acres at Uncle Sammy’s Pond 17.5 acres at The Splitts Cayman Brac

CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY (Rio)

Under this treaty, the UN set a target in 2002 to NTCI contributes to the country’s obligations reduce loss of biodiversity by 2010. under this MEA in the following manner: Objectives: 1. conservation of biological diversity; ‐ Since 2004, NTCI has obtained and protected 2. sustainable use of its components; and over 1,000 acres of environmentally significant 3. fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising property, thereby reducing the loss of biodiversity from genetic resources in the Cayman Islands.

The Cayman Islands National Biodiversity Action NTCI contributes to this Action Plan in the Plan produced in accordance with the CBD calls for following manner: the protection of key species and habitats. ‐ NTCI holds and protects a total of 3,141 acres of environmentally significant land in perpetuity for the people of the Cayman Islands. This is approximately 5% of Cayman Islands total land mass. (NB The internationally accepted standard is 12% and the Caribbean averages 11.7% per 2003 United Nations list of Protected Areas) ‐ several of the species listed in this plan are protected within the Trust Reserves including: Banana Orchid, Ghost Orchid Silver Thatch, Agave Caymanensis, Cedar, Ironwood, Broadleaf, Cayman Parrot, Bats, Vitelline Warbler, West Indian Whistling Duck, Blue Iguana, Sister Islands Rock Iguana, Little Cayman Green Anole, and Red Footed Booby. PROTOCOL TO THE CATAGENA CONVENTION CONCERNING SPECIFICALLY PROTECTED AREAS WILDLIFE (SPAW)

Objective: protect rare and fragile ecosystems and NTCI contributes to the country’s obligations habitats, thereby protecting the endangered and under this MEA in the following manner: threatened species residing therein by: NTCI owns, protects and manages 8 environmental ‐ establishment and proper management of reserves which serve as habitats to endangered protected areas, by promoting sustainable and threatened species. management (and use) of species to prevent their endangerment

CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF NTCI contributes to the country’s obligations MIGRATORY SPECIES OF WILD ANIMALS (Bonn) under this MEA in the following manner:

Objective: to conserve terrestrial, marine and avian ‐ NTCI owns, protects and manages several sites of migratory species throughout their range. importance to Migratory Birds such as: ‐ Mastic Reserve ‐ Salina Reserve ‐ The Splitts ‐ Governor Gore’s Bird Sanctuary ‐ Cayman Brac Parrot Reserve ‐ Uncle Sammy’s Pond ‐ Little Cayman Booby Pond Nature Reserve

i According to the IUCN Species Survival Commission’s report “100 most threatened species: Are they priceless or worthless?” published in September 2012

29 November 2012

Written evidence submitted by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Summary

• Knowledge of biodiversity in the UK Overseas Territories (OTs) remains inadequate, but it is apparent that many species are under threat. • Improved strategy is needed. The promised Implementation Plan for the UK OTs Biodiversity Strategy could help to provide this through a prioritised, and adequately resourced workplan. • The UK Government does not currently have enough capacity to deal with the diverse range of environmental issues in the UK OTs. Dedicated full‐time staff are needed at Defra and DFID. • Although the funds available to UK OTs have increased since 2008, more resources are needed. Funds such as the Heritage Lottery Fund and the EU’s LIFE+ fund remain closed to OTs. • The government’s environmental mainstreaming programme should be supported and extended, and more policy support is needed. • Recent government commitments to exemplary management of the environment in the uninhabited OTs should be welcomed. However, improvements in management are needed in the Cyprus SBAs where illegal bird killing remains a significant issue. • Climate risks in the OTs do not appear to be adequately addressed at present. More information on DFID’s adaptation programme for OTs is needed. • There are significant gaps in environmental governance in some of the OTs, and these need to be filled in order to enable sustainable development and protection of biodiversity. • Marine protected areas can, if based on scientific criteria, make a significant contribution to conserving marine biodiversity in the OTs.

Introduction

The RSPB is the UK partner of BirdLife International, a network of over 100 grass‐roots conservation organisations around the world. As part of our commitment to the conservation of biodiversity worldwide, we have for over a decade, provided financial, technical and advisory support to emerging NGO partners and local governments in the UK OTs. We have over a million members in the UK, and they are highly supportive of our work in the OTs. This support is given in many ways, including through financial contributions to appeals and for major initiatives such as our work at Henderson Island.

Much of the RSPB’s work in the OTs assists them in meeting their commitments under the international conventions, including the Convention on Biological Diversity. Our response to this consultation covers all of the UK OTs. Our views on the specific issues raised by the Committee follow.

Specific Issues Identified by the Committee

1. How the UK Government is fulfilling its responsibilities to protect biodiversity in the UKOTs

1.1 The extent to which the UK Government is fulfilling its responsibility to protect the biodiversity of the Overseas Territories can be analysed against these six components: knowledge; strategy; capacity; funding; policy support; and delivery. Our assessment of each of these is set out below.

KNOWLEDGE

Recommendations A. The UK Government should incorporate the outcomes of the FCO‐funded Extinction Risk Assessment project into its OTs Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Plan. B. Defra’s Research Directorate should instigate a definitive priority OT Biodiversity Research Programme, agreed with OT Governments, research institutions and civil society.

1.2 Assessments carried out to‐date indicate that the biodiversity of the Overseas Territories biodiversity is under immense threat. There are a high number of threatened species in those groups of taxa that have been thoroughly assessed against the IUCN’s criteria for global threat classification (the IUCN Red List1), e.g. there are 33 globally threatened birds that occur in the Overseas Territories, more than in the whole of Continental Europe.

1.3 On the Pitcairn Islands, for example, a total of 466 species have been recorded2. Of these, 146 have been assessed against the Red List criteria, and 41 of these are globally threatened: this is almost a third of those species assessed. Of the 15 endemic species assessed, all were found to be globally threatened. Only half of St Helena’s endemic plants, and only 2 of its 400+ endemic invertebrate species, have ever had their threat status assessed, so many of these could be on the brink of disappearing forever.3

1.4 Many groups of taxa, especially terrestrial invertebrates, lower plants, and marine species have not been well researched or been subject to international threat classification. It is therefore impossible to make an assessment of the status of much of the biodiversity of the Territories.

1.5 Without an improvement in knowledge, the UK Government cannot hope to be able to report accurately to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on whether or not it has made progress in meeting its 2020 target to halt biodiversity loss.

1 See http://www.iucnredlist.org/ 2 See http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/pitcairn_island.pdf. 3 For example five endemic St Helena weevil species currently persist on just two remaining mature St Helena She Cabbage trees which survive on the island, yet since they have not been formally classified as threatened it is extremely difficult to raise funds to address their plight. 32

1.6 At present, threatened species in the UK OTs may be in danger of global extinction without awareness in the UK or internationally. The St. Helena Olive Tree’s (Nesiota eliptica) extinction in 2003 provides a clear example of the impact of this lack of knowledge. Other species have since been on the brink of extinction, e.g. the Bastard Gumwood (Commindendrum rotundifolium) but the concerted efforts of local conservationists and international partners (e.g. the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew) have averted an extinction crisis.

1.7 Some biodiversity monitoring is carried out by OT Government Departments, as well as UK and OT non‐governmental organisations (NGOs) and research institutions. New endemic species are being identified and catalogued through various conservation projects, some funded by the UK government. However, the data for different taxa and different OTs is scattered and there is no central coordination or strategic overview. Without this, there can be no clear idea of where limited resources should most urgently be focussed.

1.8 Given the lack of capacity for central coordination in the OTs, the UK Government should both facilitate the collation of existing data and improve the state of OT biodiversity knowledge if it is to be able to fulfil its responsibility to prevent further extinctions in the Territories. Defra’s Research Directorate should instigate an “OT Biodiversity Research Programme”, agreed with OT Governments, research institutions and civil society.

1.9 The small population sizes in the OTs mean that many do not have the potential to develop local expertise in every aspect of their natural environments. To enable implementation of the suggested biodiversity research programme, access to the world‐class skills of the UK’s government‐funded institutions should be made available without the requirement for full cost‐ recovery; work in the OTs should be considered core work and there should be an internal budget at all government‐funded institutions4 for this work. Full cost‐recovery (including overhead) requirements currently limit the involvement of many UK institutions in projects, to the detriment of both OTs, and the UK. The National Environment Research Council should be instructed to increase its role (and that of its research agencies) in promoting and supporting world class research in the OTs.

1.10 Recently, the FCO has provided the RSPB with a small amount of funding to begin assessing extinction risk in the OTs (the “Extinction Risk Assessment project”). This will entail collating existing species list and monitoring data and identifying the priority gaps for further conservation research and action. It will be the first collation of information and data gaps for all species across all 14 OTs and it is hoped that this process can both direct Government and civil society effort and enable more effective reporting to the CBD in 2020 on the status of the globally threatened biodiversity of the OTs.

4 Especially the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, the Food and Environment Research Agency, CEFAS, the British Antarctic Survey, the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. 33

STRATEGY

Recommendation C. The OTs Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Plan must include a prioritised, and adequately resourced workplan with concrete milestones leading up to 2020.

1.11 In 2009, Defra published the first UK OTs Biodiversity Strategy committing itself to lead work with the FCO and DFID to co‐ordinate support for OT biodiversity conservation. This was a very welcome development which provided a top‐level framework for cross‐departmental working, but the Strategy contained no concrete targets or associated workplan. UK Government support has therefore remained non‐strategic, with the result that limited resources have been spread thinly and perhaps not directed to the most important priorities.

1.12 In January 2012, Defra made the positive commitment to develop an Implementation Plan for the UK OTs Biodiversity Strategy. A meeting is scheduled for March 2013 where progress will be reviewed and future priorities discussed. To be effective, the priorities of OT Governments, communities and civil society will need to be incorporated, but the UK Government must also set out its own priorities, based on sound science.

1.13 To enable more strategic investment in future, Defra has funded the RSPB to carry out a prioritisation of island eradications of introduced alien vertebrate species across all 14 OTs. Given the devastating impact of these species, this is to be warmly welcomed, and this model of prioritisation should be developed in other areas.

CAPACITY

Recommendations D. Two full‐time dedicated Overseas Territories biodiversity policy posts should be established within Defra, one for the inhabited, and one for the uninhabited OTs. E. A multi‐disciplinary Overseas Territories Taskforce of staff from different parts of Defra, and different areas of expertise should be established to support the OTs. F. A full‐time post should be established at DFID to take lead responsibility for environment and climate change in the Overseas Territories.

1.14 There is a chronic lack of capacity in the UK Government to fulfil its biodiversity responsibilities towards the Overseas Territories. The FCO is the currently the only one of the three departments responsible for the OTs Biodiversity Strategy which has a full‐time staff member dedicated to environment and climate change issues in the OTs.

1.15 Defra, which has had lead department responsibility for OTs biodiversity since 2009, still does not have a single staff member with full‐time OTs responsibility, nor did the Department make 34

any mention of the OTs in its most recent business plan5. Given that the OTs are home to over 90% of the threatened biodiversity for which the UK is responsible, the RSPB considers this unacceptable. Staff capacity within Defra is needed to set the strategic direction of the OTs Biodiversity Strategy, guide its implementation and ensure that international commitments are met. Effective and proactive policy support to the small and stretched Environment Departments of the OTs is also required. At present many of our Territory partners report that they feel disconnected from Defra and find it difficult to access its support and advice.

1.16 The RSPB believes that at least two full‐time, appropriately senior staff within Defra are needed (one for the inhabited and one for the uninhabited OTs). Such roles cannot be fulfilled by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), whose role is to be an independent scientific adviser to Government. Shaping policy engagement and directing departmental support to the OTs is clearly an appropriate activity for Defra staff.

1.17 Dedicated staff who are able to engage more proactively to build capacity in OT Governments, would be of great benefit. Such staff should work closely with the FCO, and would need the opportunity to visit the Territories themselves so as to gain first‐hand experience and knowledge of their situations.

1.18 Recognising that there are significant staffing constraints within Defra at present, the full‐time staff should be supported by a multi‐disciplinary group of staff from different parts of Defra. Their job descriptions should contain a specific requirement to support the OTs in their area of expertise.

1.19 A lack of capacity also affects DFID, which is currently without a single staff member responsible for environment or climate change issues in the OTs, despite DFID having lead responsibility for international climate change adaptation. Whilst plans are apparently underway to recruit a new environment and climate change adviser, it is currently unclear whether this will be a full‐time post. Given DFID’s responsibility for major infrastructure projects and budgetary aid in several Territories, as well as the department’s climate change adaptation role, the RSPB believes that a full‐time staff member is essential.

FUNDING

Recommendations G. The UK Government should be congratulated on the recent establishment of the Darwin Plus fund.

5 http://transparency.number10.gov.uk/business-plan/10 35

H. Funding should be increased for the next round of Darwin Plus from the current figure of £2 million / per year. This is one of the most cost‐effective contributions that the UK Government could make to halting biodiversity loss. I. All future funding rounds of Darwin Plus should be specifically linked to implementing the priorities of the UK OTs Biodiversity Strategy. J. The number of Overseas Territories experts on the Darwin Committee should be increased significantly. K. DCMS should give a policy signal that Overseas Territories are good candidates for Heritage Lottery Funding. L. Defra and the FCO should negotiate to enable access to the EU’s environment financing instrument, LIFE+, for all EU Overseas Countries and Territories. M. Defra, FCO and DFID should negotiate at Ministerial level to reinvigorate the EU BEST scheme on biodiversity and ecosystem services.

1.20 To‐date, UK Government funding for biodiversity conservation in the OTs has been both inadequate and frequently non‐strategic. An analysis in 2007 calculated that a minimum of £16 million per year for 5 years was required to meet the most urgent biodiversity priorities in the OTs.6 International environment funds such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF) are closed to the Territories because of their UK (and thus developed country) status, but they are also excluded from access to UK and EU funds such as the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) and LIFE+ programme. The UK Government is thus one of the only possible sources of funding.

1.21 In 2011/12, Defra provided funding of £2.96 million for biodiversity conservation in the UK OTs. This is a welcome improvement on the situation in 2007/08 when Defra spent just £152,379 in this area. However, it is equivalent to only £8,758 per globally threatened OT species. If increased funding is not identified, endemic OTs species for which the UK Government is responsible will certainly become extinct and the UK Government will fail to meet its international obligations.

1.22 The October 2012 launch of the new OTs Environment and Climate Change Fund (Darwin Plus) is a positive step. The fund brings together contributions of £2 million per year from FCO, DFID and Defra. Whilst this is not ‘new money’, it will enable existing funds to be deployed in a more strategic and effective manner, and the funding call for applications has sensibly given itself the flexibility to support both small and large projects. Given the scale of the challenge and the extreme cost‐effectiveness of biodiversity spending in the OTs, increasing this amount available in this fund would represent extremely well‐targeted environmental funding.

1.23 In order to ensure Darwin Plus funds are used strategically, increased OT conservation expertise needs to be used to make funding decisions. At present, the decision‐making panel of Darwin Plus will be a sub‐committee of the Darwin Committee, with welcome additional representation

6 The ‘Costing Biodiversity Conservation Priorities in the UK Overseas Territories’ report is available on the RSPB website at: http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/ukotfinancingcons_tcm9-158352.pdf. 36

from the UK Overseas Territories Association (UKOTA). There is an absence of expertise from organisations with major cross‐cutting conservation programmes in the OTs, such as RBG Kew or the RSPB, or any OT NGOs.

1.24 The Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) is one of the major funders of natural heritage work in the UK. Whilst legally permitted to fund conservation projects in the UK Overseas Territories, it has never done so, arguing that its policy directions from DCMS mean that it has to prioritise accessibility. In their paper detailing their role in the OTs (March 2012), DCMS said “There is no bar on Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) making [grants for work in the UKOTs] but HLF’s current policy is to treat any such applications as a low priority.”

1.25 The previous Minister for the Overseas Territories at the FCO, Henry Bellingham MP, made numerous speeches in 2011 announcing his determination to open up this much‐needed funding source to the OTs, but appeared to meet with no success. If DCMS changed their policy directions to the HLF Trustees to allow consideration of applications from the OTs as an equal priority with UK applications, this could enable OT projects to be funded in future, and help alleviate the current funding shortfall.

1.26 The EU’s only dedicated environmental funding stream, LIFE+, is also closed to the UK OTs at present, in contrast to the French Overseas Departments (the DOMs), which have had access since 2007. There is no constitutional impediment to opening LIFE+ funding to the OTs, but there is political resistance in Europe. Negotiations on the next LIFE+ programming period (to run from 2014‐2020) are currently underway. Opening LIFE+ to the OTs would not have any impact on the EU budget, but could bring major benefits on the ground. Defra and the FCO have been strong advocates on behalf of the OTs on this issue, but further efforts are required in the European Council if the current resistance is to be overcome.

1.27 The EU has recently developed a pilot funding scheme for all the Overseas Territories of Member States called the BEST initiative.7 This has now received two of the three years pilot funding allowed, after which it must either become a permanent programme or be discontinued. There appears to be a significant lack of enthusiasm in the European Commission for the continuation of the BEST scheme, so the UK Government will need to make strong representations in order to ensure that the recent momentum built under the pilot scheme is not lost. Three projects that will involve seven UK OTs were funded in the 2012 round of BEST.

POLICY SUPPORT

Recommendations

7 The voluntary scheme for Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services in the European Overseas Territories (BEST) is a follow-up to the ‘Message from Reunion’. It originally aimed to establish a voluntary scheme for the protection of species and habitats, inspired by the Natura 2000 approach. 37

N. The UK Government’s environmental mainstreaming reviews should be supported and extended to all OTs. O. A Policy Support Programme should be established, with initiatives such as secondments and twinning between OT Governments and UK Government Departments.

1.28 Environmental policy capacity is extremely limited on many of the UK OTs, and indeed several OT Government Environment Departments consist of less than five staff covering a vast array of urgent issues. Technical environmental policy support from Defra and the wider UK Government is therefore crucial in order to develop robust environmental frameworks. Whilst FCO, Defra, JNCC and DECC do now all provide a contact point or email address for OT assistance enquiries, it remains unclear what detailed assistance can actually be offered or delivered given the lack of OT‐specific staff capacity in the UK Government. Moreover, the few staff in many OT Environment Departments are frequently often inundated with pressing and responsive work, and seldom have the opportunity to identify and discuss long‐term policy support needs with the UK Government. UK Government officials meanwhile often have little detailed understanding or familiarity with the environmental policy frameworks of the OTs, largely due to not having the capacity to engage in further detail or visit an OT in person.

1.29 There are many policy areas where increased proactive support from the UK Government would be very helpful. We believe the following should be tackled in a first wave of assistance: • biosecurity and invasive species policy; • protected area designation and management; • sustainable fisheries management; and • climate change adaptation. A Policy Assistance Programme could take several forms, such as short‐stay secondment programmes from (or to) UK Government, assistance from legal departments of DECC, Defra, DFID, FCO, or twinning projects between OT Government Departments and UK Government Departments similar to those seen during EU enlargement between the UK and Eastern Europe.

1.30 The Environmental Mainstreaming exercises being supported by the FCO and JNCC (to date piloted in the British Virgin Islands and the Falkland Islands) are a welcome step in identifying environmental policy priorities and building local support for action. It is crucial that the momentum created by these exercises is not lost, and that the UK Government provides technical and financial support to ensure sufficient follow‐up. Increasing Defra officials’ capacity to proactively engage UKOT Governments on environmental policy is thus crucial. Environmental mainstreaming reviews should also be systematically extended to the rest of the OTs.

DELIVERY

Recommendations 38

P. The UK Government’s commitment to exemplary environmental management in the uninhabited OTs should be welcomed. Q. An integrated joint‐action plan to tackle illegal hunting in the Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs) should be developed. This should involve all relevant Cyprus and MoD/SBA authorities. R. Disaster‐preparedness should be considered for all OTs, and resourced appropriately to enable timely responses to future marine incidents.

1.31 The UK Government has direct responsibility for biodiversity conservation delivery in the uninhabited Territories and Cyprus Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs). With regard to the former, the commitment in the recent OTs White Paper to “oversee exemplary environmental management in the uninhabited Territories” was very welcome, and the management of these Territories is largely good. In particular, Government support for the introduced mammal (rat, mouse and reindeer) eradication programme on South Georgia is appreciated.

1.32 However, the RSPB has significant concerns about biodiversity conservation delivery in the Cyprus SBAs (controlled by the Ministry of Defence, MOD), where illegal bird trapping is a significant problem. The situation has recently worsened considerably, and last year had the worst level of bird killing recorded for five years. Systematic monitoring by BirdLife Cyprus and the RSPB shows that, in recent years, levels of mist net use in the Dhekelia SBA have been much higher than in the areas policed by the Cyprus authorities.

1.33 It appears that a new legal loophole could worsen the situation. The Republic of Cyprus has recently modified its hunting legislation, introducing new penalties that can ultimately lead to the loss of hunting licences. The SBA hunting law has not been modified however, so that any hunters caught trapping in the SBAs do not face the same penalties or risk losing their licence if they reoffend. There seems to be no will to change the SBA law. This loophole needs to be closed urgently as this more lenient regime is incentivising illegal hunting activity within the SBAs.

1.34 The RSPB recommends the development of an integrated joint‐action plan to tackle illegal hunting in the SBAs. This should involve all relevant Cyprus and MOD/SBA authorities, from enforcement to the judiciary, from education authorities to the legislature. The RSPB would also like to explore other less conventional solutions with the MOD to address this problem. These could include cutting down planted acacias (which are used for trapping) to declaring and establishing part of the prime trapping areas as a bird observatory and bird‐ringing station, thereby reducing land available to trapping and aiding information gathering and enforcement.

1.35 The stranding of the MS Oliva in 2011, and before that, of an oil rig at Tristan da Cunha has highlighted the immense risk to the wildlife of the OTs from marine incident. In the case of the Oliva, the Tristan community made an incredible effort to protect their wildlife from harm, and indeed were awarded the RSPB medal in 2012 for their work. However, it was apparent that a lack of local preparedness (in terms of equipment and training) had some negative impact on 39

wildlife. The RSPB believes that the UK government should consider preparedness for marine incidents for all of the OTs, and should provide appropriate resources locally to enable timely responses to any future incidents.

2. How the UK Government is helping the UKOTs adapt to the impact of climate change

Recommendations S. Information should be requested on HMG’s response to the 2011 Foresight report that looked at climate risks in the Overseas Territories. T. An explanation should be requested on what provision is made for climate change adaptation in the ten Territories not covered by DFID.

2.1 Almost all of the Overseas Territories have been identified by the IPCC as amongst the “most vulnerable” and “virtually certain to experience the most severe ecological impacts” of climate change, including biodiversity loss, sea‐level rise, loss of infrastructure, increased extreme weather events, reductions in ecosystem services (such as crucial fisheries) and increased disease exposure.8

2.2 The impacts of climate change on the UK Overseas Territories were not considered in the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA) which was required under the Climate Change Act 2008. However, the UK Government’s 2011 report, Foresight International Dimensions of Climate Change, did provide analysis of the implications of climate change on the OTs, identifying that the UK has “not only moral, political and legal obligations to give support... but also contingent liability for disasters caused by extreme weather events... and economic collapse due to failed ecosystems”.9 The report concluded that “UK Government departments do not act proactively to address adaptation in UK Overseas Territories, leaving them vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, with repercussions on the UK”.

2.3 The economic impacts on the UK are likely to be significant, and the costs associated with adaptation measures are, in many cases, expected to be beyond the scope of these small economies. As the OTs are not eligible for financial support from UN Climate Funds due to their constitutional relationship with the UK, it falls to the UK to ensure both that adequate adaptation occurs and that it is sufficiently financed.

8 See ‘Climate Change 2007 (AR4): Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’, edited by Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson (2007). 9 Foresight International Dimensions of Climate Change (2011). The Government Office for Science, London. http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/foresight/docs/international-dimensions/11-1042-international-dimensions-of-climate- change 40

2.4 DFID has lead responsibility for international climate change adaptation, and did fund an adaptation project for the Caribbean Overseas Territories from 2007‐2010. It is unclear however what, if any, strategic support is currently being offered and whether this is an adequate response to the serious risks. DFID’s recent (June 2012) summary of its work in the OTs makes no mention of climate change.10 DFID’s overall business plan does have a specific target of relevance: “6.2.i Ensure that climate change risks and opportunities are identified and addressed across DFID’s country programmes and other major policy and spending areas through the implementation of Strategic Programme Reviews”,11 and DFID’s operational plan for the Overseas Territories mentions that a “strategic programme review in 2010 assessed the extent to which current OTD investments are at risk from climate change”.12

2.5 This indicates that only the four Territories where DFID currently invests have been covered, with the remaining OTs excluded. Given DFID’s responsibility as lead department for adaptation, the significant contingent liabilities faced, and the apparent lack of an all‐Territory approach, the RSPB recommends asking the UK Government how the ten other Territories are covered. The new Darwin Plus fund can fund climate change projects, but the £2 million per year currently in the fund is far from sufficient to meet the OTs climate and biodiversity priorities. The RSPB recommends investigating the establishment of a separate funding solution for climate change adaptation in the OTs once a review has been undertaken.

3. Whether the recommendations in our 2008 report, Halting Biodiversity Loss, on safeguarding biodiversity and practising joined‐up Government to further conservation have been implemented

Recommendation U. All relevant UK Government Departments should feed into the development of the OTs Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Plan, and responsibility for delivering the various components of its workplan should be clearly assigned to each Department.

3.1 With regard to practising joined‐up government, progress has been made since the 2008 report. In 2009, Defra agreed to take the departmental lead on OTs biodiversity and published the UK Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy in conjunction with the FCO and DFID. This was extremely welcome progress.

3.2 Further progress in achieving joined‐up Government occurred in July 2011, when the National Security Council (NSC) agreed in the context of a new OTs Strategy that “each UK Government

10 Available at: http://www.DFID.gov.uk/Documents/publications1/op/ovseas-terr-dept-2011-summary.pdf 11 The climate change commitments of DFID’s Business Plan are available at: http://transparency.number10.gov.uk/business-plan/12/52 12 DFID Overseas Territories Department Operational Plan 2011 - 2015 is available at: http://www.DFID.gov.uk/Documents/publications1/op/ovseas-terr-dept-2011.pdf 41

Department should recognise its responsibility to engage with the territories in its area of competence and expertise”, and required each Department to publish a paper outlining how it intended to discharge its responsibilities.13

3.3 These changes have created a much clearer structure. However, as outlined in paragraphs 1.15‐ 1.19, the current lack of full‐time OTs‐focused staff within Defra or DFID is an obstacle to joined‐ up action, and other relevant Departments such as DCMS (responsible for natural World Heritage Sites) and MOD (responsible for the Cyprus SBAs) still appear to be on the sidelines. FCO and Defra work constructively and closely together, and the cross‐departmental nature of the Darwin Plus fund is a positive development. However, until the upcoming Implementation Plan for the Biodiversity Strategy is completed, further cohesive and strategic cross‐departmental action cannot take place.

3.4 The other main recommendations of the EAC’s 2008 report concerned funding and information for environmental protection. As outlined above, whilst environmental funding has increased to more than £2m per year in 2012, it is still far short of the amount required. The recommendation to conduct an ecosystem assessment in partnership with each OT to provide the baseline environmental data required has not been delivered. As outlined in paragraphs 1.2‐1.10, an understanding of what species are present in what numbers and where on the OTs remains an urgent prerequisite to both halting biodiversity loss and achieving sustainable development.

4. The extent to which UK Government strategy on the UKOTs embodies the principles of sustainable development and appropriately trades‐off environmental protection, social development and economic growth AND whether UK Government strategy on the UKOTs is consistent with the conclusions and commitments on protecting biodiversity reached at the recent United Nations Rio+20 conference

Recommendations V. The UK Government should ensure that all EU‐funded projects in the Overseas Territories are subject to comprehensive EIA and SEA, and establish a mechanism to enable wider stakeholder involvement and oversight in development spending decisions. W. DECC should introduce a more strategic approach of proactive support to Overseas Territories.

4.1 The RSPB believes that economic growth and social development can be achieved whilst also maintaining and enhancing environmental resources. We encourage the EAC to avoid the assumption that environmental protection needs to be “traded off” to achieve these other goals.

13 The Written Ministerial Statement from the FCO outlining the NSC’s decision is available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110914/wmstext/110914m0001.htm#11091465000 014 42

Indeed, we believe that sustainable development can only be achieved in the presence of a healthy and functioning ecosystem, which provides the services that people rely on for life.

4.2 Many Overseas Territories communities are especially dependent upon the natural environment for their livelihoods, e.g. the Falklands Islands and Tristan da Cunha receive over half of their revenue from their fishing industries. Achieving sustainable development is thus both of vital importance and at the same time a considerable challenge for these small island communities. Water resources are frequently limited, recycling expensive when at such low volumes, electricity is often drawn from diesel‐powered generators, and unique biodiversity may be especially vulnerable due to its extremely limited range and naivety to introduced species. Many OTs lack adequate development planning regimes to help achieve sustainable development. This means major developments can occur without the need for Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) or Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), at the expense of the environment and biodiversity.

4.3 It is not clear that UK Government strategy currently embodies the principles of sustainable development, especially given the limited knowledge of OT biodiversity and the lack of strategic overview on the part of the UK Government as to where environmental governance improvements are needed. At present there is a cross‐government official‐level working group on OTs Biodiversity, which is very welcome, but no group with a wider remit on sustainable development. Proactive input from relevant departments such as DECC appears limited.

4.4 The general development support provided by the European Union to the OTs is highly valued. The RSPB welcomes this support for the Territories, but notes that the funding processes followed by the European Development Fund (EDF) lack transparency. We are concerned that projects funded by the EDF often do not appear to be subject to EIA or SEA. This risks both undermining the natural environments on which Territory economies heavily depend, as well as causing conflict with environmental conservation projects. The UK Government should ensure that, at a minimum, all EDF‐funded projects in the OTs are subject to SEA and EIA, and establish a mechanism whereby wider stakeholder involvement and oversight in development spending decisions is enabled.

4.5 The Rio+20 conclusions reiterated the importance of achieving the Aichi Biodiversity Targets to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2020. Given that the OTs are home to at least 90% of the known threatened biodiversity for which the UK is responsible (and many more OT species are yet to be identified or have their conservation status assessed), the UK will not be able to meet its Rio+20 commitments without the development of a suitably ambitious and sufficiently resourced OTs Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Plan. Once that strategy is developed, Defra will also then need some full‐time staff capacity to oversee its implementation. Given that OTs biodiversity received no mention in Defra’s Business Plan, there is cause for some concern that the scale of the 43

response is not yet consistent with the ambitions declared at the Rio conference. At present further global extinctions in the OTs are considered likely.

4.6 The EAC’s observation in their 2008 report that providing more support to the OTs would be “one of the most important contributions that the Government could make to slowing catastrophic global biodiversity loss” remains true today. As the Committee said: “with leadership, and a relatively small sum of money, the incredible biodiversity found in our overseas territories can be safeguarded into the future”. It is not until the UK works to adequately protect its own biodiversity that it will be able to advocate effectively on an international stage for further action to address the global loss of biodiversity.

4.7 The OTs are heavily reliant on fossil fuel imports to supply their energy. In order to reduce their emissions and improve their long‐term energy security, investments in renewables and energy efficiency are required. DECC has lead responsibility for energy and climate change mitigation policy in the OTs, and in April 2012 published a departmental paper outlining its support to the Territories.14 This document was very light on content, containing only four pages of text. Whilst it is welcome that DECC is now more actively engaged with the OTs and has committed to ‘respond positively to further ad‐hoc requests for knowledge sharing’,15 the introduction by DECC of a more strategic programme of proactive support would be a more appropriate response to the challenge faced.

4.8 As an example of what can be achieved, New Zealand has recently funded a £4.3 million solar project in its Territory of Tokelau, reducing dependence on diesel generation dramatically and making Tokelau the first territory able to meet all its electricity needs with solar power.16

5. How weaknesses in civil society and governance in the UKOTs impact on conservation

Recommendations X. The FCO and DFID should review the state of civil society in the OTs in order to identify and remedy barriers to sustainable growth, and to deliver its White Paper commitment to good government. Y. The UK Government will need to address outstanding environmental governance gaps if it is to fulfil the vision of its White Paper and ‘cherish’ the environments of the OTs. Z. The FCO must use its Governors to advocate for strengthened environmental governance and the passage of long‐stalled environmental legislation.

14 Available at: http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/11/tackling-climate-change/international-climate-change/5028- decc-support-for-the-overseas-territories.pdf 15 Ibid. 16 See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20233754. 44

AA. The FCO must introduce clear safeguards to OT Governors’ roles in environmental decision‐making to reduce personal latitude and improve transparency and accountability. BB. The UK Government must work to swiftly complete terrestrial and marine protected area networks in all the uninhabited Territories and establish appropriate development controls where needed. We also encourage the UK Government to work with the governments of the inhabited Territories to encourage improvements in these areas. CC. The UK Government should extend its ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity to all of the uninhabited Territories.

5.1 An active civil society can play a fundamental role in conserving biodiversity, through supporting governments in environmental policy development, undertaking monitoring, delivering on‐the‐ground action, and through their ability to hold decision‐makers to account. Whilst several of the Territories are too small to ever sustain NGOs, others are of sufficient population size and wealth yet still lack much in the way of local civil society organisations.

5.2 Where they do exist, many Territory‐based NGOs rely to a significant extent on funding from Territory governments, so are also not able to respond objectively when consulted on issues such as development proposals because they fear budget cuts if they raise concerns. Staff at these small organisations may also not have the skills and/or sufficient time to engage effectively in policy or planning processes. Limited OT civil society capacity and high staff turnover is a key issue, and this is exacerbated by the existing project‐based funding streams for the Territories which make it difficult to develop organisations over the long term.

5.3 The RSPB considers that the FCO, through its Governors, should focus on creating an enabling environment and ensuring that technical support is available to NGOs, parastatial organisations such as National Park Trusts, as well as Territorial Governments. Governors also need to ensure that local organisations are consulted early and often on any development proposals, bearing in mind their limited capacity.

5.4 It is clear that the FCO and Governors have the ability to support the involvement of civil society in environmental decision‐making and to promote good governance. However, in some Territories, legislation gives Governors the ability to make decisions, e.g. on development control, with no right of appeal and sometimes no local consultation. This is apposite to good and transparent governance and such legislation should be amended to avoid Governors having this sort of authority.

5.5 DFID has particular experience in nurturing civil society, and should work on strengthening civil society in all the Territories. Opportunities for civil society to deliver services, such as the management of National Parks, should also be explored at a strategic level.

5.6 To get an overview of what is needed, the FCO and DFID should review the state of civil society involvement in decision‐making in the OTs in order to identify and remedy barriers to sustainable growth. This would also be a means of helping deliver the UK Government’s White Paper ambition to ensure good governance in the OTs.

5.7 UK‐based NGOs can provide significant resources to OT biodiversity conservation but must always work closely with local OT partners to achieve effective and sustainable outcomes. As well as delivering on‐the‐ground conservation projects, the RSPB has a focus on developing local NGO partners and building local conservation capacity. To do this, the RSPB shares its organisational development expertise, as well as providing direct technical and financial support to 13 OT conservation bodies.

5.8 In some of the OTs which are too small to sustain a local NGO, the RSPB supports local Governments directly (e.g. by funding staff salaries in the Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha Conservation Departments). Our focus is to build capacity and strengthen links between the OTs as well as between the OTs and the UK. The RSPB aims to share all data collected in any OT with both Government and non‐governmental partners from that OT. Data‐sharing, consultation, partnership‐working and respect for local environmental priorities are key to effective UK civil society support.

5.9 Good environmental governance is a fundamental requirement for effective conservation. The UK Government’s recent White Paper states that “Those Territories which choose to remain British should abide by the same basic standards of good government as in the UK”.17 The standard of environmental governance in the Territories is currently deeply variable. Many OTs have only basic or incomplete legislative and policy frameworks in place to protect and conserve their threatened biodiversity, and often lack the technical capacity to improve the situation due to their small size.

5.10 The greatest immediate environmental threat in many of the Caribbean OTs is the lack of appropriate development control regimes. There are no EIA or SEA requirements in Anguilla and Cayman so unrestricted development can destroy valuable habitats such as primary forest and mangroves. Transparent planning and development processes are also often lacking, which reduces the ability to obtain stakeholder involvement and increases the chances of corrupt practices or inappropriate developments being granted planning permission.

5.11 Several OTs still do not have networks of protected areas in place for their important terrestrial sites, whilst the marine environments of nearly all the OTs remain largely unprotected. This includes the uninhabited OTs where HMG has direct responsibility.

17 The 2012 Overseas Territories White Paper, ‘Security, Success & Sustainability’, is available at: http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/publications/overseas-territories-white-paper-0612/ot-wp-0612 46

5.12 Many OTs have limited capacity to strengthen their environmental frameworks, whilst in some OTs efforts to improve governance have been stalled due to lack of political will. For example, the Cayman Islands draft National Conservation Bill (2007), Anguilla’s Physical Planning Bill (2001) and Montserrat’s Conservation and Environmental Management Bill (2008) have not yet been passed into law.

5.13 The UK Government recognises its responsibility to help the OTs protect their environments, but has made no overall assessment of the presence and adequacy of current environmental policy and legislation. Given the UK Government’s new strategic priority to strengthen good government, this is urgently needed.

5.14 The RSPB has therefore commissioned the independent Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development (FIELD) to assess the OTs’ biodiversity and development control frameworks in order to inform both OT Government activity and UK Government support. The report should be complete by the end of 2012, and the RSPB will submit it to the EAC as soon as it is completed. The UK Government will need to assist the OTs in addressing environmental governance gaps if it is to fulfil the vision of its White Paper and ‘cherish’ the environments of the OTs. It is anticipated that the FCO will need to provide increased legislative drafting capacity and use its Governors to advocate for strengthened environmental governance, whilst detailed technical support from and/or secondments of Defra’s policy experts will also be needed.

5.15 The Environment Charters are a positive aspect of the environmental frameworks of the OTs. These short documents set out a set of top‐level principles and environmental commitments shared between HMG and the OT governments. However, in 2012, the sense of local ownership of the Charters in many Territories appears weak, and their extremely broad scope makes them difficult to implement given limited capacity. Their effectiveness is also limited by the fact that there is little to ensure compliance (on either side).

5.16 The UK is yet to extend its ratification of the CBD to any of the uninhabited Territories (although it has been extended to four inhabited Territories). Given the scale of its ambition in this area, this is something that should be completed as soon as possible.

6. How the introduction of ‘Marine Protected Areas’ could safeguard the marine environment in the uninhabited Territories

Recommendations DD.The detailed environmental legislation and regulations required to fully establish the no‐take MPA in the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) should be developed and passed. EE. The RSPB urges that the current South Georgia MPA is strengthened by introducing a clear prohibition on hydrocarbon and mineral extraction within the entire Exclusive Economic Zone 47

(EEZ) of the Territory. A comprehensive ‘no‐take’ closed area should also be established around the entire South Sandwich Islands portion of the EEZ. FF. In the build up to the July 2013 CCAMLR MPA meeting, the UK government should seek to expand its BAT MPA proposals using the scientific data available. GG. The UK Government should facilitate a process of strengthening the environmental management of the new fishery at Ascension Island and identifying and protecting the areas of highest biodiversity value in Ascension’s waters. HH. The UK Government must build on the outcomes of the 2012 mainstreaming review by supporting the identification and designation of a science‐based MPA network in Falkland waters before this is pre‐empted by the expansion of its rapidly growing oil industry.

6.1 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) can play a very important role in safeguarding areas of important marine biodiversity, and the Aichi targets include a commitment to have 10% of coastal and marine areas under protected area management by 2020. As categorised by the IUCN, a diverse range of MPAs can be introduced, ranging from highly protected areas which prohibit all extractive activities, to those where some natural resource use compatible with nature conservation is seen as a principle management aim.18 The RSPB strongly recommends the use of a science‐based approach to MPA designation which takes into account both biodiversity importance and conservation threat, and supports the use of the full range of protection categories as most appropriate on a case‐by‐case basis.

6.2 The BIOT is home to the world’s largest coral atoll and one of the healthiest reef systems on the planet, and so is of international significance for its marine biodiversity. In April 2010, the UK Government declared the entire Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of this Territory a ‘no‐take’ Marine Protected Area and stopped issuing commercial fishing licences there. To date, this remains the largest no‐take MPA in the world. The RSPB supports the declaration of this MPA as it was declared ‘without prejudice’ to the ongoing legal process of the displaced Chagossian people. However that whilst the EEZ has been declared to be a MPA, and commercial fishing licences are no longer issued, the administration of the BIOT Government has still not passed the promised legislation to prohibit extractive activities such as commercial fishing or marine mining. At present, the MPA therefore appears to remain, in legal terms, little more than a name. The RSPB therefore recommends that the detailed environmental legislation and regulations required to protect BIOT’s seas and fully establish the MPA are developed and passed.

6.3 The uninhabited Territory of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (SGSSI) holds exceptional marine biodiversity, supporting albatross, penguin, seal and whale populations of global significance. The SGSSI Government allows licensed commercial fishing within the EEZ, and depends heavily on the income this generates. This fishing is conducted within a robust quota and licensing system which the RSPB uses as a case study of excellent management, and there is good enforcement capacity to detect IUU (Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported) fishing.

18 See pages 9-10 of IUCN guidelines: https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_categoriesmpa_eng.pdf 48

6.4 The RSPB welcomed the February 2012 declaration of a large sustainable‐use MPA and ban on bottom‐trawling in SGSSI’s EEZ, as well as the declaration of no‐take protection in the inshore zones around the islands, as a positive first step in strengthening the conservation of this important area. Given the relatively pristine nature of SGSSI’s EEZ, and the potential catastrophic impact that a marine accident could have in this extremely remote and inhospitable environment, the RSPB also urges that the current provisions are strengthened by introducing a clear prohibition on hydrocarbon and mineral extraction within the entire EEZ.

6.5 A consultation on additional spatial and temporal closed areas within the overall MPA was conducted by the SGSSI Government in October 2012. This is an excellent opportunity to markedly enhance the Territory’s marine protection. Protected area designation should take a precautionary approach, based on scientific analysis of areas of significant importance to vulnerable species. With specific regard to SGSSI, the marine environment of the South Sandwich Islands (SSI) is one of the most pristine remaining in the Southern Ocean. Designating a no‐take zone in the entire SSI section of the EEZ would protect marine biodiversity of international significance, provide a major contribution to the Aichi MPA target, and have minimal impact on the SGSSI fishing industry (which is concentrated in South Georgia waters). As a high priority, the RSPB therefore urges that a comprehensive ‘no‐take’ closed area be established, including the entire SSI EEZ.

6.6 In 2009, the UK proposal for the world’s first high‐seas no‐take MPA, located south of the South Orkney Islands, was agreed through CCAMLR. Building on this welcome progress, the UK Government has since proposed to enhance protection in areas exposed by collapsed ice sheets around the Antarctic Peninsular, though the October 2012 meeting of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) failed to agree to this or any other MPA proposals. However, we also note that at the moment the UK’s MPA proposal does not cover any offshore areas, or protect foraging ranges of key species such as penguins in the area. BirdLife International has identified marine Important Bird Areas (mIBAs) around the British Antarctic Territory (BAT) based on information on foraging areas for pelagic seabirds, and we recommend that in the build up to the July 2013 CCAMLR MPA meeting the UK government seeks to expand its BAT MPA proposals with this scientific data.

6.7 Ascension Island has no indigenous or permanent population (its inhabitants have no right of abode). Its marine environment is of great significance, with the island home to the second most important green turtle breeding site in the Atlantic. Since 2010, the Ascension Island Government has issued over 125 commercial long‐line fishing licences for tuna and tuna‐like species to vessels flagged in Taiwan, Korea, China, Philippines and Japan. Ascension has no MPAs at present and no stock assessments have yet been carried out. There is documented evidence that non‐target species such as the critically endangered leatherback turtle are being caught by fisheries close to the Ascension EEZ, so it is possible that bycatch may be an issue in this fishery. The RSPB has 49

already offered its assistance to the Ascension Island Government to work together to ensure this new fishery is sustainable, and recommends that the UK Government facilitates a process of strengthening sustainable fishery management and identifying and protecting the areas of highest biodiversity value in Ascension’s waters.

30 November 2012 50

Written evidence submitted by the Government of Tristan da Cunha Conservation Department

Introduction

(i) Tristan Conservation Department (TCD) welcomes the Environmental Audit Committee’s Inquiry on this important issue.

(ii) The Tristan da Cunha Islands, because of their isolation, represent some of the least disturbed temperate island systems in the world. Not only do they support the most remote human community they are also home to many endemic plant and animal species.

(iii) Although 44% of the land area of the islands is designated as nature reserves, with Gough and Inaccessible Islands inscribed as World Heritage Sites, knowledge of the diversity of species they contain and of the threats they face remains inadequate.

(iv) The new Tristan Conservation Department was only formed in 2009 and has a staff of four, Conservation Officer, Clerk and two Assistants. The Department has full responsibility for conservation management in the Tristan islands where there are 11 Globally Threatened bird species as well as unknown numbers of threatened plants, invertebrates and marine organisms. The workload for these four staff is very high.

Summary

• Environmental capacity is limited to address biosecurity policy and implementation

• Access to expertise inside the DEFRA family should be given to OTs at lower cost

• Lack of knowledge on the marine environment is a limitation to designating science‐based MPAs

Specific Issues Identified by the Committee

1. How the UK Government is fulfilling its responsibilities to protect biodiversity in the UKOTs.

1.1 The threat to biodiversity on Tristan da Cunha from introduced invasive species is significant. On Gough Island breeding success of the Critically Endangered Tristan Albatross averages 32% due to predation from the introduced house mice; at Nightingale mussels introduced by the grounding of the MS Oliva in 2011, potentially threaten the Tristan Rock lobster fishery on which the economy of the islands depend.

Recommendation: 51

A. Technical expertise from Defra to support strengthening biosecurity policy and implementation, and funding for quarantine facilities are urgently needed.

Wanless et al. 2009. From both sides: Dire demographic consequences of carnivorous mice and longlining for the Critically Endangered Tristan albatrosses on Gough Island. Biological Conservation 142 (2009) 1710‐1718.

1.2 With only 262 residents, the small population size of Tristan da Cunha means that there is limited potential to develop local expertise in every aspect of the natural environment.

Recommendation:

B. To enable implementation of a biodiversity research programme, access to the world‐class skills of the UK's government‐funded institutions should be made available without the requirement for full cost‐recovery; work in the OTs should be considered core work and there should be an internal budget at all government‐funded institutions for this work. Full cost‐recovery (including overhead) requirements currently limit the involvement of many UK institutions in projects, to the detriment of both OTs, and the UK.

1.3 The Tristan da Cunha archipelago is extremely isolated with a unique marine ecosystem characterised by few species but a large proportion of endemics. Some studies of the shallow water marine life have been carried out but knowledge of the deeper water marine environment and its biodiversity is very limited. Tristan’s territorial waters cover a vast area, and at present there are no MPAs. IUU fishing is a threat to the marine environment but although there is a fisheries patrol vessel, its range is limited. The lack of knowledge of the marine environment is a fundamental limitation to designating science‐based MPAs.

Recommendation:

C. A significant input of resources is required to fill this knowledge gap on the marine biodiversity. However, limited expertise in the marine environment and the expense of carrying out research in deeper waters is beyond the resources of Tristan itself.

30 November 2012

Written evidence submitted by the South Georgia Heritage Trust

Summary

• The South Georgia Heritage Trust, a charity registered in Scotland, is engaged in a project to eradicate rodents from the South Atlantic island, and UK Overseas Territory, of South Georgia. Rodents (mainly rats, but also mice), inadvertently introduced by sealing and whaling ships in the 19th and 20th centuries, do enormous damage to South Georgia’s spectacular seabird populations. • The first phase of the project, using helicopters to spread poisoned bait, was carried out in March 2011. All the signs are that this was a complete success. • The second stage of fieldwork will be carried out from February to May 2013. • This is the largest such eradication project ever to have been undertaken anywhere in the world. • The objective is to complete the project by eradicating every rodent on South Georgia by the end of 2015. • The project is being funded entirely from voluntary donations, mainly from foundations and individuals. Just over £3.7 million of the £7.5 million required to complete the project has been raised so far. • This is the first such project of any significance to be run by an NGO rather than by government. • SGHT has also funded two research projects addressing issues related to the establishment of marine protected areas around South Georgia.

Introduction

1. The South Georgia Heritage Trust (SGHT) was established in 2005 as a charity registered in Scotland (Scottish Registered Charity Number SC036819). Its purpose is to preserve and protect the natural environment and historical heritage of the South Atlantic island of South Georgia, a UK Overseas Territory. More details about the Trust’s background and activities can be found on its website at www.sght.org .

2. In connection with the Environmental Audit Committee’s current inquiry into sustainability in the Overseas Territories, the Committee may be interested to hear about SGHT’s Habitat Restoration Project, the objective of which is the complete eradication of rats and mice, both of which are invasive species, from South Georgia. A description of the project follows below.

The Problem

3. Introduced inadvertently from sealing and whaling ships in the 19th and 20th centuries, rodents have thrived and done enormous damage to the island’s bird population. The spread of rats on South Georgia continues today, their progress only limited by the sea and large areas of permanent ice, especially glaciers. Scientists have now demonstrated that as a result of global climate change glaciers on South Georgia are in rapid retreat, so areas of the island once protected from rats now risk being over-run unless urgent action is taken.

Project Objectives

4. The project objectives are:

• to remove every rodent from 1,000 square kilometres (386 square miles) of infested land on South Georgia by 2015, thereby safeguarding seabirds from future attack and, in some cases, extinction • to facilitate the return of millions of seabirds to their traditional nesting sites and thereby increase the breeding range and population size of many seabirds • to complete the operation without any long term detriment to native wildlife.

Our vision is to return South Georgia as far as possible to the pristine state in which Captain Cook found it when he discovered the island in 1775.

Project Activities and Methodology

5. The key factor that makes eradication feasible on South Georgia is that the island’s rat population is divided into a number of discrete sub-populations, each separated by currently impassable ice barriers. The methodology employed is firmly based on successful eradication work employed elsewhere, but modified to reflect the unique circumstances of this island and this operation. An expert team, using helicopters, spread cereal-based bait at low densities over all areas harbouring rodents. The active ingredient in the pellets is brodifacoum, a second-generation anticoagulant, with 25 parts per million of toxin in each pellet. The helicopters are 54

equipped with a global positioning (GPS) and tracking system to enable the pilots to maintain flight lines with a high degree of accuracy and achieve the desired even bait coverage.

6. The project requires at least three seasons of baiting activity. The first took place in March/April 2011, and we shall be returning to South Georgia for the next season of fieldwork in February – May 2013.

Expected Results and Their Impact

7. The size of the area to be cleared on South Georgia makes this a project of global significance, and it has excited a great deal of interest in international environmental circles. Once completed, the Habitat Restoration Project will transform the wildlife and natural ecology of this stunning island, sweeping away two centuries of damage caused by human intervention.

8. Our objective is that South Georgia will be free of rodents by the end of 2015. The benefits will be spectacular. In the longer term the wildlife and natural ecology of the island will be transformed with the subsequent return of well over 100 million seabirds to their traditional nesting sites, making South Georgia the greatest concentration of seabirds in the world.

Success of Phase 1

9. The fieldwork for the trial Phase 1 of the Habitat Restoration Project was successfully completed in March 2011 – in 28 days, half the allocated time and under our projected budget. Although this first phase of the project involved only 12% of the rat-infested land area of South Georgia, the 12,800 hectares treated already makes this the largest rodent eradication operation ever attempted anywhere in the world. All the evidence so far indicates that this part of South Georgia is now rat free for the first time in two centuries. Just weeks after Phase 1 baiting was completed, a brood of South Georgia pintail ducklings appeared at King Edward Point with their mother, the first to have been seen in the area for many years and the first in perhaps two centuries to have a good chance of survival.

10. Continuous opportunistic monitoring on the Thatcher Peninsula, and dedicated surveys of the Greene Peninsula carried out by the Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, have not revealed any sign of rodents. We are now 18 months from the completion of the Phase 1 baiting work, so we are confident that the methodology used in 2011 was broadly appropriate, and that the bait was overwhelmingly effective. This knowledge is very helpful in 55

planning for Phase 2, because it is already apparent that we need not change anything dramatically from what was done last year.

Phase 2 Plans

11. Preparations to clear rodents from the rest of the island, starting in February 2013, are well underway. All members of the field team have been recruited, the British Antarctic Survey’s RRS Ernest Shackleton has been chartered, and equipment and non- perishable supplies have been sourced. All 183 tonnes of bait has been manufactured and packed. The helicopters have been made airworthy and are being transported to South Georgia via the Falkland Islands.

Monitoring and Dissemination

12. There will be a clearly defined monitoring programme with three key components: (a) monitoring for the presence of rat sign following baiting operations (b) monitoring of effects of bait spreading on non-target species (c) monitoring the expected recovery of rat vulnerable wildlife populations.

13. Lessons learned from this project will be of special interest to other invasive species eradication projects across the world. Media interest in this project and its results is strong, providing public outreach on an international scale.

Secured Funding

14. As of today, SGHT has raised over £3.7 million, nearly 50% of the overall fundraising goal of £7.5 million (Phases 1 and 2 combined), all of it from voluntary donations to the Trust. Current funders of this project include: the Island Foundation, Garfield Weston Foundation, UK Government (DEFRA), Schroder Foundation, Binks Trust, Rufford Foundation, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Dr Frederik Paulsen Foundation, Bell Laboratories, Lyda Hill, Forest Mars Jr., Farallan Island Foundation, Ernest Kleinwort Charitable Trust, the Salvesen Family, Healthy Planet, Bess Jahres Foundation, Gosling Foundation, Kingfisher Plc, Planeterra, and many individual visitors to South Georgia and other individual supporters. The Trust is heavily engaged in efforts to raise the remaining funds required to complete the project (nearly £4 million), a challenging prospect at any time but especially so in the current economic climate.

15. This is not only the largest rodent eradication project ever to be undertaken, it is also as far as we are aware the first to be undertaken by an NGO, and one which is moreover totally dependent 56

on voluntary donations, rather than by government. (The RSPB has subsequently undertaken a project to eradicate rats from Henderson Island, which is part of the Pitcairn group in the Pacific Ocean and is also a UK Overseas Territory.)

Other projects

16. In addition to the Habitat Restoration Project, SGHT has also funded two projects related to one of the other areas of interest to the Environmental Audit Committee, marine protected areas. The first project, now completed, addressed the biodiversity of the benthic floor of the Southern Ocean. This study created 14,000 unique records representing 1,027 species of seabed life around South Georgia. The second of these projects involves research by British Antarctic Survey and Cambridge University in support of the development of marine protected areas around South Georgia, the purpose of which is to identify areas that are high in biodiversity and the focus of feeding activity by higher predators, such as albatrosses, and therefore worthy of protection.

30 November 2012.

Written evidence submitted by Environmental Management Directorate, St Helena Government.

1. Executive summary: Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) has developed a more‐coordinated approach to environmental management in the United Kingdom’s Overseas Territories (UKOTs) since 2008 with (Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) playing a more prominent role. The cross‐Whitehall approach appears to be extending to other HMG departments.

One size does not fit all in the UKOTs as although there are similarities, there are a number of differences in scale, location, isolation, population etc. that have significant impacts on conservation on each UKOT.

St Helena welcomes and has benefitted from UK government funding and technical support and this has made a significant difference for nature conservation and environmental management in general on the island.

St Helena is host to some of the largest number of endemics (relative to UK and relative to some of the other OTs) and has one of the smallest populations. This inevitably means that the island cannot manage and address all of the threats to biodiversity with existing human and financial constraints.

Because of the scale of St Helena (and UKOTs) there is likely to be a continued requirement for financial and technical support. The short term nature of project funding is not always the most cost‐ effective or sustainable way of supporting. A longer‐term programme approach to support might be a potential alternative.

There are a number of recommendations in this submission that are relatively minor changes that would enhance existing activities and opportunities.

2. Brief introduction into the submitter

Tara Pelembe has a background in environment and nature conservation. She is currently on loan to the St Helena Government for two years from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) to set up an environmental management directorate and mainstream environment on island. 58

This submission highlights the areas that the inquiry will examine in bold and provides a response underneath each area.

3. The extent to which UK Government strategy on the UKOTs embodies the principles of sustainable development and appropriately trades‐off environmental protection, social development and economic growth; The UK Government White Paper 2012 appears to embody the principles of sustainable development with explicit focus on economy, society and the environment – the three pillars of sustainable development. How, and if, this translates into reality and actual support in each of the territories will become clearer over time.

On St Helena

• The Department for International Development (DFID) has committed £250 million to the construction of an airport to stimulate economic growth. This is linked to funding to support economic development while the airport is being built.

• A new Environmental Management Directorate1 has been created to take forward mainstreaming of the environment across the island.

• The Sustainable Development Plan2 has 3 National Goals – one focussing on economic growth, the other on social development and a third on environmental management.

Recommendation: Regular (c. 2 yearly) reports on progress (against agreed indictors) of sustainable development in the UKOTs might be a good tool for picking up on whether UK and OT governments are delivering and whether trade‐offs are appropriate.

Recommendation: In 1999 when the White Paper – Partnership and Prosperity was produced, to ensure the environment was given appropriate profile within UK and OT governments, the Environment Charters were produced. These had commitments for both the UK and OT Governments against which progress could be monitored. There are differences of opinions on how effective the Environment Charters were but they did provide a basis for securing support and resources and also covered the wider environmental management, which appears to have a lower profile than conservation, biodiversity protection and climate change. It is therefore recommended that a charter or something similar is developed between UK and OT governments outlining in more detail the nature of agreed environmental commitments.

4. How the UK Government is fulfilling its responsibilities to protect biodiversity in the UKOTs; The UK Government has recently (April 2008) created an Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy 3. This strategy provides a framework for cross Whitehall input into biodiversity in the UKOTs, and establishes a mechanism for implementing this.

1 http://www.sainthelena.gov.sh/pages/environment.html

2 http://www.sainthelena.gov.sh/resources.php/760/sustainable‐development‐plan‐201213‐201415

3 http://www.DEFRA.gov.uk/publications/2011/05/26/pb13335‐uk‐ot‐strategy/ 59

From an EMD perspective the main manifestations of this are

• Funding: the creation of the new Darwin plus which combines all previous HMG funding sources for OT biodiversity conservation.

• Support: In particular the ability to write to HMG officers for advice and support around a range of areas, the invertebrate identification service that FERA (the Food and Environment Research Agency) provides, the technical and advisory support provided by Royal Botanical Gardens Kew and JNCC.

Recommendation: Links into Multilateral environmental agreement processes need to be specifically tailored to UKOT situation and capacity, with adequate interpretation and time being given if meaningful input is required.

Recommendation: Increased and improved access to a wider range of support for a range of environmental areas, that is available within relatively short spaces of time. Currently this is delivered for St Helena via a call‐down contract.

5. How the UK Government is helping the UKOTs adapt to the impact of climate change; The UK Meteorological Office has a memorandum of Understanding with the St Helena Government to fund the running of a recording station on the island and provide technical training, information and support. The data generated can provide the foundation for our work around climate change.

JNCC has produced a suite of materials on climate change in the UKOTs4. These provide a good foundation for climate change adaptation and mitigation policy.

On St Helena

• There is a target to develop a climate change (adaptation and mitigation) policy in the next year. In the development of the policy, we are likely to look to UK government to tap into expertise and advice on the policy development.

Recommendation: Although there has been support to some general work on climate change in the UKOTs and to specific developments of climate change strategies in the Caribbean, St Helena has not really benefitted from these. St Helena still requires a comprehensive study to determine what predicted climate change impacts will be, so that we can incorporate recommended adaptation and mitigation measures into policy and planning.

6. Whether the recommendations in our 2008 Report, Halting biodiversity loss, on safeguarding biodiversity and practising joined‐up government to further conservation have been implemented; This section outlines each recommendation of the report in italic. Underneath each recommendation is a statement on progress of implementation from an EMD perspective.

The Government has a clear moral and legal duty to help protect the biodiversity of the UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, where it is the eleventh hour for many species. We are

4 http://jncc.DEFRA.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=5283 60

extremely concerned that recommendations that we have made in the past that would have helped to protect the environment of the Overseas Territories have been ignored. The Government must: adopt a truly joined‐up approach to environmental protection the UKOTs and Crown Dependencies, by bringing together all relevant departments including the FCO, MoJ, DfID, DEFRA, DCMS and MoD with the governments of the UKOTs.

The Overseas Territories Biodiversity Group has been created to provide the linkages suggested in the recommendation. The UK Overseas Territories Association provides the OT representation on the group. make better use of the Inter‐Departmental Group on biodiversity

Not sure of the status of this group to provide more oversight and support for the development and implementation of effective environmental protection policy in the UKOTs, and expand the Group to include other relevant departments;

On St Helena JNCC have supported the creation of an environmental management Directorate and associated policy and legislation through secondment of a staff member and funding for data management and research.

JNCC and the St Helena Government (SHG) Environmental Management Directorate (EMD) also partner on a Darwin funded marine mapping project.

DFID have supported this through their Technical Cooperation budget to St Helena providing funding for the following roles:

• Director of environmental management

• Environment Risk Advisor/Trainer

• Terrestrial Conservation Advisor/Trainer

• ‘Call‐down’ support for specialist technical advice

What about JNCC/ DEFRA funding support for training courses and small projects. have DEFRA assume joint responsibility for the UKOTs, and reflect this in future spending settlements;

DEFRA lead on the UK Overseas Territories Biodiversity group (OTBG), and lead on the recently created ‘Darwin Plus’ project funding which provides a cross Whitehall (DEFRA, DFID, FCO) combined approach to funding biodiversity and environment projects in the UK Overseas Territories. address the dire lack of funds and information for environmental protection in the UKOTs.

Darwin funding, and OTEP funding – now replaced by the new Darwin Plus fund, provide external (HMG) streams of funding for biodiversity and environmental work on St Helena. Projects that have been funded by HMG since 2008 are outlined in Annex 1. There is also an important environmental component to the Airport. 61

An ecosystem assessment should be conducted in partnership with each UKOT in order to provide the baseline environmental data required and to outline the effective response options needed to halt biodiversity loss.

An ecosystem assessment has not been carried out on St Helena, however there have been a number of funded baseline data projects including a comprehensive plant survey, and the current (Darwin funded) marine mapping project.

With leadership, and a relatively small sum of money, the incredible biodiversity found in our overseas territories can be safeguarded into the future. One of the most important contributions that the Government could make to slowing the catastrophic global biodiversity loss currently occurring would be to accept its responsibilities and to provide more support for the UK Overseas Territories in this area.

Recommendation: Biodiversity protection is/has to be a collaboration between the UKOT and UK governments. Funding is an important and vital component of this collaboration as are other areas of technical and advisory support. OT governments, like any government has competing priorities, and limited human and financial resources. Constraints often mean that all of the activities required to halt biodiversity loss are not able to be implemented. The short term nature of project and application driven funding does not enable long‐term and sustainable planning and implementation. It is recommended that a long‐term, programme approach to funding is considered as an alternative.

Recommendation: OTBG needs to have a clear process for ensuring that ‘on the ground’ OT issues are a key part of discussions.

Recommendation: Whitehall departments that have committed to inputting into OT environment should have a named lead officer with that responsibility explicitly built into their job profile. These should then be communicated to Overseas Territories governments and Non‐Governmental Organisations (NGOs).

7. Whether UK Government strategy on the UKOTs is consistent with the conclusions and commitments on protecting biodiversity reached at the recent United Nations Rio+20 conference; • No comment on this section.

8. How weaknesses in civil society and governance in the UKOTs impact on conservation; and • Civil Society on St Helena makes a significant positive impact and contribution to conservation and environment in general.

• The St Helena National Trust (SHNT) works on a number of projects (outlined above) and contributes to raising awareness and inputting into and questioning government decisions on the environment. The SHNT is however dependent on project funding and its strength as an institution can change as and when project cycles start and finish. One of their internationally recognised long‐term success stories is the Millennium Forest – an endemic plant restoration project. 62

• St Helena Active Participation in Enterprise (SHAPE) is a social enterprise that provides employment for St Helena’s vulnerable and disabled. There is a focus on ‘green’ activities and SHAPE has become the islands first paper recycler, they also use wool, recycle clothes to paper etc.

• St Helena Nature Conservation Group (SNCG) ‐ Is a voluntary organisation that undertakes conservation and awareness raising activities focussed primarily on the terrestrial environment

• Other NGO and Civil Society organisations on the island undertake conservation work periodically – these include New Horizons (the islands youth organisation) uniformed organisations like Scouts and Guides, Church and religious groups, etc.

• In addition to providing annual funding for some NGO’s St Helena Government has recently created a community grants scheme for all civil society groups.

• Private Sector: A number of private sector businesses are moving towards a ‘green’ and social consciousness. ‘Green guidelines for businesses’ are being developed and a matching accreditation system will be introduced.

• Governance: St Helena is going through a public sector modernisation process, and there are anticipated changes in structure, ways of working etc. The key is to the provision of long term continuity in approach to ensure long term sustainability and support for conservation and the environment. Currently this comes through

• Sustainable Development Plan5: Effective management of the environment is one of St Helena’s 3 National Goals

• Sustainable Economic Development plan6: The core focus of economic development is tourism and the drive is to develop a ‘green brand’ for St Helena

• National Environmental Management Plan7: Outlines a blueprint for environmental management for the next 10 years.

• Land Development Control Plan8: Embeds Environmental Impact Assessment requirements into planning and outlines boundaries for National Conservation Areas.

5 http://www.sainthelena.gov.sh/resources.php/760/sustainable‐development‐plan‐201213‐201415

6 http://www.sainthelena.gov.sh/resources.php/761/sustainable‐economic‐development‐plan‐201213‐202122

7http://www.sainthelena.gov.sh/data/files/st._helena_national_environmental_management_plan_2012_202 2_final_070912.pdf

8 http://www.sainthelena.gov.sh/resources.php/770/land‐development‐control‐plan‐2012‐2022‐adopted‐ revised‐plan 63

9. How the introduction of ‘Marine Protected Areas’ could safeguard the marine environment in the uninhabited territories. This is not directly relevant to St Helena. However on St Helena we are in the process of undertaking preparatory work to be able to provide an evidence‐base for the proposed designation of inshore Marine Protected Areas. This work is being funded through a Darwin Project (DEFRA).

10. General conclusion HMG has developed a more‐coordinated approach to environmental management in the UKOTs since 2008 with DEFRA playing a more prominent role. The cross‐Whitehall approach appears to be extending to other HMG departments.

St Helena has benefits from UK government funding and technical support and this has made a significant difference for nature conservation and environmental management in general on the island.

There are a number of recommendations in this submission that are relatively minor changes that would enhance existing activities and opportunities. 64

Annex 1: HMG funded projects on St Helena since 2008:

This section outlines the project title and the lead partner organisations.

2008

Overseas Territories Environment Programme (OTEP) STH501: Supporting Critical Species Recovery and Horticultural Needs on St Helena – Agriculture and Natural Resources Directorate (ANRD)

OTEP STH502: Heart Shaped Waterfall ‐ public access and amenities, St Helena– St Helena National Trust (SHNT)

Department for International Development (DFID): Mitigation for the impacts on the Wirebird population on St Helena (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds ‐ RSPB, ANRD and SHNT).

2009

OTEP STH601: Illustrated field guides to the flora of St Helena – St Helena Nature Conservation Group (SNCG)

2010

Flagship Species Fund (FSF): St Helena Gumwood Project SHNT

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC): Pheasant Tail Fern control Programme

JNCC: Bastard Gumwood Recovery Project –

Darwin Scoping: Laying the foundation for invertebrate conservation on St Helena – Buglife, SHNT,

Darwin: Increasing local capacity to conserve St Helena’s threatened native biodiversity ‐ SHNT

2011

OTEP STH 801: Creating a mechanised recycling facility at SHAPE‐ St Helena's Active Participation in Enterprise ‐ SHAPE

OTEP STH 803: Restoration of a functioning Bastard Gumwood population on St Helena– ANRD

OTEP STH 805: Securing the endemic Wirebird population through invasive predator control – SHNT

JNCC: Marine diploma: JNCC has supported 1 person to attend a Marine Biology Diploma course from June 2011 to January 2012 ‐ ANRD JNCC: Bastard Gumwood Recovery Project –

2012

Darwin: Mapping St Helena’s marine biodiversity to create a Marine Management Plan – JNCC, EMD.

Darwin: Laying the foundations for invertebrate conservation on St Helena‐ Buglife, SHNT, EMD.

JNCC: JNCC has supported 1 staff member to undertake a NEBOSH Environmental Diploma course ‐ EMD

JNCC: development of a co ‐ordinated spatial data management system, St Helena

JNCC: Seabird monitoring training: JNCC has supported 2 staff to attend seabird monitoring and ringing training on Ascension Island ‐ EMD

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO): Interpretation Centre for Diana’s Peak National Park.

30 November 2012 66

Written evidence submitted by Marine Reserves Coalition

This submission is supported by the following Marine Reserves Coalition members: • BLUE Marine Foundation • ClientEarth • Greenpeace UK • Marine Conservation Society • Zoological Society of London

Executive summary

• The most significant recent initiative concerning the conservation of biodiversity in the UK Overseas Territories was the designation of the Chagos Marine Reserve in April 2010. • Marine reserves are the most strictly protected type of marine protected area (MPA), in which all extractive and potentially damaging activities are prohibited. Marine reserves are now widely recognised as an effective and important tool in global marine conservation efforts. • Well managed marine reserves should be integrated into marine planning in all of the UKOTs, to ensure the protection of biodiversity and sustainable management of marine resources throughout the entirety of seas under UK jurisdiction. • It is widely accepted that healthy ecosystems are better placed to cope with the impacts of climate change, and effectively managed marine reserves are a mechanism by which we can achieve healthy and functional ecosystems. • The best‐practice approach to conserving the marine environment (including representative areas of habitat and areas of ecological/biological significance) is to protect areas before threats or damage occur (in a proactive rather than a reactive manner), in accordance with the precautionary principle and ecosystem‐based management. • There continues to be a lack of clarity within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as to who holds responsibility for marine biodiversity in the UK Overseas Territories.

Introduction

1. The Marine Reserves Coalition (MRC) is a group of six UK‐based organisations1 dedicated to the task of protecting marine resources by the creation of highly protected marine reserves, in concert with other management strategies where appropriate. Focusing on seas under UK jurisdiction, we encourage the UK government to commit to establishing ecologically representative networks of marine reserves throughout all UK waters by 2020. We are extremely pleased that the Environmental Audit Committee (henceforth the Committee) has decided to conduct an inquiry into sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories (UKOTs). Given that over 90% of the UK’s total biodiversity is found in the UKOTs, we consider this issue to be of

1 BLUE Marine Foundation, ClientEarth, Greenpeace UK, Marine Conservation Society, Pew Environment Group, Zoological Society of London

the utmost importance and we look forward to the Committee making robust recommendations to ensure that the UK and Territory governments are delivering accordingly.

2. As the MRC is primarily concerned with protection of the marine environment, our comments will focus on marine conservation and marine biodiversity in the UKOTs.

3. The biodiversity and productivity of the world’s ocean is diminishing at an alarming rate. Globally 90% of large fish species, such as sharks, tuna and swordfish, have disappeared in the last few decades2 and many marine habitats have been fundamentally altered by destructive fishing practices and other human activities3. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are an effective and key tool in the conservation of marine biodiversity.

4. Despite commitments from the 193 countries that are Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, to protect 10% of coastal and marine areas by 2020, there has been limited implementation and ambition from the world’s governments. Currently, MPAs cover just 2.3%4 of the ocean and only a tiny fraction of these are highly protected marine reserves (or no‐take areas).

How the UK government is fulfilling its responsibilities to protect biodiversity in the UKOTs

5. The UK has the fifth largest marine area in the world under its jurisdiction, and as such has a responsibility and an opportunity to become a global leader in the stewardship of marine biodiversity.

6. The UK government’s lack of support for the conservation of biodiversity in the UKOTs was criticized in the Committee’s UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report5, published in January 2007 (paragraph 126‐141 and conclusions 31‐33), and again in the Committee’s Halting biodiversity loss‐ report6, published in October 2008 (paragraphs 39‐47 and conclusions 11 and 12).

7. The criticisms contained in the 2007 report were endorsed in the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report on the Overseas Territories published in June 20087, which also stated, “We conclude that given the vulnerability of Overseas Territories’ species and ecosystems, this lack of action by the government is highly negligent. The environmental funding currently being provided by the UK to the Overseas Territories appears grossly inadequate and we recommend that it should be increased.”

8. Both the importance of the biodiversity in the UKOTs and the lack of UK government support at that time for its conservation have thus been well established and are taken in this submission as read.

2 Myers, R., Worm, B. (2003). Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 423:280–283 3 Peres, C.A. (2010). Overexploitation. In: N.S. Sodhi, P.R. Ehrlich, ed. 2010. Conservation biology for all. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ch.2. 4 The Nature Conservancy (October 2012). Policy Brief: Aichi Target 11 – Reshaping the global agenda for MPAs. http://www.nature.org/newsfeatures/pressreleases/tnc‐marine‐policy‐brief‐2012.pdf 5 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmenvaud/77/77.pdf 6 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmenvaud/743/743.pdf 7 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmfaff/147/147i.pdf

9. The most significant recent initiative concerning marine biodiversity in the UKOTs was the designation of the Chagos Marine Reserve, announced by the then Foreign Secretary, David Miliband in April 2010. At 640,000 km2, Chagos is the largest fully protected marine area in the world (detailed further in paragraph 19). The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) received private funding from the Bertarelli Foundation to assist enforcement of the Chagos Marine Reserve in the first years of establishment.

10. Although the level of financial support provided by the UK government remains inadequate against the needs of the unique and often vulnerable biodiversity found in the UKOTs, we do note that this level has been maintained in the face of significant budget cuts. We refer you to the response of the Pew Environment Group to this inquiry (paragraphs 7 ‐ 14) for further detail on this point.

Whether the recommendations in the Committee’s 2008 Report, Halting biodiversity loss, on safeguarding biodiversity and practising joined‐up government to further conservation have been implemented

11. In the Committee’s report four recommendations were made concerning the UKOTs. These were that the government must: • “Adopt a truly joined‐up approach to environmental protection the UKOTs and Crown Dependencies, by bringing together all relevant departments including the FCO, MoJ, DfID, Defra, DCMS and MoD with the governments of the UKOTs; • Make better use of the Inter‐Departmental Group on biodiversity to provide more oversight and support for the development and implementation of effective environmental protection policy in the UKOTs, and expand the Group to include other relevant departments; • Have Defra assume joint responsibility for the UKOTs, and reflect this in future spending settlements; and • Address the dire lack of funds and information for environmental protection in the UKOTs. An ecosystem assessment should be conducted in partnership with each UKOT in order to provide the baseline environmental data required and to outline the effective response options needed to halt biodiversity loss. (Paragraph 46).”

12. Our comments here focus on the last two of these recommendations. In our view there is no evidence that Defra has assumed joint responsibility for the UKOTs and there continues to be a lack of clarity, even within Defra, on who holds responsibility for marine biodiversity in the UKOTs; is it the marine team or the biodiversity team? The government’s White Paper on the UKOTS, ‘Security, Success and Sustainability’8, published in June 2012, clearly states that there should be a coordinated response to natural environment issues with “each Department leading in their respective areas of responsibility” (chapter 3, page 43). Departmental expertise in marine biodiversity clearly lies with Defra, not the FCO, yet it is not at all apparent that Defra is taking the lead in this area.

13. Whilst Defra, the FCO and the Department for International Development (DFID) have made limited, but certainly not sufficient, funds available for conservation in the UKOTS, the

8 http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/publications/overseas‐territories‐white‐paper‐0612/ot‐wp‐0612

Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has unfortunately not helped to make National Lottery money available to the UKOTs, despite frequent requests to do so and despite having lead responsibility in the UK for a number of World Heritage Convention sites in the UKOTs. Policy directions of the DCMS are established by The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and therefore would appear to be entirely changeable, should they wish to assist the UKOTs9. From their lack of action, it appears clear that they have decided not to do so. To all those who care about assisting the UKOTs with the conservation of their heritage, this lack of action by the DCMS symbolizes the continuing lack of interest in government departments in assisting the Territories.

How the introduction of ‘Marine Protected Areas’ could safeguard the marine environment in the uninhabited territories

14. The term ‘MPA’ covers a broad range of protection levels in the marine environment and is often used to describe areas that have been set up for purposes other than biodiversity conservation, such as fisheries management. This has led to over‐estimates of global MPA coverage and an inflated sense of how much of the ocean is protected. Recent guidance published by the IUCN10, aims to tackle this issue and defines a protected area as; “A clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long‐term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values. This definition will make it much harder for actions that involve exploitation, such as fisheries, to be claimed as MPAs that protect the ocean. If marine areas involve extraction and have no defined long‐term goals of conservation and ocean recovery, they are not MPAs.”

15. Marine reserves are the most strictly protected type of MPA, in which all extractive and potentially damaging activities are prohibited. Marine reserves are now widely recognised as an effective and important tool in global marine conservation efforts and have been shown to protect vulnerable species and habitats, as well as build the ocean’s resilience to significant emerging threats such as climate change11,12 ,13. When established and managed properly, marine reserves can benefit people as well as the environment, by helping to rebuild depleted fish stocks that billions of people worldwide depend on for both income and protein14.

16. The MRC is calling for the designation of highly protected marine reserves throughout the UKOTs, as these areas are more effective than multi‐use MPAs; a) They provide a greater benefit to ecosystem recovery than multi‐use areas15; b) Allowing certain activities to continue within protected areas often leads to a marked increase in those activities, affecting the natural balance of the ecosystem16;

9 http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/HLFPolicyDirections2007.pdf 10 IUCN (2012). Guidelines for applying the IUCN Protected Area Management Categories to Marine Protected Areas. https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_categoriesmpa_eng.pdf 11 Halpern, B.S. (2003). The impact of marine reserves: Do reserves work and does reserve size matter? Ecological Applications 13:S117‐ S137. www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/54501.pdf 12 Lester, S.E., Halpern, B.S. (2008). Biological responses in marine no‐take reserves versus partially protected areas. Marine Ecology Progress Series 367: 49‐56. www.oregonocean.info/index.php?option=com_ninjaboard&view=topic&topic=59&Itemid=106#p59 13 Gaines, S.D., White, C., Carr, M.H., Palumbi, S.R. (2010). Designing marine reserve networks for both conservation and fisheries management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 43 (107): 18286‐18293. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0906473107 14 Mascia, M.B., Claus, A.C., Naidoo, R. (2010). Impacts of Marine Protected Areas on fishing communities. Conservation Biology 24(5):1424–1429. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20507354 15 Lester S.E., Halpern B.S. (2008). Biological responses in marine no‐take reserves versus partially protected areas. Marine Ecology Progress Series 367: 49‐56. www.naturalengland.org.uk/conservation/designated‐areas/mpa/conf2007/Session1/Gaines‐MPA2007.pdf

c) Protecting the entire reserve makes it much easier to police and manage; if anyone is seen operating fishing gear, or carrying out any other extractive activity in a reserve, they can be prosecuted; and d) The cost of enforcement is lower for fully protected sites than for multi‐use areas17.

17. We welcome this inquiry’s specific examination of how the introduction of MPAs could safeguard the marine environment. However, we are disappointed the inquiry only extends to the uninhabited UKOTs. Well managed MPAs and highly protected marine reserves should be integrated into marine planning in all of the UKOTs, to ensure the protection of biodiversity and sustainable management of marine resources throughout the entirety of seas under UK jurisdiction.

18. The two ‘uninhabited’ UKOTs; the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (SGSSI) both already have MPA designations in place; the highly protected Chagos Marine Reserve in the BIOT and the only partially protected ‘multi‐use’ SGSSI MPA. The government of SGSSI is currently considering proposals for further protection within the SGSSI MPA (see paragraphs 20 ‐ 21). It is our view that there is considerable scope to significantly extend the SGSSI MPA measures, giving full protection to the entire South Sandwich Islands area of the Exclusive Economic Zone, and also to sizeable areas around South Georgia.

19. The designation of the Chagos Marine Reserve in 2010 (the campaign for which MRC member organisations played a key role in), was a milestone in marine protection, both in the UK and globally. The Chagos Marine Reserve remains today the largest highly‐protected, no‐take marine reserve in the world, covering 640,000km2. The waters around Chagos have the largest and some of the most diverse undisturbed reefs in the Indian Ocean and are home to the world’s biggest living coral structure; the Great Chagos Bank, with over 220 coral species (almost half the recorded species of the entire Indian Ocean) and more than 1,000 species of reef fish. The designation of the Chagos Marine Reserve has resulted in increased international interest and innovative scientific research being undertaken in the area.

20. In February 2012 the government of SGSSI announced the designation of the SGSSI MPA; the largest multi‐use MPA in the world covering 1.07 million km2. Although this was a welcome announcement, the current MPA designation provides only limited protection and the area is managed primarily as a commercial fishery for toothfish, icefish and krill. The ‘multi‐use MPA’ designation meant that only 20,000km2 (just 2% of the total MPA area) was fully protected within no‐take zones, with the remaining 98% only partially protected. This is inadequate given that the marine environment of SGSSI is home to one of the most important and rich concentrations of marine wildlife on earth, with more than four million fur seals, as many as 100 million seabirds and a population of whales that is slowly recovering from the severe depletions caused by commercial whaling.

16 Newman, P., Lock, K., Burton, M. and Gibbs, R. (2011). Skomer Island Marine Nature Reserve report 2010. Countryside Council for Wales regional report CCW/WW/10/9. http://www.wwmc.org.uk/wp‐content/uploads/2010/11/SkomerMNR_AnnRep_2010.pdf 17 Natalie, C.B., Adams, V., Pressey, R.L. (2009). Marine protected area management costs: an analysis of options for the Coral Sea. Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies James Cook University, for the Protect Our Coral Sea Campaign. www.protectourcoralsea.org.au/media/transfer/doc/coral_sea_management_costs_report_‐_final_dec09.pdf

21. We welcome the recent proposals18 of the government of SGSSI for further protection within the MPA and believe that significantly greater and more meaningful protection can be achieved for relatively little ‘cost’ to the UK19. The Pew Environment Group estimates that fully protecting a large marine area in SGSSI would cost between £200,000 and £500,000 per year depending on the extent of the action taken. Furthermore, almost the entire current fishery income in SGSSI of £3‐4 million a year could be earned from a sustainable fishery zone covering no more than 20% of the area, whilst fully protecting at least 80% of the area.

22. It is often argued that there is no (or very limited) advantage to setting up new MPAs in areas where little or no human activity currently takes place, as these areas are not deemed ‘at risk’. There are a number of reasons why we disagree with this line of thinking.

23. Firstly, this approach of ‘do nothing until after damage has occurred’ is what, in general terms has led to the current situation of the continued loss of biodiversity on a global scale. The best‐ practice approach to conserving the marine environment (including representative areas of habitat and areas of ecological/biological significance) is to protect areas before threats or damage occur (in a proactive rather than a reactive manner), in accordance with the precautionary principle and ecosystem‐based management.

24. Secondly, experience has shown that by the time future pressures arise, protection is considerably more difficult (or even impossible) to achieve. This is due to pressure from new interests.

25. And thirdly, there are wider implications to consider than simply the direct impacts on a specific area. As the global ocean comes under increasing threat from pollution, climate change, ocean acidification, coral bleaching, sea temperature rises and invasive species, having areas safeguarded against human activity will become ever more important. As well as protecting the biodiversity within their boundaries, marine reserves help to support the wider marine environment, and they provide us with important reference points against which to benchmark other areas of the ocean.

26. The government’s White Paper on the UKOTS (June 2012) recognises the vulnerability of the Territories to the impacts of climate change. It is widely accepted that healthy ecosystems are better placed to cope with these impacts, and effectively managed marine reserves and MPAs are a mechanism by which we can achieve healthy and functional ecosystems.

27. The UKOTs remain largely unknown to many UK residents. Creating MPAs and marine reserves will raise the profile of their rich and unique natural environments, leading to positive recognition by many who otherwise may not have heard of the Territories. Furthermore, it would demonstrate that the UK government takes its responsibility for the UKOTs (and their biodiversity) seriously and is committed to safeguarding these areas for future generations.

18 South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands marine protected areas: existing protection and proposals for further protection (October 2012) http://www.sgisland.gs/download/MPA/SGSSI%20MPA%20Consultation%20Oct%202012.pdf 19 South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands marine protected areas: existing protection and proposals for further protection: A response by the Marine Reserves Coalition (November 2012) http://www.marinereservescoalition.org/files/2012/11/MRC‐response‐ GSGSSI‐MPA‐Proposals‐01.11.2012.pdf

Recommendations

28. The UK government should enter a dialogue with the Overseas Territories with a view to establishing well‐managed, enforced and monitored networks of highly protected marine reserves throughout all waters under UK jurisdiction.

29. The UK government should look to implementing previous recommendations to ensure there is a joined up approach to sustainability in the UKOTs throughout all government departments, with Defra and DCMS taking a more proactive lead in the conservation of marine biodiversity throughout the UKOTs.

30 November 2012

Written evidence submitted by the Pew Environment Group

Executive summary

• There have been a number of significant initiatives concerning the conservation of biodiversity in the UK Overseas Territories (UKOTs) since the Committee last looked into this issue. These include the declaration in April 2010 of the largest fully protected marine reserve in the world in the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), and programmes to remove rats from Henderson (in the Pitcairn Islands), and from South Georgia. • Finance for conservation in the UK Overseas Territories remains wholly inadequate, but given the savings found elsewhere in Government budgets, it is notable that the value of total support to biodiversity conservation in UKOTs has been at least maintained or possibly slightly increased. • Aside from BIOT, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and the Falklands, there is no marine monitoring or enforcement capacity in any of the other UKOTs. Despite this, fisheries licenses are granted in many of these areas. This complete lack of any monitoring or enforcement invites illegal and unregulated fishing and does not represent sound governance either in terms of biodiversity conservation or of economic development. • The UK has a number of Territories which have no (British Indian Ocean Territory, and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands) or very small resident human populations (Pitcairn, and Tristan da Cunha). Each of these territories also has an exceptionally large marine area, which is far less biologically degraded and over‐exploited than most other areas of the world. • These territories give the UK an extraordinary opportunity to take a lead in international marine conservation by creating extensive fully protected marine reserves that will ensure that the remarkable marine biodiversity of these areas persists for the future. This would also make a significant contribution to meeting the globally agreed target of protecting 10% of the world’s coastal and marine habitats by 2020.

Introduction

1. The Pew Environment Group is the conservation arm of The Pew Charitable Trusts, a US based non‐governmental organisation that works globally to establish pragmatic, science‐based policies that protect our oceans, preserve our wildlands, and promote clean energy. We have offices in Australia, the UK , Belgium and the United States.

2. Global Ocean Legacy, a project of the Pew Environment Group and its partners, aims to establish very large, fully protected marine reserves where fishing and other extractive activities are prohibited. We work with local citizens, governments and scientists around the world to protect and conserve some of the Earth’s most important and unspoiled marine environments. Since the UK has the fifth largest marine area of any country on earth (a total of 6,793,9281 km2),

1 From the Sea Around Us project see http://www.seaaroundus.org/eez/ 74

most of which is in the UK’s Overseas Territories , Global Ocean Legacy has a work programme, established in its London office, to promote better marine protection in the UKOTs.

3. Better marine protection is essential to the conservation of marine biodiversity and to help rebuild the productivity of the oceans. Despite commitments from the 193 countries that are Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to protect 10 percent of coastal and marine areas by 2020, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, there has only been limited progress. Indeed this target, when originally established, was intended to be achieved by 2012, but to date only 3.2 percent has been partially protected and of this, less than 1 percent is fully protected in no‐take marine reserves. Unless determined action is taken by governments worldwide, this target is in danger of being missed yet again, with potentially dire consequences for ocean biodiversity.

4. The UK Overseas Territories are very different in comparison to one another. Some are relatively wealthy, have large populations and small marine areas, whilst others are notable because of the vast expanse of their marine areas, exceptionally rich marine biodiversity, limited commercial fishing and low (or no) local human populations. Where human populations do exist, the exploitation of fisheries is often largely confined to near‐shore areas for local use. These circumstances give the UK a comparatively easy and cost effective opportunity to make a huge contribution to the achievement of global marine protection targets and the conservation of ocean biodiversity, and present a great opportunity for the UK government to become a leader in urgently needed global efforts for ocean and biodiversity conservation.

5. The Pew Environment Group is committed to working with the residents of the UK Overseas Territories, the UK Government, and other UK NGOs, to explore how the oceans around UK Overseas Territories could be better protected. Such protection would make a substantial contribution to global ocean biodiversity conservation and the achievement of global targets, and to raising the global recognition of these islands. In certain cases it also has great potential to contribute to their economic wellbeing through increased awareness of and interest in adventure tourism and ecotourism, and as important sites for future marine research.

6. Since the Pew Environment Group’s work in the UKOTs is primarily concerned with conserving the marine environment, this submission will particularly focus on marine conservation in the UKOTs.

How the UK Government is fulfilling its responsibilities to protect biodiversity in the UKOTs

7. The UK Government’s lack of support for the conservation of biodiversity in the UK Overseas Territories was criticized in the Committee’s Report on the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, published in January 2007 (paragraph 126‐141 and conclusions 31‐33), and again in the Committee’s thirteenth report in 2008 on Halting Biodiversity Loss (paragraphs 39‐47 and conclusions 11 and 12). The criticisms contained in the 2007 report were endorsed (paragraph 27) in the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report on the Overseas Territories published in June 2008. Both the importance of the biodiversity in the Territories and the lack of UK Government support for conservation of this biodiversity have thus been well established and are taken as given in this submission.

8. Since 2008, there have been a number of significant initiatives concerning the conservation of biodiversity in the Territories. The most significant of these was the announcement in April 2010 by the then Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, of the creation of the world’s largest fully protected marine reserve (640,000 km2) in the British Indian Ocean Territory.

9. In addition, the RSPB has led a major initiative to remove rats from Henderson Island (in the Pitcairn Islands); the South Georgia Heritage Trust is undertaking a staged rat eradication in South Georgia; and the Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands is about to remove all reindeer from South Georgia. The removal of these introduced species is a complex and expensive undertaking to which the UK Government has contributed significant funding.

10. In 2011‐12, Defra spent an estimated £2,969,140 on biodiversity conservation in the British Overseas Territories. This included commitments under the Darwin Initiative and support for projects to address invasive non‐native species. It also included spend by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Hansard, 3 Sept 2012, Column 118W).

11. Up to 2011, when it was suspended, the FCO and the Department for International Development (DfID) provided £1 million a year through the Overseas Territories Environment Programme (OTEP). Whilst this had a wider remit than biodiversity conservation, in practice a significant proportion of that fund was applied to biodiversity conservation projects.

12. In October 2012 it was announced that OTEP and Darwin Initiative would be combined into one fund, The Overseas Territories Environment and Climate Fund (to be known as ‘Darwin Plus’) which will total around £2 million in the current year’s round. Since Darwin makes up the larger part of Defra’s expenditure on overseas territories, it seems unlikely that the £2,969,140 reported by Defra as having been spent by them on biodiversity conservation in the British Overseas Territories in 2011‐12 will be increased, indeed it may possibly even decrease slightly. 76

13. It is believed that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has not financially supported any biodiversity conservation in the UKOTs and that all DfID funding for biodiversity conservation in the UKOTs is given through Darwin and is therefore accounted for in the above Defra figures. The FCO through its support for the governments of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), contributes financially to biodiversity conservation in these Territories. In the case of the BIOT, the FCO has received funding from the Bertarelli Foundation to assist enforcement in the first five years following creation of the marine reserve. The costs of running the British Indian Ocean Territory are obviously in excess of this, but those would have to be met by the FCO regardless of how the area was managed. The Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands is generally financially self‐supporting, but in recent years has received support from the FCO to support its finances.

14. In conclusion, it appears that since 2008 the value of total support to biodiversity conservation has been at least maintained or possibly slightly increased. Whilst the total level of support remains wholly inadequate against the estimated needs (estimated by RSPB in 2007 to be about £16 million a year), it is nonetheless noteworthy that maintaining this level of financial support has been achieved in the face of a significant tightening of government expenditure more generally.

Whether the recommendations in our 2008 Report, Halting Biodiversity Loss, on safeguarding biodiversity and practising joined‐up government to further conservation have been implemented;

15. In the Committee’s report four recommendations were made concerning the UKOTs. These were that the Government must:

• adopt a truly joined‐up approach to environmental protection of the UKOTs and Crown Dependencies, by bringing together all relevant departments including the FCO, MoJ, DfID, Defra, DCMS and MoD with the governments of the UKOTs; • make better use of the Inter‐Departmental Group on biodiversity to provide more oversight and support for the development and implementation of effective environmental protection policy in the UKOTs, and expand the Group to include other relevant departments; • have Defra assume joint responsibility for the UKOTs, and reflect this in future spending settlements; and • address the dire lack of funds and information for environmental protection in the UKOTs. An ecosystem assessment should be conducted in partnership with each UKOT in order to provide the baseline environmental data required and to outline the effective response options needed to halt biodiversity loss. (Paragraph 46)

16. In the preparation of the Government’s paper “The Overseas Territories – Security, Success and Sustainability” which was published in June 2012, the National Security Council in July 2011 requested each Government Department to submit information on how they could engage with 77

the Territories in each of their areas of competence and expertise. This certainly demonstrated an interest by the Government in promoting a more joined‐up approach to policy towards the UKOTs, including on the conservation of biodiversity. However, the responses from individual departments to this request generally failed to show much evidence of enthusiasm to change or improve their engagement with the Territories. (See paragraph 18 below for an example).

17. There is little evidence that the Inter‐Departmental Group on Biodiversity has made any substantial contribution to forwarding biodiversity conservation in the UKOTs, nor is there any evidence that Defra has assumed joint responsibility for the UKOTs.

18. Whilst Defra, FCO and DfID have made limited, but certainly not sufficient, funds available for conservation in the UKOTS, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has unfortunately not helped to make National Lottery money available to the UKOTs, despite frequent requests to do so and despite having lead responsibility in the UK for a number of World Heritage Convention sites in the UKOTs. In its paper responding to the National Security Council’s request for Departments to detail how they could play a role in assisting the UK’s relations with the UKOTs, the DCMS on the subject of the National Lottery, said (The Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the United Kingdom's Overseas Territories, March 2012, page 12) “There is no bar on Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) making such grants [i.e., grants for work in the UKOTs] but HLF’s current policy is to treat any such applications as a low priority. When making decisions on funding, HLF take into account their policy directions which place an emphasis on funding the heritage of the UK for access by the people of the UK. HLF are currently considering their strategic priorities for 2013‐19 but, again, that strategic approach is decided at arms’ length from Government.” This makes clear that HLF are guided by their “policy directions”, but it fails to make clear that these “policy directions” are in fact established by The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (see http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/HLFPolicyDirections2007.pdf) and thus would appear to be entirely changeable by DCMS, should they wish to assist the UKOTs. In the absence of any change in policy directions, the HLF have now published their 2013‐2018 strategic framework (http://www.hlf.org.uk/aboutus/whatwedo/Documents/HLFStrategicFramework_2013to2018.p df). No mention of UKOTs is made. To all those who care about supporting the UKOTs with conservation of their heritage, this lack of action by DCMS symbolizes the continuing lack of interest by Government departments in assisting the Territories.

How weaknesses in civil society and governance in the UKOTs impact on conservation

19. With regard to the marine environment, the major threat comes from overfishing, which may be either legal or illegal. With the exception of BIOT, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and the Falklands, there is no fisheries or other marine monitoring or enforcement capacity in any of the other UKOT’s marine zones. That means an area of 3,381,280 km2, half of 78

the UK’s total marine area, has no monitoring or enforcement whatsoever. Yet within these areas, fishing by foreign fleets is often licenced despite the lack of any means of monitoring or control. This lack of enforcement makes it extremely likely that illegal and/or legal but unregulated fishing is significantly damaging marine biodiversity in UK waters.

20. Those Territories with small human populations all have high biodiversity and also lack the local means of finance to fund the conservation measures necessary to conserve these species. Current UK Government practice is to fund conservation activities from periodic grants rather than though the provision of on‐going funding. This means that local conservation capacity is difficult to sustain and grow since it cannot be maintained during periods when grant funding is not available. The building of conservation skills in these Territories would be assisted by the provision of on‐going funding to support the activities of dedicated local conservation personnel.

How the introduction of ‘Marine Protected Areas’ could safeguard the marine environment in the uninhabited territories.

21. It is worth noting at the outset of this section that the term “Marine Protected Area” (MPA) encompasses a wide range of possible policy options from fully protected no‐take areas to areas that are protected from only a limited number of activities, whilst potentially permitting other destructive activities to continue. These “multi‐use” MPAs are often in effect resource management zones, rather than protected areas with a primary goal of biodiversity conservation, and should be recognised as such.

22. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) guidance on MPAs issued in September 2012 says MPAs should be “A clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long‐term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values.” In announcing this guidance, IUCN said “This definition will make it much harder for actions that involve exploitation, such as fisheries, to be claimed as MPAs that protect the ocean. If marine areas involve extraction and have no defined long‐term goals of conservation and ocean recovery, they are not MPAs.2”

23. For many of the wealthier Territories with larger populations, the decision on whether to protect their marine waters is effectively almost entirely devolved by the UK to their own Government, with the UK only retaining oversight to ensure that all international obligations are honoured. However for those territories with much smaller (or no) populations, the UK Government retains a much greater hand in governance, though quite correctly reflecting where possible the wishes of local inhabitants.

2 http://www.iucn.org/?uNewsID=10904 79

24. The UK has two territories (South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and BIOT), which have no resident human population and two others (Pitcairn Islands and Tristan da Cunha) which have small human populations. All of four these territories also have exceptionally large marine areas.

TERRITORY Area EEZ km2 Resident human population

BIOT 642,746 0 Tristan da Cunha 754,720 ~260 Pitcairn 836,108 ~50 South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands 1,066,000 0

Each of these territories is also of very high biodiversity importance, having exceptionally large populations of some animal species and/or numerous endemic species not found anywhere else. These territories, due to their remoteness and other factors, are also far less biologically degraded and over‐exploited than some of the more populous territories.

25. Together the marine area of these four territories covers 3,299,574 km2. This is almost half of the total marine area under the sovereignty of the UK (3,299,574 km2 ÷ 6,793,928km2 x 100 = 48.6%) and almost 1% of the total area of the world’s oceans (3,299,574 km2 ÷ 361,000,000 km2 x 100 = 0.91%).

26. This is not to imply that other opportunities and needs do not exist for extensive marine protection elsewhere in UKOTs; they do, but where local populations are larger and EEZ’s are smaller, the pressures increase proportionately. This makes the declaration of marine reserves much more difficult.

27. In respect of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Pitcairn and Tristan da Cunha, arguments have been advanced by UK officials that there is little advantage in protecting areas in the UKOTs where there are no current risks or threats to species or communities. Their view is that if threats to such areas were to arise in the future, then and only then is it appropriate to consider whether to implement protective measures. Such a policy wilfully leaves areas unprotected when protection is easily possible, and means that it is likely that much less will eventually be protected, since vested interests once they arrive on the scene, will actively oppose the establishment of a reserve. Worse still, in many cases by the time the threat has been identified and action to protect the area has been taken, considerable damage may already have been done. Our view is that the best time to take action is before the threat manifests itself and before damage occurs. That is both easier and is the only way to be sure that species and ecosystems are effectively conserved.

28. Located in the centre of the Indian Ocean, BIOT was declared a fully protected marine reserve in April 2010 and at 640,000 km2, is the largest such area on the planet. It contains the world’s largest living coral atoll and has the greatest marine biodiversity by far in UK waters. It also has one of the healthiest reef systems with the cleanest waters in the world, supporting half the 80

total area of healthy reefs in the Indian Ocean. As a result, the ecosystems of BIOT have so far proven resilient to climate change and environmental disruptions. The creation of a marine reserve has resulted in a significant increase in scientific interest and work in BIOT, and has also led to the commencement of an environmental capacity building outreach project with the Chagossian community.

29. Tristan da Cunha’s economy is based primarily on a lobster fishery that occurs around the coasts of its four islands but it also occasionally sells licences for offshore fishing for tuna and other species. Any support for enhanced marine protection should come first and foremost from the islanders. The seas around Tristan are an Important Bird Area and are therefore likely to be rich in biodiversity, but little is known about them and further information about the marine biodiversity of the area would be valuable. We believe that there would be value in the establishment of a marine reserve around these islands and have established contact with the islanders to hear their views, but until further work is undertaken and until the islanders have formed a view on what they want, it is premature to advocate any particular action.

30. The Pitcairn Islands in the South Pacific is home to around just 50 people, but has a marine EEZ of 836,108 km2, more than three times the size of the UK. Because it is so remote and is situated in a part of the ocean which is low in nutrients, it does not have extensive fish stocks and so has to date been left almost untouched. As a result it has one of the best preserved marine ecosystems on Earth. However, as fisheries elsewhere become over‐exploited, even areas such as Pitcairn are likely to come under increased threat from distant water fishing fleets. Whilst it is comparatively unspoiled, Pitcairn’s marine environment is also very fragile, and any industrial fishing, were it to occur, would rapidly deplete stocks. This would damage one of the few remaining parts of the ocean still in a natural state, and would not provide sustainable income for the Pitcairn islanders.

31. To keep Pitcairn’s marine environment in its present state, the Pitcairn islanders, working with the Pew Environment Group and National Geographic, have requested that the greater part of the area be declared a fully protected no‐take marine reserve by the Governor (who would act on the instruction of the Foreign Secretary). A fully protected marine reserve would be a statement of intent by the UK to do everything in its power to preserve this area, which would become the largest such reserve in the world. It would also increase international interest in and profile for Pitcairn, which is important in itself and would attract scientists who would contribute to Pitcairn’s economy and be able to study and monitor the marine environment. Enforcement would remain a priority, as it would be even if the area were not protected, but a marine reserve could perhaps help to get assistance with this.

32. South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (SGSSI) has no resident human population and therefore there are no local residents whose livelihoods and food security depend on maintaining a fishery. Despite a history of over‐exploitation which even today has left an impact on populations of whales and fish, it is the most species rich ecosystem in the entire Southern Ocean and has a higher marine biodiversity than the ocean around the Galapagos Islands (which is often cited for its high biodiversity values). It is home to one of the most important concentrations of marine wildlife on earth, with more than four million fur seals, as many as 100 million seabirds and a rich population of whales that is slowly recovering from the severe 81

depletions caused by commercial whaling, particularly in the 20th century. But many species remain depleted as a result of previous mismanagement and it may take many years for them to recover. Whilst the Government claims to have protected the entire marine area through the establishment of a protected area, this only gives partial protection and the territory is managed primarily as a commercial fishery for toothfish, icefish and krill.

33. The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), the body that manages the marine living resources of the Southern Ocean, had set a target date of 2012 for the establishment of an initial network of Antarctic Marine Protected Areas. Despite the fragility of the Southern Ocean, the importance of its wildlife, and the challenges the ocean and its biodiversity face from multiple factors, including climate change, this target is clearly going to be missed. Of the 11 areas identified by CCAMLR as priority areas for protection based on a bioregional analysis, two ‐ South Georgia, and The South Sandwich Isles ‐ are under UK sovereignty. The establishment of a large fully protected marine reserve in SGSSI would clearly be consistent with CCAMLR’s recommendation and would make an important contribution to meeting its conservation goals. The UK is a member of CCAMLR.

34. Whilst the fishery in SGSSI is undoubtedly well managed relative to other fisheries, the removal of krill and other species from the ecosystem is very likely to be having a negative impact on the marine environment, which would be better conserved if it were to be given complete protection. There are very limited areas left in the world where biodiversity is so diverse and so relatively intact, but there are no people, making it possible to give full protection. But this is one of them. Given its teeming wildlife, which makes it a marine analogue to world‐famous parks on land such as the Serengeti or Yellowstone, we believe the case for complete protection is beyond compelling. This would not only give important recognition to the extreme significance of this area for wildlife, but would also gain world‐wide recognition for the UK’s beneficent sovereignty over these islands.

35. To fully protect a large marine area in SGSSI would “cost” the UK very little (maybe between £200,000 and £500,000 per year depending on the boundaries), since almost the entire fishery income of £3‐4 million a year could be earned from a sustainable fishery zone covering no more than 10‐20% of the area, whilst fully protecting around at least 80% of the area.

36. In conclusion, we believe that establishing large‐scale fully protected marine reserves in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and the Pitcairn Islands, is compelling given the high biodiversity values of their waters and the contribution this would make to achieving the global target of 10% of the oceans being protected by 2020, a target which unless large areas such as these are protected, is unlikely to be achieved. Furthermore, we believe that establishing large‐ scale marine protection in these territories would imbue them with a positive image and visibility – a global brand – which would move them from being almost unheard of backwaters, into the limelight and in a way that had many positives for the inhabitants, the UK, and indeed, through the contribution it would make to global targets, to the world as a whole. It would be 82

the largest, most visionary and most important marine conservation network managed by any country on earth. For Tristan, and other Territories too, we recommend that the Government should enter a dialogue with islanders to determine the extent to which marine protection could enhance the seas around their islands.

Recommendations

37. The Government should without delay establish large scale fully protected marine reserves in Pitcairn and in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands covering a very significant portion of their EEZs. 38. The Government should enter a dialogue with other Territories with a view to extending marine protections within their EEZs so that further large, fully protected areas are established. 39. The Government should establish a means of monitoring and enforcing all marine areas under UK jurisdiction, regardless of how they are managed, to ensure that UK seas are not subject to illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing.

30 November 2012 83

Written evidence by the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum

Summary

The UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (UKOTCF) is a charity which promotes the conservation of biodiversity, ecosystem services, and their contribution, together with other aspects of natural and human heritage, to the well-being and sustainability of the UK’s Overseas Territories (UKOTs) and their local communities. UKOTCF’s some 30 member and associate organisations include leading environmental bodies in Britain, the UKOTs, and the Crown Dependencies (CDs), and much of UKOTCF’s work is in facilitating mutual assistance between these and other UKOT bodies, including government departments. In this memorandum, UKOTCF makes the following main points or recommendations, the background and rationale for which are included in the body of the memorandum: a) UKOTCF welcomes UK Government’s (HMG’s) recognition of the global importance of, and major threats to, the wildlife of UKOTs, and the need to address its conservation as a matter of urgency (para A4). b) UKOTCF recommends that, for the purposes of working towards sustainable development, strategic coordination be implemented through a working group chaired by a senior official within the FCO incorporating relevant departments and agencies, with NGOs (para B5). c) UKOTCF welcomes HMG’s new commitment to exemplary environmental management in the uninhabited UKOTs. UKOTCF recommends that this commitment be extended also to the inhabited UKOTs (para B6). d) UKOTCF recommends that HMG immediately add all uninhabited UKOTs to its ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity and other conservation conventions, and encourage and assist other territories to join its ratifications (para B7). e) UKOTCF recommends that HMG take a more environmentally responsible line in areas of UKOT issues where it has direct responsibility (para B11). f) UKOTCF recommends that the Cyprus Sovereign Base Area (SBA) Administration enforces bird protection legislation, in conjunction with the neighbouring Republic of Cyprus, whose laws those of the SBAs match (para B12). g) UKOTCF welcomes the reinstatement to approximately the level of two years ago of potential HMG funding for conservation work in UKOTs and the restoration of the eligibility of NGOs and others to apply for such funding, while having some constructive comments on the approach to be used by the newly combined fund (para C10). h) UKOTCF recommends that the UK Government increases significantly its funding for UKOT biodiversity conservation, as already recommended four years ago by two Select Committees of the House of Commons and that this not be clawed back into funding HMG’s own bodies (para C11). i) UKOTCF recommends that either the Darwin Plus grants (relating to UKOTs) have their own advisory panel, comprising mainly conservationists knowledgeable in current UKOT issues, and with experience of running projects in or for UKOTs, and of grant-programme management, or that, less satisfactorily, if the existing Darwin Advisory Committee continues to deal with UKOT grants, it be reinforced with several individuals with the attributes indicated above (para C13).

j) UKOTCF recommends that HMG explore with NGOs who have personnel with experience of grant programme management and UKOTs the commissioning of such bodies to run small grant programmes, thereby retaining the effective small project programme without the need to call heavily on HMG personnel time (para C15). k) UKOTCF recommends that HMG takes a less arbitrarily restrictive view of the type of projects eligible for funding and takes note of what those working in UKOTs consider they need to achieve conservation (para C17). l) UKOTCF recommends that UK Government engages more with the European Union institutions in order to ensure that UKOTs are not effectively excluded from EU funding for biodiversity conservation – and that, when funding is made available, procedures are simplified (para C21). m) UKOTCF recommends that Ministers act on the importance they attach in the White Paper to the UKOTs and direct the National Lottery bodies to give at least equal priority in making grants to UKOTs as to metropolitan UK, and that more appropriate decision making systems be established with an understanding of UKOTs (para C24). n) UKOTCF recommends that UK Government re-affirms clearly its commitment to the Environment Charters which form the basis of UK and UKOTs fulfilling their international conservation obligations – for both the inhabited and uninhabited UK Overseas Territories (para C37). o) UKOTCF further recommends that fulfilling the Environment Charters be reinstated as a core role of the funding from HMG, now grouped under the Darwin Plus heading (para C38). p) UKOTCF recommends that HMG supports HM Government of Gibraltar in enforcing fisheries protection legislation, resists the Government of Spain’s support for illegal activities, and instructs the Royal Navy to support HMGOG in the consequent defence of territorial waters and their resources (para C44). q) UKOTCF recommends that HMG re-engage with the UKOTCF network and other partners to develop a real strategy, preferably shared, for conservation work in the UKOTs (para E19). r) UKOTCF recommends that UK Government Ministers instruct their officials and agencies to respond positively to the repeated invitations from UKOTCF, its member organisations and other NGOs to restore the productive communication and collaborative working that characterised conservation work for the UKOTs, until unilaterally reduced by officials over the past half-decade (para F4). s) UKOTCF recommends that HMG officials involved in decision making on UKOTs receive some basic training in environmental conservation and sustainable development, or at least have some technical advice on such matters available and pay regard to this (para G7). t) UKOTCF recommends that Ministers instruct their officials to stop blocking contacts with the body that many UKOT organisations choose to link to HMG, UKOTCF, and seek to restore the positive relationship of the 1990s and early 2000s (para G16).

A. Introduction

A1. The UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (UKOTCF or “the Forum”) is a charity which promotes the conservation of biodiversity, ecosystem services, and their contribution, together with other aspects of natural and human heritage, to the well-being and sustainability of the UK’s Overseas 85

Territories (UKOTs) and their local communities. UKOTCF’s some 30 member and associate organisations include leading environmental bodies in Britain, the UKOTs, and the Crown Dependencies (CDs), and much of UKOTCF’s work is in facilitating mutual assistance between these and other UKOT bodies, including government departments. The Crown Dependencies (the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man) share many conservation challenges and aspects of governance with the UKOTs, including reliance on HMG to represent their interests internationally, under international conventions, including Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), and in related negotiations. UKOTCF and associated organisations have given evidence to earlier inquiries by the EAC and other select committees in relation to the fulfilment of the UK's responsibilities in respect of the UKOTs. One member organisation of UKOTCF is also an agency of the UK Government; it is therefore not party to this submission.

A2. This submission is structured in relation to the questions raised in the Committee’s announcement. In order to maintain the flow of our comments, we have included most of our comments under the Committee’s second, fourth and sixth bullet points (sections C, E and G below). However, we have cross-referred in the other sections to some paragraphs in these sections.

A3. The Committee’s announcement makes reference to the White Paper The Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability, published by FCO in June 2012. UKOTCF analysed the aspects of this White Paper and its context which relate to the environment and published this analysis as Moving Backwards in UK Overseas Territories Conservation: Comments by the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum on the UK Government’s June 2012 White Paper The Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability (Cm 8374) (at http://www.ukotcf.org/pdf/Consultations/WP2012comments.pdf, with a shortened, preliminary version of this published in Forum News 40). UKOTCF subsequently analysed and published a further document, Key measures needed if the UK Government is to fulfil its main international responsibilities for biodiversity conservation in the UK’s Overseas Territories: Main recommendations of the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (at http://www.ukotcf.org/pdf/Consultations/WhitepaperResponseKeyPts05.pdf); this identified some of the main measures which UK Government needed to take to achieve the aspirations indicated in the forewords and introductions to the White Paper, in respect of the environment. These documents provided input into a workshop on environmental aspects of the White Paper, organised by UKOTCF on 2nd October 2012, the proceedings being published as Environmental Conservation and UK Government’s June 2012 White Paper The Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability (Cm 8374) - Proceedings of a workshop on 2nd October 2012 at Gibraltar House, the Strand, London, organised by the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (at http://www.ukotcf.org/pdf/Consultations/Workshop2012Proceedings05.pdf). These documents are very relevant to the subject of the Committee’s inquiry, and are therefore appended to this memorandum.

A4. UKOTCF has long underlined the fact that, in world terms, the biodiversity of UK’s Overseas Territories is even greater than that of metropolitan Britain, in terms of endemic species, proportions of other species supported, sensitive ecosystems and threatened species. UKOTCF has expressed concern that a species, the St Helena Olive, went globally extinct on UK sovereign territory in 2003 and that other species are on the brink of global extinction. Furthermore, the natural ecosystems of many UKOTs are fundamental to the economies and livelihoods of the local human communities. These include sustainable fisheries, tourism, storm protection, water supply, medicinal plants and other raw materials, amongst others. UKOTCF welcomes HMG’s recognition of the global importance of, and major threats to, the wildlife of UKOTs, and the need to address its conservation as a matter of urgency.

B. The extent to which UK Government strategy on the UKOTs embodies the principles of sustainable development and appropriately trades-off environmental protection, social development and economic growth

B1. The Forum has a very wide remit relating to the sustainability of the UK Overseas Territories but its main involvement is through concern for the environment, and our evidence will concentrate on environmental matters. However, in relation to the specific question, UKOTCF believes that the White Paper (if that is what is meant by UK government strategy) fails to deal adequately with the need to balance the three pillars of sustainable development. Indeed, there is no specific consideration of such balance as each element is considered separately. In terms of economic growth, it is strange that only a few months after the Rio+20 meeting, where the European Union (and therefore the UK) were strongly promoting a ”green growth” agenda which was adopted in the conclusions, there is no mention of this in the White Paper. This is in line with discussions held by Forum representatives with the Governor of Montserrat in February this year, who made it very clear that any growth would be purely on economic grounds – not “green growth” and with little regard for environmental or social concerns.

B2. In respect of the environment, there are strong words on this aspect within the 2012 White Paper. In his foreword, the Prime Minister says “We see an important opportunity to set world standards in our stewardship of the extraordinary natural environments we have inherited”. The relevant actions seem far less strong, and inadequate to meet this aspiration and grasp that opportunity. It is further tempered by later text which suggests that oversight of exemplary environmental management is restricted to the uninhabited territories. We would note also the wording of the introduction to the Environment chapter of the White Paper “The UK Government wishes to ensure that the rich environmental assets of the Overseas Territories, for which they are internationally recognised, are cherished.” This is an interesting form of words, particular the use of “cherish” being in the passive, and making no commitment to implementation of measures. The operational conclusion at the end of the Environment chapter speaks only of managing natural resources sustainably and putting environmental considerations at the heart of all decision-making. In respect of the latter point, we are aware that UK Government has recently started an “environmental mainstreaming” exercise in some UKOTs, but are puzzled by the duplication and why it makes no reference to the comparable work (see www.ukotcf.org/charters/charterStrat.htm), a decade earlier under the Environment Charters which derived from the 1999 White Paper. We are puzzled also as to why the new exercise has been conducted in such a closed way (see paras E6-E30, F2-F4, G6-G16).

B3. UKOTCF questions also why the Environment Charters, which are so valued by local practitioners, particularly in response to policy and physical planning matters, are not mentioned in the 2012 White Paper. It has been noted by several persons that this could tend to undermine sustainable development and appropriate trade-offs (see paras C25-C38, E2-E5, E20-29).

B4. Sustainable development, by its nature, has to be implemented through iterative and integrative processes, neither of which are apparent in the White Paper – nor are there clear proposals for these to be put in place. We do welcome the desire for inclusivity among government departments in meeting the aspirations of the White Paper, but that in itself does not automatically mean there is coordination. We know from experience in one territory, the Turks & Caicos Islands (TCI), that coordination has not been achieved even under direct rule by HMG (see para B8). Currently, there is in HMG an Overseas Territories Biodiversity Group, consisting of officials from DEFRA, DFID and FCO, with a secretariat from JNCC; this misses even obvious candidates for inclusion, such as the MoD and DCMS, or the Ministry of Justice responsible for the Crown Dependencies. Its terms of reference do not allow it to make decisions and it does not report to Ministers, so it is somewhat unclear as to its purpose. Discussions in June 2012 with officials from the FCO suggested that it was no longer required. The Forum has suggested that, to assist with integration and coordination, it should be replaced by a wider ranging group of departments and should be accountable to Ministers.

B5. UKOTCF recommends that, for the purposes of working towards sustainable development, strategic coordination be implemented through a working group chaired by a senior official within the FCO incorporating relevant departments and agencies, with NGOs.

B6. UKOTCF has been concerned in the past about the legal fiction that HMG was not directly responsible for the uninhabited UKOTs. Accordingly, UKOTCF welcomes UK Government’s new commitment to exemplary environmental management in the uninhabited UKOTs (but see also paras C27, E2-E5). UKOTCF recommends that this commitment be extended also to the inhabited UKOTs.

B7. UKOTCF worked in the 1980s and 1990s to improve understanding of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands in UKOTs and Crown Dependencies, resulting eventually in all joining UK’s ratification. In recent years, HMG seems to have been less than helpful in encouraging its territories in joining further environmental conventions, although the Forum was asked, and agreed, to assist in a workshop on this topic in September 2011. In 2012, the Isle of Man became the first territory to be added to UK’s ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity since UK (with some other territories) joined CBD nearly 20 years earlier – and this took 18 months of delays by HMG (including many problems in communications between Departments) after the Isle of Man made the request, having met the requirements. UKOTCF recommends that HMG immediately add all uninhabited UKOTs to its ratification of CBD and other conservation conventions, and encourage and assist other territories to join its ratifications.

B8. UKOTCF does not question the necessity of UK Government taking direct responsibility for governing the Turks and Caicos Islands from 2009 to November 2012. However, it notes that UK Government, in this role, has moved backwards on some aspects of sustainable development and appropriate balances in respect of environmental management. These have included: the abolition of the Conservation Fund, based on an ear-marked element of taxes on tourists and other visitors (and originally introduced by TCI Government as a condition of UK grant aid); the attempt to re-sell for built development undeveloped areas recovered after illegal sale by the previous government; the considering of deep dredging of a channel through nature protected areas, whose earlier dredging devastated some sustainable fisheries as well as the nature reserves; the encouragement of high-rise developments; and the encouragement of, and amending laws to allow, the development of a dolphinarium (or dolphin-prison). It seems that desperation over achieving income may have outweighed proper environmental considerations during the period of direct rule by UK Government.

B9. It is notable also that, against much local feeling to maintain sites of biological and cultural importance, the DFID-dominated government in Montserrat is allowing – and indeed promoting – destructive development at Pipers Pond (the only remaining mangrove area on the island), Carr’s Bay Battery historical site and the historic cemetery. Other approaches retaining these features would have been quite feasible.

B10. The failure of HMG and the Royal Navy to support the Government of Gibraltar in its attempts to enforce environmental protection legislation against illegal incursions of Spanish fishermen and the paramilitary Guardia Civil into British Gibraltar Territorial Waters (BGTW) in the context of actions from a neighbouring country (see paras C39-C44) are relevant here too. HMG failed also to deal in a timely manner with the Spanish government putting forward BGTW as part of its own Special Area of Conservation under the Habitats Directive, a proposal which was accepted by the European Commission, so that parts of BGTW are considered a UK SAC and the whole of BGTW are considered part of a Spanish SAC, leading to retrospective action in the European Court of Justice.

B11. UKOTCF recommends that HMG take a more environmentally responsible line in areas of UKOT issues where it has direct responsibility.

B12. HMG has direct responsibility, administered by the MoD, for the government of the Cyprus Sovereign Base Areas, but illegal hunting of migrant songbirds remains a problem, particularly in the 88

Eastern SBA. UKOTCF recommends that the SBA Administration enforces bird protection legislation, in conjunction with the neighbouring Republic of Cyprus, whose laws those of the SBAs match.

C. How the UK Government is fulfilling its responsibilities to protect biodiversity in the UKOTs

C1. HMG itself acknowledges that it has not fulfilled its responsibilities. In his introduction to the 2012 White Paper, the Foreign Secretary noted that it builds on the 1999 White Paper (which acknowledged that Britain was not meeting its obligations) and once again conceded that there are environmental obligations that are not being lived up to: “It [the 2012 White Paper] is also a strategy of re-evaluation. We have not in the past devoted enough attention to the vast and pristine environments in the lands and seas of our Territories.” The 2012 White Paper was presented as the vehicle by which this problem would be addressed; UKOTCF has strongly disputed that the 2012 White Paper will improve the situation (references at para A3). In fact, it is our position that it is a serious step backwards from the 1999 White Paper and the Environment Charters which resulted from that. UKOTCF considers that, unless a real strategy is developed to match positive wishes in Ministerial forewords and real actions are taken, there will be further losses of ecosystem services and further global extinctions on UK territory.

Funding by HMG

C2. The issue of funding for conservation work in the UKOTs is critically important because of the basic problem that NGOs and other bodies in the UKOTs are not eligible for most international funds, because UKOTs are considered to be British, and therefore not developing countries. The assumption is that because the UKOTs are British, Britain itself must be providing the necessary funding. For this reason, in the Environment Charters HMG committed to providing direct funding through the Environment Fund for the Overseas Territories (later replaced by the Overseas Territories Environment Programme - OTEP), promoting access to other sources of public funding and helping each Territory identify further funding partners.

C3. The 2012 White Paper notes (p 13) that “The reasonable assistance needs of the Territories are a first call on the UK’s international development budget.” However, DFID’s responsibility, as its major spend, for fulfilling HMG’s target of 0.7% of GDP being spent on ODA countries tends to run counter to this, because most UKOTs do not qualify under ODA. For example, DFID’s recent adoption of the main funding of the previously DEFRA Darwin Initiative has resulted in most UKOTs effectively being excluded from the main part of the Darwin Initiative (see para E28).

C4. House of Commons Select Committees have been more than clear that the level of funding which is in fact provided is “grossly inadequate” (House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, June 2008). A few months later, the Environmental Audit Committee said, “One of the most important contributions that the Government could make to slowing the catastrophic global biodiversity loss currently occurring would be to accept its responsibilities and to provide more support for the UK Overseas Territories in this area.”

C5. In 2005, UKOTCF (Forum News 27: 2) analysed figures from HMG showing the spending at least £460 million per year on biodiversity conservation in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but only about £1 million per year, divided between all UK Overseas Territories (and none on Crown Dependencies) – despite the Territories’ limited human populations and hence limited capacity themselves to undertake vital conservation work. This is even more vital because most of the UK’s globally important biodiversity is located in UK Overseas Territories and not in Great Britain and 89

Northern Ireland. Examples of this are well known and can be found on the Forum’s web site (www.ukotcf.org). One very conservative estimate is that there are at least ten times as many endemic species in UK Overseas Territories as in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. (Other measures give comparable ratios.) Using this as a factor to multiply the spending difference, it appears that UK Government values its responsibilities to global biodiversity in Great Britain and Northern Ireland about 5000 times more than it values its responsibilities to global biodiversity in its Overseas Territories. In fact, because of incomplete information in UK Overseas Territories (caused in part by the same shortage of resources), the difference is very much more. Re-analysis of this in 2012 indicated that this ratio has remained approximately the same.

C6. UKOTCF has never suggested that the spending by HMG on UKOT conservation should be increased by this magnitude, but estimates of needs by both NGOs and HMG’s own agencies indicate a minimum of about a 10-fold increase in budget is needed.

C7. The British Government enters international commitments, including on environmental conservation, on behalf of both itself and UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies. The British Government shares responsibility for this globally important biodiversity. The same 2005 analysis showed that HMG made a major contribution to international conservation, of about £40 million per year. The ‘Government Response to Environmental Audit Committee Report: “Trade Development and Environment – the role of the FCO” (Fifth Report of Session 2006-07)’, reports that “The UK is the largest financial supporter of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).” This is commendable in one respect but contrasts with HMG’s pitiably small funding for the environment in the territories for which HMG shares direct responsibility.

C8. In fact, HMG funding for conservation work in the UKOTs has increased only marginally, if at all since the EAC’s 2008 Inquiry. The new Darwin Plus fund brings together the FCO/DFID funding from OTEP (after a year’s absence of funding) and the DEFRA funding for UKOTs from the general Darwin Initiative. The funds available in the new Darwin Plus fund total only about £2 million for all Overseas Territories. (And with the new commitment to exemplary management of the uninhabited Territories, it stands to reason that the inhabited Territories are looking at a smaller share.) It seems that the amount of funding continues to be based on what Departments can spare, rather than on an assessment of the funds that would be needed actually to do the job. A strategic approach to this has been made both more complicated and easier in a sense, in that there is no longer a biodiversity strategy for the UK but each of the metropolitan devolved administrations now produce their own, with coordination through a mixture of chief scientists from the conservation agency of each of those administrations and the JNCC. However, it was noteworthy that this process initially completely missed out from the co-ordination the UK Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy; reference to this was inserted only after the agreement between the metropolitan administrations had been signed; so its status is somewhat uncertain. One possible way forward could have been to treat the Overseas Territories governments in the same way, for example, as Scotland, as a devolved responsibility, and incorporate their strategies into the overarching process. UKOTCF did suggest this at a planning meeting with JNCC, but it did not find favour. Also, because of ever more elaborate application and reporting requirements, funds are increasingly inaccessible to smaller UKOT governments and most NGOs based in the Territories with poor capacity.

C9. In the early stages of OTEP, there was an expectation that the fund would not normally fund HMG’s own departments and agencies. However, this expectation has gradually been eroded.

C10. UKOTCF welcomes the reinstatement to approximately the level of two years ago of potential HMG funding for conservation work in UKOTs and the restoration of the eligibility of NGOs and others to apply for such funding, while having some constructive comments (see below) on the approach to be used by the newly combined fund.

C11. UKOTCF recommends that the UK Government increases significantly its funding for UKOT biodiversity conservation, as already recommended four years ago by two Select Committees of the House of Commons, and that this not be clawed back into funding HMG’s own bodies.

C12. The recent changes mark also a further distancing of the granting process from the people doing work on the ground. The philosophy of FCO’s Environment Fund for Overseas Territories (EFOT) set up in 1999 was that FCO, the UKOTCF network and the UKOTs were a team with a shared responsibility for conservation in the UKOTs. Thus help was available from FCO or UKOTCF to prepare proposals and implement the work. With DFID joining in to create the Overseas Territories Environment Programme (OTEP), came a more formal structure, so that UKOTs became applicants and the OTEP departments just a funding body. Rather than sharing the problems and responsibility for them, the attitude was more that the territories were supplicants for UK aid. This put UKOTCF in a difficult position, as DFID/FCO would never clarify the rules as to what UKOTCF could do/not do to help applicants – usually instead taking retrospective positions. With time and changing FCO and DFID (and DEFRA & JNCC) personnel, this situation steadily became worse, with a decreasing proportion of advisory panel consisting of NGO participants and of those with experience of UKOT issues and project management. With the incorporation of grants into the Darwin Initiative, there are very few members of the advisory panel who are familiar with current UKOT issues or involved with most of the on-the-ground players in UKOT conservation – so it becomes very much a them-and-us exercise. This may be exacerbated in that the Darwin Initiative tends to have quite an academic panel, used to working in highly competitive research council situations, rather than the collaborative conservation attitude which prevailed under EFOT and, to some extent, the earlier stages of OTEP. Whilst there could be advantages in a single source of funding, this means also that an even more restricted set of people are the decision makers. UKOTCF considers that HMG and the efficacy of the deployment of public funds would benefit from a return to a system that involves fully the expertise of NGOs (and umbrella bodies like UKOTCF) working alongside officials to decide on grant funding.

C13. Accordingly, UKOTCF recommends that either the Darwin Plus grants (relating to UKOTs) have their own advisory panel, comprising mainly conservationists knowledgeable in current UKOT issues, and with experience of running projects in or for UKOTs, and of grant-programme management, or that, less satisfactorily, if the existing Darwin Advisory Committee continues to deal with UKOT grants, it be reinforced with several individuals with the attributes indicated above.

C14. EFOT and OTEP were small-project funds, and made possible, usually by combining with voluntary work, a great deal of highly cost-effective progress on small issues or piloting work which could beneficially be applied on a larger scale to address major conservation issues. UKOTCF has long called for a fund for such medium-sized and/or longer duration projects – as exists in Britain and many parts of the world, for species-recovery programmes, ecosystem restoration, organisational capacity development etc. This need was recognised too in HMG’s 2009 UKOTs Biodiversity Strategy. In this sense, one might be expected to welcome the fact that there is no limit on size of grants in the new Darwin Plus programme. However, such projects would be funded from the same total funding previously limited to small projects. Inevitably, this will mean fewer small projects, despite their excellent track record, and could mark the effective end of small projects. Current officials do not like small grants, because of the project handling time – and, indeed, it has become clear that JNCC, the HMG agency that still handles some small grants, does very little monitoring of the projects’ progress and accounting. In this context, whilst small projects are not excluded from Darwin Plus, subtle changes to the form (e.g. asking for financial management experience) and the preference of officials will probably lead to a move to larger project sizes.

C15. UKOTCF recommends that HMG explore with NGOs who have personnel with experience of grant programme management and UKOTs the commissioning of such bodies to run small grant programmes, thereby retaining the effective small project programme without the need to call heavily on HMG personnel time.

C16. The initial themes indicated for Darwin Plus do not specifically include capacity-building or environmental education, and specifically exclude projects on awareness-raising, communications and outreach (taking a very extreme view of a general government guidance issued 2½ years earlier by the incoming Coalition Government). This tends to imply that work on environmental education, websites, publications, workshops and conferences would not find favour. (There is some confusion here in that, in answer to a question from Mr Andrew Rosindell MP to ask what steps the Secretary of State for International Development is taking to promote environmental awareness in St Helena, the DFID Minister of State drew attention, in November 2012, to the new fund as a means of addressing this.)

C17. Given that such types of work are clear needs in some situations by UKOTs, UKOTCF recommends that HMG takes a less arbitrarily restrictive view of the type of projects eligible for funding and takes note of what those working in UKOTs consider they need to achieve conservation.

Funding from the European Union

C18. The European Union is an obvious place to look for funding. After considerable work by UKOTCF and others, a pilot programme Preparatory Action (Voluntary scheme for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Territories of the EU Outermost Regions and Overseas Countries and Territories)‘BEST’, was established by an initiative of the European Parliament, in collaboration with Directorate-General Environment, utilising funds from Directorate-General Development Cooperation. There have been two tranches of €2 million, the first being very controversial among many EU member states with Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) as all the lead recipients were French and sub-tropical or tropical (or two international organisations with no on-the-ground experience of OCTs). The second tranche was slightly more balanced but included funding for government agencies which UKOTCF would contend is inappropriate. The process was unbalanced in that many of the recipients were eligible for other sources of EU funds, which the UKOTs are not. The process also flagged up the lack of experience (and therefore knowledge) of dealing with European Institutions; the sheer amount of time required to fill in a supposedly simplified proposal – which included advice that applicants should use an accountant to provide the financial information needed as it was complex; and this flagged up the lack of capacity within the UKOTs, both governmental and non-governmental, to deal with such processes.

C19. It had been assumed that the plan was to use the interest in funding for biodiversity projects in OCTs to persuade the European Institutions that there should be a permanent fund arising out of this preparatory action, with the current BEST (or, more correctly, Pre-BEST) results proving the need for it. Unfortunately, it was made clear at a meeting with the European Commission’s DG Environment in April 2012 that a permanent fund was not planned, that DG-ENV was not, and did not wish to be, a funding body. At the same meeting, the overseas entities of EU member states were advised to access existing EU budget-lines to fund environmental projects. This concept became known as the “virtual BEST” to follow the existing “pre-BEST”. This, however, causes major problems for the UKOTs since, aside from the still very uncertain possibility of access to the EU fund LIFE+ for the UKOTs, there are virtually no European Union funds that are accessible to them (as opposed to the Outermost Regions, those overseas entities which are parts of metropolitan member states). At present, it seems that even inclusion in LIFE+ may not be extended to OTs, but may be extended to non-EU countries in Asia! There is a need for considerable lobbying on the part of the UK Government to change this situation. This has not been a priority in the past for HMG, but we hope that policy will change and the UK Government will lobby hard for funding possibilities for Overseas Territories. Indeed, reaching agreement to open up funding lines currently not available is something hinted at in the White Paper. It was apparent that considerable work needed to be done to ensure inclusion of sustainable funding in the new EU budget agreement for 2014 onwards, but there is little evidence that HMG has tried to do so. UKOTCF would also wish to see HMG work with other states to press 92

the European Commission to reduce the needless and disproportionate bureaucratic load on applications and other processes.

C20. Whilst not finally agreed, the European Parliament has voted through a third tranche of funding for a pre-BEST round for 2013. The modalities for this will be agreed only once the funding has been formally approved in trialogue, but there are signs of disagreement within the Commission. Some wish to see this tranche used towards production of an ongoing sustainable process – the original intention of pre-BEST – but others seem to consider it something of a nuisance and merely wish to continue as before and fund half a dozen one-off projects. UKOTCF hopes that HMG will put its weight behind the former option (assuming the funding is agreed), and work towards a sustainable outcome.

C21. UKOTCF recommends that UK Government engages more with the European Union institutions in order to ensure that UKOTs are not effectively excluded from EU funding for biodiversity conservation – and that, when funding is made available, procedures are simplified.

National Lottery Funding

C22. The benefits of the National Lottery are not available to the UK Overseas Territories, unlike, for example its Dutch equivalent for Dutch territories. There is no bar on the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) making grants to UK organisations which would be carried out in the UKOTs, but HLF’s current stated policy is to treat any such applications as a low priority. “When making decisions on funding, HLF take into account their policy directions, which place an emphasis on funding the heritage of the UK for access by the people of the UK.” HLF seems unaware that the UKOTs are sovereign UK territory, that their people are UK citizens and that many metropolitan UK citizens visit the UKOTs every year. The situation is exacerbated in that applications have to be made via a regional office in Britain. This places applications in direct competition with community projects in that British region, with decisions taken by regional committees with no knowledge of, or sympathy with, UKOTs. Perhaps all UKOT applications should go to one region, or a separate committee, and the relevant committee be briefed specifically on UKOT issues, and resourced for these.

C23. The 2012 White Paper suggests that HLF funding is available for work in the UKOTs: “The Lottery cannot currently be played in the Territories. However, distributing bodies, which make their funding decisions independently of Government, can make grants to support good causes in the Territories to organisations based in the UK and working in the Territories.” This, as noted above, is explicitly contradicted by HLF policy, but if Ministers feel that projects in the UKOTs should be funded by HLF, we urge them to give the Lottery bodies a Direction in line with these intentions. Such action would also give some support to HMG’s suggestion that its various Departments are now more “joined-up.”

C24. UKOTCF recommends that Ministers act on the importance they attach in the White Paper to the UKOTs and direct the National Lottery bodies to give at least equal priority in making grants to UKOTs as to metropolitan UK, and that more appropriate decision making systems be established with an understanding of UKOTs.

The Environment Charters

C25. The 1999 White Paper Partnership for Progress and Prosperity noted that the UK and its Overseas Territories have not lived up to their obligations with respect to environmental conservation, and promised to resolve that problem by negotiating Environment Charters with the Overseas Territories which would lay out responsibilities for HMG and UKOT governments, bringing in NGOs and other stakeholders. In 2001, each of the UKOTs signed a Charter, except for Gibraltar, which has 93

subsequently adopted the language of the Charter in another form, the Cyprus Sovereign Base Areas and British Antarctic Territory. The Charters are bilateral international agreements which were signed for the UK by Valerie Amos, the then Overseas Territories Minister, and by the head of each UKOT Government.

C26. The Charters are prefaced by ten Guiding Principles, based largely on the Convention for Biological Diversity and several other Conventions to which UK and UKOTs are party. These principles are followed by the Charter Commitments, a set of mutual commitments which generally set out what each Territory Government will do and how the UK government is committed to supporting that. In essence, what the Charters do is recognise that, if care for the environment is to be devolved to the Territories themselves, the local government must be committed to best practice in its management, and HMG will in turn ensure that the Territory government has the help and resources it needs.

C27. The Charters are vitally important to the UKOTs, and especially to environmental NGOs, but the UK Government has been backing away from them over the last several years. For a number of years, HMG worked with the UKOT governments and, often through UKOTCF, with NGOs in a genuine effort to meet the commitments of the Charters, providing funding through OTEP with an open application procedure, working with NGOs both in the UK and the Territories, supporting sharing of experience and expertise among the UKOTs, etc. Then about five years ago, things started to change.

• In 2008, despite promising the Environmental Audit Committee that it would “carry out a review of the Environment Charters which have now been in place for five years” the FCO told UKOTCF (which had been asked to undertake the review of progress) that it did not have the resources to review its own performance, and, indeed, it has never carried out the review it promised to the House of Commons.

• Bi-annual meetings between HMG, the UKOTCF network, UKOT Government representatives and others to keep track of, and assist, progress in conservation were ended unilaterally by the UK Government. At first UKOTCF was told that it was just a scheduling problem, but the last meeting was held in 2008 and it was later confirmed that such meetings will not be held in future.

• Despite claiming to build on the 1999 White Paper, and having a chapter on environmental conservation, the 2012 White Paper fails to refer to the Charters even once.

• This was capped off by controversy in Bermuda about whether the Charter requirement for environmental impact assessments was binding, as the Bermuda Ombudsman asserted. In an official statement the Bermuda Minister of the Environment, Planning and Infrastructure said on 2 May 2012: “We have taken advice from both the Attorney General's office and the FCO via Government House, and conclude that the UK Environment Charter does not constitute law. It is unenforceable. Rather, the UK itself considers the Charter to be aspirational.” [emphasis added]

C28. UKOTCF agrees strongly with the Bermuda Ombudsman, Arlene Brock, that the Charters are valid and binding. (see Today’s Choices – Tomorrow’s Costs ( a systemic investigation report on the SDO process), February 10, 2012 and Special Report (Ombudsman’s comment on Government’s response) June 18, 2012, www.ombudsman.bm).

C29. The general principles of international law provide that bilateral agreements between governments are binding: if they are signed in writing with specific commitments; are entered into without coercion or duress; and there is no express written provision that the signatories do not intend to be bound. Clearly the Environment Charters meet these criteria and were intended to meet them. This means they are binding, as the International Court of Justice held in its 1994 case (Qatar v Bahrain) which states that agreements between governments with specific commitments that are intended to be implemented are binding. 94

C30. UKOTCF understands that international agreements of this sort are not enforceable in court. Rather they rely on the integrity and goodwill of the signatories and their desire to be perceived as responsible members of the international community. That being said, there are other such agreements about which the UK Government would be horrified if it were suggested that they can be ignored, such as the OECD Tax Information Exchange Agreements. The 2007 TIEA between Bermuda and the UK, for example, is brought into force by the exchange of letters over the signatures of Bermuda Minister of Finance and a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. Imagine Britain's reaction if Bermuda were to assert that this tax information exchange agreement is 'aspirational'.

C31. In 1992, the UK became a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity which essentially comprises a comprehensive list of actions needed to protect species and ecosystems – a list which includes every commitment in the Charters. Section 4 of the CBD imposes accountability on each signatory for processes and activities “carried out under its jurisdiction or control, within the area of its national jurisdiction or beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.” Thus Britain, as a signatory, is responsible for meeting the obligations of the Convention in its UKOTs.

C32. The 1999 White Paper lists the responsibilities HMG and the UKOT governments have with regard to sound environmental management, reflecting again the elements of the CBD. It then notes: “These responsibilities already exist, but the UK and its Overseas Territories have not always addressed these issues sufficiently consistently or systematically.” It then announces the development of the Environment Charters to clarify respective roles and responsibilities. UKOTCF believes that the Charters are the means by which the UK intended to meet its international obligations under the CBD and other MEAs.

C33. The Environmental Audit Committee in its 2006-7 review of the FCO said it was “necessary to assess whether both the UK Government and the governments of the UKOTs have met their respective obligations under the Environment Charters and Multilateral Environment Agreements.” They go on to describe the UK's responsibility for the UKOTs as “domestic and international environmental commitments” and to note that “failure to meet such commitments undermines the UK’s ability to influence the international community.”

C34. The 2012 White Paper lists compliance with relevant multilateral environmental agreements as one of its four goals for environmental management. UKOTCF’s question is: if the Charters do not constitute the mechanism by which the UK meets its international obligations, what is that mechanism?

C35. But more importantly, most people seem to understand that the UKOTs have a variety of cultural and financial issues which affect meeting best practice in environmental management. The 1999 White Paper and the subsequent Environment Charters took a realistic look at what would be needed to enable local UKOT governments to care for their environmental resources, and developed a detailed programme of mutual commitments that would enable that to happen. Both White Papers recognise the hugely more valuable biodiversity of the UKOTs as against metropolitan UK. Why turn our backs on an established scheme that will enable effective conservation of these resources?

C36. Whilst the above paragraphs have tended to emphasise Bermuda because of the wider significance of the Ombudsman’s clear analysis, the Environment Charters are valued highly in other UKOTs also. For example, in the delay of over a decade in Cayman’s legislature passing its long- proposed environmental legislation, the Environment Department uses the Charter Commitments as a document for researchers and other parties to sign up to.

C37. UKOTCF recommends that UK Government re-affirms clearly its commitment to the Environment Charters which form the basis of UK and UKOTs fulfilling their international conservation obligations – for both the inhabited and uninhabited UK Overseas Territories.

C38. UKOTCF further recommends that fulfilling the Environment Charters be reinstated as a core role of the funding from HMG, now grouped under the Darwin Plus heading.

Protecting Gibraltar's territorial waters

C39. This issue is currently the subject of an ongoing review, with an advisory committee to the Government of Gibraltar and a Joint Commission with Spain looking at the sustainable management of marine living resources in the waters around Gibraltar; both are chaired by UKOTCF’s Chairman. The results of that review are not yet finalised, although are expected early in 2013. Clearly there is some sensitivity in providing the EAC with detailed information now ahead of publication, but the issues can be outlined now and UKOTCF would be happy to provide further evidence on this issue, subject to the approval of the Government of Gibraltar – which is unlikely to be withheld.

C40. Despite a law being passed in 1991, Gibraltar's territorial waters (BGTW) are regularly fished by Spanish vessels despite this being illegal under that law. A 1999 “understanding” agreed between the then Chief Minister of Gibraltar and the Spanish fishermen (albeit under duress) allowed for a certain number of Spanish boats to fish and the Royal Gibraltar Police (RGP) would turn a blind eye. This allowing of breaking the law was condoned by the then British government as it stopped continuation of ongoing conflict with Spain. With a new government elected in Gibraltar in late 2011, this “understanding “ was revoked, leading to further dispute and conflict, and the setting up of the Commission. There have been regular incursions by Spanish fishing boats often accompanied by paramilitary Guardia Civil boats.

C41. The 2012 White Paper sets out quite clearly what Britain's responsibilities are in this situation:

P 14: “Defence and Security: the UK is committed to defend the Territories.”

“International Support: the UK is responsible for the external relations of the Territories and uses its diplomatic resources and influence to promote their interests.”

P 22: “We will continue to maintain an independent ability to defend the Territories – including their territorial waters and airspace – from any external security threats they may face.”

“We will also ensure that the Territories are able to trade, to exploit their natural resources… free from undue external interference.”

“The Royal Navy is tasked with... upholding the sovereignty of British Gibraltar Territorial Waters.”

P 48: “economic activity, including tourism and fisheries is managed in a way that is consistent with the long term sustainable use of the natural environment, including over-exploitation.”

P 88: “Conclusion … We are defending robustly Territories which face external threats.”

C42. Despite these definitive statements of responsibility, little action has been forthcoming from HMG. The RGP are tasked with enforcing the 1991 legislation and are therefore responsible for arresting illegal fishing boats, some few of which have been intercepted and arrested. However, the Commissioner of the RGP is (quite rightly in the Forum’s view) not prepared to send unarmed police officers in small boats against armed larger Guardia Civil boats. Further, while the Royal Navy may rely on a defence that they do not undertake fisheries protection duties (unlike elsewhere in the world) and their only concern is maintaining the integrity of sovereign waters, then that still does explain 96

why armed Spanish Guardia Civil boats accompanying the Spanish boats are not tackled when they are clearly not using the waters simply for navigation purposes. There have been a number of other incidents involving Guardia Civil boats in recent months, with one arresting a Gibraltar registered boat fishing in BGTW, and in July 2012 a Guardia Civil boat fired rubber bullets at a Gibraltar registered boat within BGTW. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee looked at this issue in 1999 and many of their recommendations have not been implemented and could still apply today.

C43. The Government of Gibraltar is seeking to manage its natural resources sustainably, but is being thwarted by the illegal fishing activities of Spanish boats. (In fact, if the waters were Spanish, it is likely that it would be illegal to fish there under Spanish law.) It would normally be assumed that the role of Governor and of the FCO would be to ensure the best interests of Gibraltar and its citizens – which in this case would be to put in place measures to stop this illegal activity. However, the exact opposite appears to be the case, with the UK government putting enormous pressure on the Gibraltar Government to allow this illegal fishing. The role of the Governor seems to have switched from looking after Gibraltar’s interests to that of not upsetting the Government of Spain.

C44. UKOTCF recommends that HMG supports HM Government of Gibraltar in enforcing fisheries protection legislation, resists the Government of Spain’s support for illegal activities, and instructs the Royal Navy to support HMGOG in the consequent defence of territorial waters and their resources.

D. How the UK Government is helping the UKOTs adapt to the impact of climate change

D1. UKOTCF has currently relatively little direct involvement with climate change issues, although there has been some interaction with UNFCCC processes in a wider context than UKOTs and adaptation. Therefore, the Forum’s comment on this question will be rather brief.

D2. First, this question relates only to adaptation. Given the size of the UKOTs, it is clear that any mitigation measures will be very small in relation to the overall task of reducing carbon emissions. However, in strategic terms, it is important for the UKOTs to show that attempts are being made to reduce carbon emissions and, for a number of the UKOTs, there is a very real possibility of attaining carbon neutrality. The most obvious of these is Montserrat, with its huge potential for geothermal energy generation, but many others have great potential for solar generation. Indeed, at the final round of applications for OTEP, and following UKOTCF providing some requested advice, there was a proposal from Pitcairn for funding of solar panels. This was outwith the funding availability, but certainly showed a willingness to engage. It was noteworthy that the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) attended the final OTEP assessors’ meeting, but we do not know whether they will be invited to attend the Darwin Plus equivalent. DECC should certainly be involved in any coordination process in place or to be established. We are aware that a contract has been let early in 2012 “to identify the scope and best way to deliver an appropriate climate change programme for all UKOTs and develop a business case (for) it. The business case will need to address how the territories can be best equipped to be a) dealing with today's climate related risks and b) preparing for tomorrow's climate.” We note that three possible approaches have been suggested: 1: A truly joint HMG programme. This would mean that government departments agree on the programme itself and put their budgetary contribution towards it into a joint pot. 2: A programme that mirrors for the UKOTs the model of the International Climate Fund (ICF). Programme priorities and eligibility criteria are firmly agreed between all parties; decision-making happens in a cross-Whitehall high-level board; and implementation is taken forward by the different departments. In the case of the £2.9 billion defined as ICF spend, 97

DFID is in charge of implementing £1.8 billion, DECC of implementing £ 1 billion and DEFRA £ 100 000. 3: A programme that would be better defined as “HMG umbrella strategy” and follows the HMG collaborative approach of implementing the UKOT Biodiversity Strategy. HMG departments would agree on a joint strategy for implementing climate change related activities in the territories. Delivery of the strategy would be up to each and every department, which could use their individual delivery mechanism. The commitment to the overarching strategy would help government departments to justify their spending in implementing it and give them the flexibility to bring their spending closer in line with their own objectives. We have not seen the final conclusions of the report but, given our comments earlier about the UKOT Biodiversity Strategy (see paras C1-C17, C25-C38, E1-E29), UKOTCF would be somewhat nervous about approach 3.

D3. In respect of Darwin Plus, we note that funding for climate change adaptation is included within the overall total available. UKOTCF would wish to see funding for climate change balanced against other immediate threats in the funding portfolio. Given the high profile of climate change issues, it would be easy to concentrate funding on that to the detriment of other factors causing biodiversity loss. We should also note, once again, that funding here falls into the same gap as other sources, with UKOTs being largely ineligible for international funds for climate-change adaptation, so almost any funding for adaptation in the UKOTs will realistically have to come from the UK.

D4. DECC produced, in April 2012, a very useful leaflet DECC Support for the Overseas Territories in which it states “Since its formation DECC has shared with the Overseas Territories information on the development of UK negotiating positions under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.” This is welcome but sharing knowledge is not the same as involvement in the negotiating process, and we are not convinced that the UK Government is sufficiently involved with the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and related processes under the UNFCCC.

D5. The DECC leaflet further states that “DECC does not lead for HMG on international adaptation issues, but we will look to increase our engagement with the Overseas Territories in existing areas of collaboration, and to extend this engagement to cover knowledge sharing on renewable technology deployment.” Rather confusingly, the document ends with “DECC now provides a single point of contact for queries and requests from the Overseas Territories to in relation to energy and climate change issues.” It would be helpful if the EAC could explore this as to the lead and the relationship/coordination process.

D6. DECC notes that “In recognition of the need to improve their domestic energy security and reduce green house gas emissions, the Overseas Territories have begun to request support from DECC to help them identify suitable and locally appropriate renewable energy technologies. The 2020 Renewable Energy Roadmap summarises a large body of work on how best to address the barriers to renewables implementation. Although the Department has limited resources to support knowledge sharing in this area [emphasis added], we will look to share the roadmap proactively with the Overseas Territories, including the underlying analysis. We will respond positively to further ad-hoc requests for knowledge sharing, by directing the Overseas Territories to both internal and external sources of best practice.”

D7. It should be noted that Gibraltar is in an interesting position, showing in the top ten countries in the world for carbon emissions. However, these figures are based on turnover of hydrocarbons and, as Gibraltar is a major bunkering port, this skews the figures completely.

D8. On adaptation specifically, we note that in many cases natural systems, for example mangroves, act as an efficient buffer to extreme events which appear to be increasing due to climate-change. The loss of these and terrestrial forest systems also remove natural carbon-holding and capturing capacity. Because of their prime coastal locations, it is these ecosystems that are being lost to development through either lack of, or poor, planning. Replacement, along with other adaptation measures is a very 98

expensive process and certainly outwith the bounds of funding available under Darwin Plus as currently established.

E. Whether the recommendations in our [EAC’s] 2008 Report, Halting Biodiversity Loss, on safeguarding biodiversity and practising joined-up government to further conservation have been implemented

Funding

E1. As noted in Section C (especially paras C1-C11, C22-C23), despite calls from both the Environmental Audit Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee in 2008 that funding for biodiversity conservation be greatly increased to meet the actual need, rather than limiting funding to what the FCO and DFID had to spare, the funding level has remained substantially the same and access to that funding has become increasingly difficult for small Territories and most NGOs (C12- C17, E20-E29, F2-F4, G8-G16).

Environment Charters

E2. Again, as noted in Section C (paras E2-E5), a promise made to the Environmental Audit Committee to review progress on the Environment Charters was never kept, and instead HMG began backing away from the Charters (paras E20-E29).

E3. At the request of the UK Government and the UKOTs, UKOTCF collated information from all parties in 2006-7 and 2009 to monitor progress on the commitments. Bodies in the UKOTs provided a good deal of information on progress on their work on the commitments, and were generally commendably open as to the nature of this. However, despite initiating the work and keeping good records on its fulfilling the commitments until at least 2003, the UK Government felt unable to supply information on its own work in this regard at the time of these reviews.

E4. When preparing supplementary evidence to address questions put to their Minister by the Committee during the Inquiry on Trade, Development and Environment: the role of the FCO, FCO officials asked UKOTCF about progress on its review on implementation of the Charters. Subsequently, the FCO Minister’s supplementary memorandum to the House of Commons EAC stated (with a slightly optimistic interpretation of UKOTCF’s estimate of the timescale): “Your Committee also asked about an assessment of the Overseas Territories Environment Charters. The UKOTCF is currently gathering information on the progress in implementing the Environment Charter Commitments for each Territory (or the equivalent for those Territories without Charters). The Forum intends to publish a progress report towards the middle of this year. The FCO will use that information, in consultation with Whitehall colleagues and the governments of the Overseas Territories, to carry out a review of the Environment Charters which have now been in place for five years.”

E5. In this context, UKOTCF put a great deal of further effort into helping and encouraging UKOTs to provide information and is very pleased to note that, of the 21 entities that constitute the UKOTs and Crown Dependencies, responses were received from or on behalf of 19. In line with the Environment Charters themselves, responses were welcomed from both governmental and non- governmental bodies and, in several cases, the responses were integrated. UKOTCF did not receive information from HMG in respect of the UK Commitments in the Environment Charters, nor from those UKOTs which are directly administered by UK Government: British Indian Ocean Territory 99

(which has an Environment Charter), British Antarctic Territory, and the Cyprus Sovereign Base Areas (although information was received from non-governmental sources for some). A few months later, the FCO reported that, although it had no problem in principle with the indicators, HMG did not have the resources to report on the implementation of its own Commitments. Since then, it has never produced the report promised to the EAC, and, as noted in the previous section, began backing away from the Charters to the point where the FCO advised the Bermuda Government, through Bermuda's Government House, that the Charters were only 'aspirational' (see paras C25-C38).

Strategic Assessment of Need

E6. One of the recommendations from the EAC's 2008 Halting Biodiversity Loss Report was: “An ecosystem assessment should be conducted in partnership with each UKOT in order to provide the baseline environmental data required and to outline the effective response options needed to halt biodiversity loss.”

E7. UKOTCF had started work on some aspects of this in the 1990s, in consultation with UKOTs and the support of the Darwin Initative, the results appearing first in UK Dependent Territories – A Conservation Review (1996), and later, with updating around 2000 by some UKOTs, as a web- database on UKOTCF’s web-site. Also relevant was a further analysis, The Convention on Biological Diversity and the UK Overseas Territories, a report to the WWF-UK by the UKOTCF in April 1998 (www.ukotcf.org/pdf/cdbweb.pdf).

E8. With the development and signing of the Environment Charters in 2001, UKOTCF understood that such work would be taken forward within the context of these. UKOTCF, supported by FCO’s EFOT, played its part in this by facilitating, in 2002-3, the development of strategy to implement the Environment Charter in a pilot UKOT – for which Turks & Caicos volunteered. After this, St Helena secured funding from OTEP and, at its request, UKOTCF facilitated a strategy there too, in 2004-5. (Details of both of these can be found on www.ukotcf.org.) Around the same time, UKOTCF personnel visited the Falkland Islands to advise personnel there, who were approaching Environment Charter strategy development via an alternative route of biodiversity strategy and action plans. UKOTCF also helped Ascension personnel draft a simple Environment Charter implementation strategy; this was adopted informally, but lost when HMG cancelled local democracy there (see para E21). Following these mainly successful exercises, FCO and DFID lost interest in supporting such work (see paras B3, C25-C38, E20-E29) as well as in the monitoring of progress which it had initially asked UKOTCF to co-ordinate (see para C27, E2-E5).

E9. Therefore, UKOTCF welcomed news that FCO, DFID and DEFRA were to collaborate on developing a biodiversity strategy for UKOTs, and had asked DEFRA’s agency, JNCC, to draft this. UKOTCF was surprised that, in contrast to all previous work in this subject area, UKOTCF was not consulted in any way nor at any stage. This seemed to demonstrate a move to rather more closed approach by HMG than in the past. It also seemed to reflect, just at the time of JNCC’s adoption of a greater role in UKOTs, a transfer of responsibility for this to personnel with less experience of this subject area.

E10. The United Kingdom Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy, published in late 2009 by FCO, DFID, DEFRA and JNCC, suffers from the problem that it is not actually a strategy, but acts effectively as a memorandum of agreement between the three departments. This was recognised at a seminar on 23 September 2010, organised by UKOTCF and attended by representatives from UK Government Departments and agencies (Department of Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS), Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Department for International Development (DFID), Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO), Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC)), a UKOT government representative, five UKOTCF Member/Associate organisations and other partners, and UKOTCF officers and Council members (report in Forum News 37, December 2010). UKOTCF felt 100

that the almost total lack of stakeholder engagement in the process of developing the Strategy had resulted in a feeling of “us and them” in the NGO community, despite the ministerial Foreword specifically noting the important role of NGOs and other stakeholders. Also, the document was not a strategy by usual standards, but more a statement of aspirations; rather than assisting in decision making, it seemed designed to constrain action. The document failed to address a number of important international obligations (e.g. various aspects of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the “wise use” provisions under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands). Environment Charters were referred to in the document, but with no specific indication of how their implementation would be advanced. There were few outputs and no outcomes in the document, and there was an absence of clear targets (e.g. achievement of “Favourable Conservation Status”, as in the UK). In many respects, the wording of the Strategy was weaker than that of earlier policy documents, including the relevant 1999 and 2006 White Papers; the second of these, for example, committed FCO to “Improve the governance, environment and security of the Overseas Territories and encourage more diversified and sustainable economic development” and “Manage the impact of new international obligations affecting the Overseas Territories” and “Promote biodiversity conservation in the Overseas Territories with support for local livelihoods and sustainable development”. Whilst noting that UKOT biodiversity issues were an important consideration across all relevant UK Government departments, the Strategy provided no indication (for example) of how the Department of Communities & Local Government might be engaged in relation to planning issues in the Territories; this continues to be a major concern in relation to environmental management. It seemed likely that even more of the work necessary to meet the aspirations of the Strategy would fall to the kinds of bodies that had been excluded from its development. If the Strategy were to be converted into a meaningful (say) Action Plan, it would be essential for all stakeholders to be engaged in this process.

E11. The seminar discussions revealed that officials of UK Government departments perceived the function and value of the Strategy very differently from the NGO community. The document was seen primarily as a formal commitment by DEFRA, DFID and FCO to work together in addressing UKOT environmental issues; this represented a significant step forward, given that the previous lack of a “joined-up” approach had been heavily criticised. Officials felt that, had a more detailed document been produced, it would have been very difficult to secure cross-departmental ministerial approval, and the opportunity to secure a commitment to a more integrated approach across these three departments might have been lost. Instead, there was now a useful high-level, published document, which could be used to remind Ministers of the commitment to a cross-departmental approach, of the importance of the UKOTs, and in arguing (for example) for the continuation of OTEP. Officials indicated that the lack of NGO engagement reflected the fact that this was intended to be an inward-looking document, outlining how the UK Government was working and intended in future to work on UKOT environmental issues.

E12. Officials stated that UKOTCF would be invited to the next meeting of the interdepartmental officials group, in November, where discussions would involve aspects of the forward process, although this invitation was not, in the event, forthcoming.

E13. It was agreed that it was unfortunate that very different perceptions of the Strategy had clearly arisen. UKOTCF acknowledged the value of the document in providing leverage within UK Government for a joined-up approach, and for keeping UKOTs biodiversity on the political agenda, as was now being stressed by officials. However, the document itself implied (including in the ministerial Foreword) that it represented much more than this. It appeared to advance a framework for biodiversity conservation in the UKOTs, although it was clearly inadequate for this purpose, and seemed to say to other stakeholders including NGOs “this is UK Government’s solution, now you can join in”. Reflecting on the very different perceptions of the Strategy from inside and outside UK Government, a UKOT participant questioned whether these would have arisen if the twice-yearly, joint meetings between UK Government and UKOTCF (once found very valuable on both sides for “joining-up” the approaches of UK Government and the NGO community) had not been discontinued unilaterally by HMG.

101

E14. At that meeting, and later in discussion with Government officials, UKOTCF offered help in developing some elements necessary to produce a more complete strategy. To further redevelop a complementary approach between HMG and NGOs, and to add strategy elements into the HMG MoU confusingly entitled “Strategy”, UKOTCF organised, on 28th June 2011, a further workshop on starting to develop UK objectives for biodiversity conservation in the UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies (report at www.ukotcf.org/pdf/fNews/BiodivWorkshop1106.pdf). UKOTCF stressed that this was not intended to replace the UK Government document which agreed the share of roles between UK government departments, but to be complementary to it. In addition, it was not intended that any draft objectives developed be prescriptive for UK Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies. Rather, they were intended to draw on previous views from UKOTs/CDs and elsewhere, to try to identified shared features. These could then be used to guide supporting work by UK Government and other outside bodies. Without clear objectives, it would difficult for these to resource, plan and execute their efforts to support the territories. The draft objectives might be useful also for UKOTs and CDs in any revisions of their own strategies. The discussions were stimulated by example presentations from two territories.

E15. The workshop made useful progress on the potential natures of strategies, particularly relating to the Environment Charters and the Aichi Targets, to which HMG had recently signed up to. However, it became clear at the workshop and afterwards that HMG officials were extremely reluctant to engage in strategic discussions even when UKOT personnel asked them to. This is difficult to reconcile with FCO’s recent comments that it wished its re-organised grant funding to take a more strategic approach. Whilst the earlier funding under EFOT and the initial years of OTEP had an underlying strategy of fulfilling the Environment Charters, the strategic objectives of the new scheme and other HMG work in this area has not been defined, or even consulted on.

E16. DEFRA expressed the view at the workshop that the Aichi Targets, which UKOTCF had incorporated in their draft for discussion, are a very heavy sledgehammer with which to address UKOT conservation. However, the UK Post-2010 Biodiversity Framework (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6189), published in July 2012 by JNCC and DEFRA on behalf of the Four Countries’ Biodiversity Group), includes, at section 2.6 Overseas Territories: “Most UK Overseas Territories (OTs) and Crown Dependencies have Environment Charters that address biodiversity issues. The UK government’s strategy (United Kingdom Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy) aims to enable the UK and Overseas Territories governments to meet their international obligations for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the UK OTs. The delivery of the Aichi targets in UK OTs will be supported by the UK government via the implementation of this strategy. The nature of the work to implement the strategy will be to: i. provide advice; ii. support capacity building, evidence gathering and research; and, iii. assist Overseas Territories to access appropriate funding mechanisms. This work will contribute to addressing most, if not all, of the Aichi targets within the Overseas Territories.”

E17. However, whilst HMG’s view of the relevance of the Aichi Targets to UKOTs and CDs seems to have become more logical, this document does not take matters further, because the “Strategy” to which reference is made is the same 2009 inter-departmental agreement which lacks objectives and most other elements that would normally constitute a strategy. Despite offers of cooperation from the Forum and continued suggestions that JNCC would be producing an action plan to implement the so- called strategy, there was nothing public being produced. Further enquiries suggested that only actions relevant to DEFRA and JNCC were being generated. Ongoing discussions with DEFRA just produced an answer that it was inappropriate for the UK government to impose objectives on the UKOTs. The Forum had never suggested that to be the outcome, but what the Forum did expect were clear objectives and an action plan for HMG to use in implementing the MoU/strategy. At the last meeting the Forum had with DEFRA in September 2012, we were once again told of the inappropriateness of producing objectives but were advised that, contrary to HMG officials’ instincts and after significant 102

pressure from NGOs and others, they were now minded to produce a plan. The Forum has received no further information on the possible content of this and has not been consulted. However, in respect of direct imposition of policy on UKOTs, it is patently not true that this does not happen. This is witnessed by an example from Gibraltar, where the form completed for the European Commission providing details of the Special Area of Conservation under the Habitats Directive was altered (before submission to the European Commission) by HMG’s agency, JNCC, without the Government of Gibraltar’s knowledge or approval.

E18. In late 2012, HMG scheduled a 1-day meeting in March 2013 to review progress and future priorities for an implementation plan for a UKOT biodiversity strategy. Whilst UKOTCF will attempt to help this, a 3.5 year delay since the strategy and delays of 2.5 and 1.5 years since UKOTCF ran workshops to stimulate joint efforts seem to indicate some lack of priority in HMG’s view. Furthermore, the approach to the setting up of the meeting still seems to indicate a reluctance to re- engage enthusiastically with NGOs.

E19. UKOTCF recommends that HMG re-engage with the UKOTCF network and other partners to develop a real strategy, preferably shared, for conservation work in the UKOTs.

The decline in interest by FCO, and the role of other government departments and agencies

E20. The decline in interest by FCO in UKOT conservation was perhaps first apparent in its absent- minded cancellation of the Environment Fund for Overseas Territories in 2002, only a year after HMG committed to this Fund in the 2001 Environment Charters. However, some senior staff in FCO at the time were open to reasoned argument (especially at the UKOTCF-organised conference in 2003), so that the fund was reinstated in 2003 (initially on a temporary basis, and then as OTEP). However, a more permanent decline started in 2005/6 – although it was several years before the scale and nature of this became fully apparent.

E21. In 2005/6, HMG reversed its policy on Ascension in a way which had major environmental impacts (as well as on the population). In the late 1990s, the companies which used Ascension, and which were effectively allowed by HMG to run the island, had indicated that they no longer wished to do so. HMG had commissioned a study by the University of Portsmouth to look into the future constitution, resulting in March 2000 in a report. The consultants identified two options for the future of Ascension: model one “modified status quo” would result in the decline of the island. The other “public finance” option would involve a move to a more normal system of government and economy, with an elected council, the introduction of property rights, right of abode, opportunities for self- employment and investment in new business, and the opening of the airport to civilian traffic. HMG accepted the report and, in 2001, announced that it would implement the recommended “public finance” option. A first Council was elected and served its term, and a second Council elected. Until November 2005, people long resident on Ascension believed, as they had been led to believe by HMG, that they would have a right to residency, and, on this basis, a number of them had invested in local businesses. At the end of November 2005, a small group of British officials visited Ascension and the newly elected second Council, and announced that HMG had reversed its previous position, and that human rights were to be cancelled and the changes agreed and announced as definite five years earlier were not to be legislated despite their being effectively implemented already. Local representatives said that, if local residents could not invest in a place and did not have the right to stay in their home island, they were unlikely to have a commitment to the environment. The Deputy Head of FCO’s Sustainable Development Group (who was also the joint Chairman, with UKOTCF’s Chairman, of the 6-monthly joint HMG/UKOTCF network meetings) confirmed that his Group had not been consulted by the FCO colleagues reversing the policy. RSPB strongly supported UKOTCF’s concern, both bodies having heavily invested, alongside FCO, in the successful restoration of the wildlife of Ascension. FCO officials exacerbated the situation by first denying (despite the evident situation) that there had been a reversal of policy, and second by referring to citizens on Ascension as 103

contract workers (reflecting the language used by HMG in the 1960s when evicting the inhabitants of the Chagos Islands). FCO had assumed that there would be no environmental implications. This attitude caused great concern amongst the NGO and UKOT representatives who profoundly disagreed with this, on the basis of direct experience. The FCO Deputy Head of Sustainable Development indicated that he fully understood the link to the environment, as he had been involved in FCO’s work in some developing countries to facilitate the concept of environmental democracy – and was clearly concerned by his colleague’s actions. UKOTCF was concerned that, despite a long and productive partnership with FCO in respect of Ascension, FCO had not consulted, or even advised, them of this plan for a fundamental change until UKOTCF had heard indirectly some weeks later, and that environmental aspects were clearly overlooked in the development of FCO’s proposed policy reversal. UKOTCF regretted the breakdown in the normally constructive communications.

E22. Shortly after the Ascension controversy, FCO closed down its environmental section (then the Sustainable Development Group, previously Environment Policy Department and, before that, Environment, Science & Energy Department). This series of bodies had been responsible for working with UKOTCF to set up the twice-yearly liaison meetings and other co-operation, the Environment chapter in the 1999 White Paper, the Environment Charters, and the grant programmes EFOT and later OTEP. In 2005, the FCO dropped virtually all its environmental posts, claiming that other government departments would pick up this role for the UKOTs, but in practice little of this happened and certainly not effectively. One might imagine that, with reduced UK Governmental capacity, the government would seek to fill the gap by encouraging work by NGOs and their chosen umbrella body, UKOTCF, which had worked in partnership with government for two decades. However, the reverse was true from the middle of the first decade of the millennium.

E23. With the loss of FCO’s environmental team, the HMG lead in contacts with the UKOTCF network transferred to FCO’s Overseas Territories Department (later Directorate). Whilst UKOTCF had worked well with OTD previously, alongside the environmental department links, there were changes in OTD at the same time. The normal first point of contact from mid-2006 was OTD’s Deputy Head. She appeared to take a dislike to UKOTCF, and amazed her colleagues from other HMG Departments by attending a 5-day UKOTCF-organised UKOT/Crown Dependency conservation conference in Jersey for just half a day, and speaking openly from the lectern about UKOTCF as if it were an evil foreign power. This attitude may have affected the new FCO Head of Overseas Territories, Leigh Turner; at what was supposed to be a “get-to-know” meeting in late 2006, he started by launching an attack on UKOTCF’s Chairman and Vice-Chairman over the Ascension issue of about a year earlier, before his appointment. The negative attitude seemed also to transfer to his successor as FCO Director of Overseas Territories, Colin Roberts. Whilst UKOTCF had what seemed to be a positive meeting with him in mid-2008, shortly after he took office, when he invited UKOTCF’s Chairman to drop in any time, he then refused to meet UKOTCF for nearly 4 years, until mid-2012, just before he left office. References to the ‘Big Society’ gave hope that the new Coalition Government would reverse this negative trend. In practice, however, the decline in UK Government’s interest in working with UKOTCF and its member bodies continued and possibly even accelerated.

E24. UKOTCF discovered in 2012, from a document released under an unrelated application under the Freedom of Information Act, that Colin Roberts had been trying to undermine UKOTCF, while at the same time his staff were telling UKOTCF that FCO had no problem with UKOTCF – and despite the fact that UKOTCF is the body that a range of UKOT and other NGOs selected to interact for them with the UK Government and others. UKOTCF had previously experienced a very professional attitude from FCO officials and was unused to them taking (or expressing) personal dislike. It is not clear whether this personalisation of positions by senior FCO officials influenced their attitude to inter-organisational matters, but UKOTCF is concerned that this may be the case.

E25. This secrecy meant that the UKOTCF network was unable to do anything about it nor address any issues UK Government officials may have had. From about 2006, when JNCC was given authority and resources to take an interest in UKOTs and Crown Dependencies, this body set up parallel systems to those long operated by UKOTCF for both NGO and official bodies, but excluded 104

UKOTCF and UKOT NGOs from involvement – or even knowledge of the existence of these groups. UKOTCF considers this wasteful of public resources and disruptive to a co-operative approach.

E26. The period also showed a decline in HMG funding for UKOT conservation through the effective UKOTCF network. Payments from FCO (and, to a lesser extent, DEFRA) made up most of the total from 1999/2000 to 2004/5. With the start of the joint FCO/OTEP scheme (replacing FCO’s EFOT), grants from DFID started in 2004/5. Progressively over the next 3 years, DFID became responsible for virtually all the funding from HMG to UKOTCF, as the FCO funding dwindled to nothing. Generally, the pattern of funding (until a post-2008 reduction to a low, and now zero, level) reflected the work on conservation and environmental projects for and with the UKOTs. Peaks in 1999/2000, 2002/3, 2006 and 2008/9 reflected the 3-yearly UKOTCF-organised conference-workshops for conservation practitioners in the UKOTs – highly valued by the latter as means of cost-effectively sharing expertise and skills. The last grant award from HMG to UKOTCF was in 2008/9, with the last payment in 2011/2. HMG has not awarded any grant to support UKOTCF’s conservation work in the UKOTs for over four years.

E27. It may be relevant also that, from 2006, UKOTCF started giving evidence to House of Commons Select Committees, particularly Environmental Audit and Foreign Affairs, and that this evidence included constructive criticism, notably of FCO and DEFRA. UKOTCF is aware that the fact that it challenges the FCO and testifies to Parliamentary Committees honestly about funding and other problems has made it unpopular with officials. It might be said that the Forum is 'biting the hand that feeds it.' However, UKOTCF does not think that funding its work in support of conservation partners in the UKOTs should be dependent on refraining from offering constructive criticism and advocating on behalf of its network of UKOT organisations. The Forum has always said what it feels needs to be said. In other times this was taken positively by the FCO and acted upon. More recently, officials seem to take any criticism of policy as personal rather than a difference in professional opinion. When the FCO inadvertently eliminated EFOT a year after the Charters were signed (see para E20 and Moving Backwards in UK Overseas Territories Conservation: Comments by the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum on the UK Government’s June 2012 White Paper The Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability (Cm 8374), appended ant web-link at para A3), UKOTCF spoke out strongly, and the response of the officials of the day was to work with the Forum to establish OTEP. Indeed, previous officials had made it clear that they did not wish any funding by HMG to restrict the UKOTCF network from making constructive comments. This was not just because the then officials recognised that the UKOTCF network resources UKOT conservation by an even greater amount of voluntary effort, but because they recognised the benefit in solving challenges by sharing the issues.

E28. FCO’s removal of its environmental personnel in 2006 was, according to FCO, to be followed by other government departments taking on greater roles while FCO retained the policy lead for UKOTs. There was, around that time, limited increased involvement by DFID, but its current focus on targeting 0.7% of GDP for ODA countries appears to be causing a move away from UKOTs (most of which do not qualify under ODA – see para C3). DEFRA eventually, in 2009, accepted an increased responsibility for UKOTs, but this was followed almost immediately by financial constraints neutralising most of the changes (see para C3). DEFRA’s agency, JNCC, had been allowed to increase its involvement in UKOTs and CDs from about 2007. However, with this came two problems. First, JNCC tended to duplicate existing networks and efforts and not communicate with them, rather than continuing its earlier collaborative approach before the 2007 expansion of its activities in UKOTs and CDs (see para E25). Second, DEFRA seemed to adopt a novel position that JNCC had to be its monopoly supplier both of advice and as a route for managing funding. This novel approach tended to reduce support for NGOs, because JNCC decided to limit its newly created duplicate networks to governmental bodies. In a wider sense, the success of engaging, albeit not totally effectively, other government departments and agencies in UKOTs seems to have caused the little time available for liaison to be spent within government. As a consequence, the formerly strong and effective liaison between FCO and the UKOTCF network has dwindled away, despite UKOTCF’s best efforts to retain and then restore this. 105

E29. Whilst UKOTCF has great respect for some of JNCC’s specialist officers, it has real concern at some of its approaches to UKOTs and Crown Dependencies. These include: the duplication of previously existing networks but exclusion of NGOs (see paras E25, E28); the reluctance to collaborate or communicate with the UKOTCF network (see paras E9-E19); some questions over its management of projects supported by UK public funds (see Proceedings of a workshop on 2nd October 2012 – full reference at para 3); and failings in organisation of UKOT-related projects. JNCC’s handling of its UK OTs and CDs 2011 Biodiversity Snapshot Review (apparently made available in late 2012) provides an example of this. In 1999, JNCC published a review of biodiversity in the UKOTs. It had some problems of accuracy and completeness at the time (probably because of resource limitations). UKOTCF had been disappointed that JNCC had opted not to take up UKOTCF’s offer of September 2007, to work jointly with JNCC on the revision of this document. Co-operation from that early stage might have reduced some of the pressure on resources noted by JNCC later in respect of this project. In 2010, JNCC decided that the document needed updating. In June 2010, UKOTCF’s Honorary Executive Director (amongst others) was asked to (and agreed to) review the new version in the period mid-September to mid-October 2010. However, nothing more was heard from JNCC until the end of January 2011 (over four months after the documents were due) when the reviewers were told that the document would be ready by mid-February 2011. Despite all other stages taking longer, the time for reviewers had been reduced to three weeks. Again, silence followed, until early March 2011, when an email appeared saying that some drafts were now ready and others were to be supplied later. Despite this, reviewers were required to respond by the end of March – only three weeks later – when some drafts were only just appearing. This made it rather difficult to review the document as a whole. The work of the authors from individual territories was generally good, but it was clear that little guidance had been given to them from JNCC on approach – or even the type of items that should be covered. Omissions included published cross-territory analyses previously commissioned by HMG, and previously funded projects. Coverages of, for example, designated sites and Environment Charters are highly inconsistent. Some UKOTs are omitted, as also are mentions of other major sources of information. In summary, the Forum has to conclude that there are significant issues around both JNCC’s capacity and capabilities when dealing with UKOTs and in its understanding of and liaison with NGOs.

F. Whether UK Government strategy on the UKOTs is consistent with the conclusions and commitments on protecting biodiversity reached at the recent United Nations Rio+20 conference

F1. It is very difficult to be specific here as outcome documents of both Rio+20 and the White Paper are largely aspirational, with little concrete in the way of proposals and actions. The White Paper is mostly in line with the Rio+20 document, but the proof of the effectiveness of both will be in the outcomes. Most aspects are addressed in other sections of this memorandum. One major omission from the White Paper, as noted previously (para B1) is reference to the green growth agenda, which features highly in the Rio document but not at all in the White Paper. Interestingly it does feature in the latest JNCC business plan.

F2. It is worth, however, drawing attention in particular to paragraphs 43, 44 and 53 of Report of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 20–22 June 2012. These stress the need for broad public participation, specifically NGOs and civil society generally. Rather oddly, as we outline at paras G12-G16, the tendency of HMG in recent years has been the reverse of this – which is contrary to the text in the White Paper. From strong joint working for many years up to about seven years ago, HMG has unilaterally reduced its involvement with the network bringing together NGOs and others concerned with environmental conservation in the UKOTs, and reduced to zero its contribution to its costs, severely endangering its work.

106

F3. This is despite the priority action, identified in DEFRA’s 2012 paper The Environment in the United Kingdom’s Overseas Territories: UK Government and Civil Society Support: “Continued and improved coordination, cooperation and knowledge sharing on environmental management between the UK and its Territories, and between the Territories themselves.” This was a role that UKOTCF had fulfilled for some time, but has had to reduce because of HMG’s removal of all support.

F4. UKOTCF recommends that UK Government Ministers instruct their officials and agencies to respond positively to the repeated invitations from UKOTCF, its member organisations and other NGOs to restore the productive communication and collaborative working that characterised conservation work for the UKOTs, until unilaterally reduced by officials over the past half-decade.

G. How weaknesses in civil society and governance in the UKOTs impact on conservation

Weaknesses in governance in the UKOTs

G1. The basic premise of devolving environmental conservation to the UKOT governments must be that they carry out their responsibilities in a manner which reflects best practice. That, of course, is what the Environment Charters lay out: the steps and policies which ensure a high standard of environmental conservation such as mandatory Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) before high-impact decisions are made. However, there are several aspects of political life in most UKOTs which run directly counter to the necessary high standards.

G2. First is the political nature of land use and development decisions. Major development decisions are considered to be the province of Ministers, who tend to feel that they know what is best and that environmental considerations are very much secondary to what they see as economic gains. Once a Minister takes over the decision regarding a major development through a Special Development Order (SDO) or similar process, the officials and departments charged with protecting the environment are effectively gagged and, rather than being allowed to advocate for the environment, their job becomes implementing the Minister's decision. They are simply outgunned by developers who have direct access to the Minister making the decision. It should be noted that this concept of absolute Ministerial discretion is what enabled the kind of corruption we saw recently in the Turks and Caicos Islands to flourish.

G3. A related point is the culture of secrecy in UKOT governments. All Cabinet decisions are made in secret and no reasons are normally given for them. And this culture of secrecy extends into many areas of government, most especially the local boards responsible for considering development applications. As an example, the Bermuda Government asserts that one reason for not requiring an EIA in Ministerial decisions regarding SDOs is that it would “'not be appropriate to mandate that Cabinet declare its deliberations over technical officer recommendations” – clearly asserting that secrecy trumps consultation. This means that decisions with huge environmental consequences are often made in secret with no public consultation.

G4. This seems a bit ironic in the face of 'The Seven Principles of Public Life' laid out in the 2012 White Paper, which includes the principle “Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their actions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.” This could not be further from the reality of several UKOT governments.

G5. Another factor is that small populations of the UKOTs mean small constituencies, and often very narrow margins of victory in local elections. This makes it difficult for politicians to carry out long 107

range policies which may be unpopular in the short term, like fisheries management decisions. What politician with a ten-vote majority is going to impose controls over something like spear fishing, when a significant number of his constituents will be angered by them?

G6. It seems extremely concerning that HMG, when directly governing a UKOT, seems to adopt some of the same practices of secrecy, lack of consultation and lack of taking account of environmental considerations. We note this (at para B8. Above) in relation to the recent period of direct rule by HMG in the Turks & Caicos Islands and effectively in Montserrat (para B9). Such problems have been noted by several parties in respect of the UKOTs in permanent direct rule from HMG, such as British Indian Ocean Territory, as well as when HMG resumed direct rule in over Ascension, for no explicit reason (see para E21).

G7. UKOTCF recommends that HMG officials involved in decision making on UKOTs receive some basic training in environmental conservation and sustainable development, or at least have some technical advice on such matters available and pay regard to this.

The importance of Territory-based NGOs

G8. Locally-based NGOs serve vital functions in conservation. They address weaknesses in civil society and local governments, they educate local people and they represent their concerns. They are aware of local issues and work at the grass-roots level to address them. They carry out valuable environmental programmes, at very low cost to all concerned. And when it happens that a local government makes a decision which would have severe environmental consequences, such as approving environmentally unsound tourism development, they are in practice the only force that can speak up for the importance of environmental conservation

G9. This last point is really critical. The current UK Government strategy for conservation in the inhabited UKOTs relies almost entirely on the governments of the UKOTs. This assumes that the UKOT Governments are using best practice in their planning and decision-making procedures. The Environment Charters recognise the importance of this by committing the UKOT Governments to (1) making their decisions in an open and consultative manner, (2) requiring Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) before making decisions on high-impact development, and (3) requiring that a public consultation be a part of the EIA. But if a local government decides not to follow this best practice, and makes a high-impact decision without environmental assessment or public consultation, the UK Government no longer becomes involved; the only bodies who try to ensure that environmental concerns are taken into account are local NGOs.

G10. A recent high-profile case in Bermuda illustrates this point clearly. In the case of Tucker’s Point, the Bermuda Government decided that it was going to grant a Special Development Order (SDO) which would allow tourism development on some of the most sensitive and environmentally valuable areas of Bermuda (including rare woodlands and caves which are habitat to numerous endemic species). Local NGOs heard rumours that this was in the pipeline and requested information from officials about it. Far from carrying out public consultation, these requests for information were either ignored or the potential SDO was outright denied until the granting of the SDO was announced as a fait accompli. Huge mobilisation of the Bermuda public, organised by local NGOs, resulted eventually in some of the most egregious elements of the SDO being modified. But, even then, there was no public consultation on the changes that were to be made. Without the NGO community, there is no one who can even try to stop a Territory government from sacrificing biodiversity to short-term economic advantage.

G11. Similar examples of the key role of NGOs could be cited from other UKOTs and CDs, including: damaging built development at Beef Island, British Virgin Islands, and Anguilla; unnecessary road development in the Cayman Islands; and current activities (actually promoted by HMG) at Montserrat and Turks & Caicos (paras B8-B9). 108

G12. Local NGOs and the officers of UKOTCF, a body made up of member organisations in the UKOTs and in Britain (as well as the Crown Dependencies), have long been supported by HMG and in return have contributed a great deal to the effectiveness of HMG's efforts in the UKOTs. UK officials and UKOTCF member organisations, together with UK representatives of UKOT governments, met regularly so that the UK officials could be made aware of issues of concern in the UKOTs, and the Forum (and thereby its member organisations) could be kept up to date on policies, programmes and proposals from the UK Government. Often, these meetings resulted in significant progress. One of UKOTCF’s key roles is to keep its member organisations in contact with each other and the UK Government. It does this in three ways: 1) regional working groups (Wider Caribbean Working Group, Southern Oceans Working Group, Europe Territories Working Group) meet quarterly to discuss the issues of concern to members and to share information and resources; 2) every three years since 2000 the Forum, with support from the UK Government, has held conferences at which local NGOs and governmental conservation bodies could share resources and information; and 3) through its regular newsletters and e-updates, the concerns as well as the successes of conservation in the UKOTs are disseminated. All these are supplemented by individual contacts.

G13. However, over the last few years, this mutually productive partnership between the UK Government and UKOTCF member bodies has been gradually eroded by officials, without consultation, to the point of now having been phased out. We are concerned that this is part of a general movement away from support of local NGOs and towards a conservation policy which is driven by UK officials rather than being demand-led from the UKOTs. The meetings between UK officials and UKOTCF have been dropped and officials indicated very belatedly that support for the next three-yearly conference, due in 2012, would not be forthcoming.

G14. There seems also to be a tendency amongst recent HMG officials that contacts and funding should be directed mainly through UKOT governments, a move away from a more mixed approach in the past. UKOTCF would like to see a return to a more balanced approach, for the reasons already outlined.

G15. The way in which FCO dealt with the White Paper provides the most recent example of its break-off of communications with UKOTCF, the body which many UKOT and other NGOs choose to link with HMG. Although UKOTCF spent much effort in collating information from its network to respond to FCO’s pre-White Paper consultation, virtually none of its some 30 recommendations were taken up in the White Paper (see Moving Backwards in UK Overseas Territories Conservation: Comments by the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum on the UK Government’s June 2012 White Paper The Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability (Cm 8374), appended). When UKOTCF invited FCO (and other government departments and agencies) to a workshop on the White Paper, the FCO then Director of Overseas Territories (after first giving the impression that HMG would participate) replied shortly before the workshop that HMG would not participate (see Environmental Conservation and UK Government’s June 2012 White Paper The Overseas Territories: Security, Success and Sustainability (Cm 8374) - Proceedings of a workshop on 2nd October 2012 at Gibraltar House, the Strand, London, organised by the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum, appended). In a further letter of 10th October, the then FCO Director of Overseas Territories and the DEFRA Deputy Director of International Biodiversity and Evidence declined a meeting of UKOTCF with FCO and DEFRA Ministers, “as we have recently met with you to discuss your views on the White Paper.” This was not true. The officials appeared to be referring to two meetings in recent months on other topics. After 4 years of refusing to meet UKOTCF on anything, the then FCO Director of Overseas Territories met UKOTCF’s Chairman in June 2012 (see para E23). This was not to discuss the White Paper (except for the then FCO Director to say that UKOTCF would not like the contents) because the White Paper had not yet been published and was not available to discuss. The second meeting, in September 2012, was an invitation by DEFRA to UKOTCF officers to discuss other issues. At a late stage, DEFRA advised UKOTCF that they had invited FCO to attend also, but indicated that the agenda (which did not include the White Paper) had not changed, although HMG raised this matter in the meeting without warning UKOTCF. 109

G16. UKOTCF recommends that Ministers instruct their officials to stop blocking contacts with the body that many UKOT organisations choose to link to HMG, UKOTCF, and seek to restore the positive relationship of the 1990s and early 2000s.

H. How the introduction of ‘Marine Protected Areas’ could safeguard the marine environment in the uninhabited territories

H1. It is not clear why the question refers only to uninhabited territories, and it is not practicable to limit our comments to these. UKOTCF has long pointed out the relative neglect of several of UK’s large marine Exclusive Economic Zones and called for proper management of these, including marine protected areas as part of the suite of appropriate mechanisms. These areas are of huge importance for wildlife and ecosystem services, in some cases including sustainable fisheries. It is well recognised that effective management of both fisheries and “protected” areas depends on effective enforcement. However, this has lacked an overall HMG strategy. In fact, the presence of fisheries or other protection vessels have depended on historical accidents, rather than a strategy. The Falkland Islands and South Georgia & the South Sandwich Islands acquired such vessels at least partly as a result of rebuilding following the Falklands War of 30 years ago. They are now regarded as amongst the better managed fisheries of the world. British Indian Ocean Territory managed to acquire a protection vessel from the proceeds of sale of a seized illegally fishing vessel. Other UKOTs which did not suffer such mishaps with side-benefits have not received investment for this purpose from HMG. Thus the biological riches and economic assets of Pitcairn, Ascension, and St Helena are being lost through lack of protection, and protection of Tristan da Cunha’s waters are limited to those close to the island, as the lack of a harbour limits the size of protection boat. In the case of Gibraltar, the local government’s wish to protect its no-take waters is actually being impeded by HMG’s effective encouragement of illegal fishing by boats from the neighbouring country (see paras C39-C44).

H2. UKOTCF is pleased that various conservation partners are promoting the concept of marine protected areas, with some success. We leave detailed comment to these, whom we understand are submitting evidence. However, UKOTCF should note that it considers that marine protected areas should be managed on the basis of available scientific evidence, while not delaying unduly for that to be amplified. As is evident from the above, it is essential that proper management and enforcement be resourced. The generous support for this from large institutions in some current cases is noted and welcomed. The continued overall responsibility of HMG must, however, be remembered, as well as the interests and wishes of the local communities where these exist. It will be important to put in place mechanisms to ensure that the wishes of local communities continue to be respected over time, as it cannot be assumed that the overall aims of large institutions will necessarily remain aligned.

H3. UKOTCF does not share the view that the whole of marine protected areas should necessarily be no-take zones, although it would be surprising if all such areas did not include large no-take zones. UKOTCF welcomes the designation of a large marine protected area by the Government of South Georgia & the South Sandwich Islands (part of HMG). UKOTCF also supports the MPA at BIOT, but regrets some of the ways in which this was implemented, particularly the unwise and improper comments by the then FCO Director of Overseas Territories which indicated that the designation was a means of preventing re-settlement by Chagossians.

H4. The Pitcairn Islands give a clear opportunity for a large no-take protected area. This area has no current legal large-scale fishery, although there are signs of the initial impact of illegal fisheries in part of the group. The island community has expressed its welcome for such a protected area. So the challenge reduces essentially to resourcing proper protection. This latter need relates also to Tristan da Cuhna, St Helena and Ascension, as noted above.

110

H5. The Caribbean UKOTs, in common with other islands in the region, suffer many fishery problems, and require much fuller treatment than we can give here. There are several marine protected areas in some, but most lack effective no-take zones. This is unfortunate in that the benefits of no-take zones to both conservation and to fisheries in adjoining areas has been well demonstrated, for example in the neighbouring Bahamas (see article on The Bahamas National Park System, pp 46-49 in: A Sense of Direction: a conference on conservation in UK Overseas Territories and other small island communities, Bermuda 22nd-27th March 2003, www.ukotcf.org/confs/bermuda2003.). Other management in supposedly protected areas leaves much to be desired, with HMG officers apparently considering further damaging dredging in one such area in the Turks & Caicos Islands (see para B8).

30 November 2012 111

Written evidence submitted by Falklands Conservation

Summary y The Falkland Islands Government has published its own Falkland Islands Biodiversity Strategy 2008‐18 and this is the key document that in practice guides environmental conservation work in the Islands. y Recently, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, through the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, facilitated work on environmental mainstreaming in the Falkland Islands, with a report produced in May 2012. The UK Government should support the Falkland Islands Government and other stakeholders in the implementation of the recommendations made in this report. y The UK Government should support all stakeholders in the Falkland Islands to develop a comprehensive network of Marine Protected Areas in Falklands‐controlled waters (a recommendation of the above report).

y Another conclusion from this report is that “current levels of funding for the environment are inadequate and are not proportionate to the benefits that are provided by it.” y Hence Falklands Conservation, in order to carry out the work identified in the Falkland Islands Biodiversity Strategy 2008‐18: – Supports the new Darwin Plus fund designed for the Overseas Territories, but believes its overall budget needs to be increased – Wishes to see grant‐aid from Defra to continue for specific projects in addition to the above – Wishes to see continuity of the EU BEST fund for the EU Overseas Territories – Wishes to see EU LIFE+ funding extended to EU Overseas Territories – Believes grant‐aid should be made available to support environmental education in the Overseas Territories

1. Introduction to Falklands Conservation

1.1. Falklands Conservation is an independent membership‐based charitable organisation working to safeguard and increase awareness of the spectacular wildlife occupying more than 700 islands of the Falkland Islands archipelago. We are the largest conservation NGO in the islands, where all our conservation work is undertaken, currently employing ten staff in the Falkland Islands and one in the UK.

1.2. As a partner of BirdLife International, we take practical action, lead scientific research, provide wildlife rescue and rehabilitation services, and undertake outreach and education activities. However bird conservation is only part of our remit, our conservation activities in practice being wide‐ranging.

1.3. Our vision is two‐fold: a) The Falkland Islands are a mosaic of natural, restored and managed landscapes capable of sustaining the richness of biodiversity and habitats, including species of local, regional and global importance. b) Falklands Conservation is a charity at the heart of the community.

1.4. Our mission is: In partnership with government, industry and the global community, Falklands Conservation will engage and empower the people of the Falkland Islands to take action with us to conserve biodiversity and manage landscapes and seascapes for the benefit of nature and people.

1.5. Our principal activities are to: ¾ Undertake scientific research in the wildlife and environment of the Falkland Islands and to publish the results of such research. ¾ Conserve the wildlife and environment of the Falkland Islands and its surrounding seas. ¾ Educate the public in the principles and practice of nature conservation. 112

1.6. Falklands Conservation works at all levels of the Falkland Islands Government (FIG), including with the UK Representative. We have a seat on the Environmental Planning Department’s Environment Committee, the newly established Hydrocarbon Environment Forum and the Seabird Bycatch Committee. Although Falklands Conservation is an independent charity, we do receive an annual subvention from FIG that contributes to our organisational costs in the Falkland Islands and to a number of ongoing projects. This is based on a Memorandum of Understanding with FIG in which are obligations are identified as:

¾ Provide independent environmental advice. ¾ Scrutinise FIG’s environmental policies and proposals for legislation. ¾ Provide materials and resources to support environmental education within the Islands’ schools. ¾ Coordinate a wildlife group/s for the young people of the Islands. ¾ Engage the local community in conservation projects, issues and activities. ¾ Respond to small‐scale wildlife emergencies. ¾ Support implementation of the Biodiversity Strategy and agreed outcomes from the 2011 Biodiversity Workshop. ¾ Curate and manage the Falkland Islands’ national herbarium and insect collections.

1.7. Falklands Conservation has engaged in many projects over the years funded by UK or FIG grant‐aid; such current projects are: ¾ Annual seabird monitoring [FIG Environmental Studies Budget]. ¾ Albatross demographics [FIG Environmental Studies Budget] (to support ACAP). ¾ Southern rockhopper penguin research [OTEP]. ¾ Native plants programme [two back‐to‐back projects funded by OTEP]. ¾ Impacts of Raptors on Livestock in the Falkland Islands [Darwin Challenge & now a main Darwin project]. ¾ Survey of inshore dolphins [Darwin Challenge] ¾ Identifying native seed mixes for habitat restoration [Darwin Challenge] ¾ Early intervention on alien invasive plants [Defra] ¾ Survey of the new endemic plant species of Nassauvia [Mohamed bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund] ¾ Producing a vegetation map of the Falkland Islands [Darwin Challenge] ¾ Feasibility of mouse eradication on Steeple Jason [Darwin/RSPB] ¾ Prioritising invasive vertebrate species for eradication [Defra/RSPB] ¾ Developing a framework for protected areas in the Falklands [OTEP]

1.8. Further information about Falklands Conservation can be found on our website www.falklandsconservation.com.

FACTUAL INFORMATION

2. Conservation action

2.1. The Falkland Islands Government has published its own Falkland Islands Biodiversity Strategy 2008‐18 and this is the key document that in practice guides environmental conservation work in the Islands. Falklands Conservation was a key player in its production and this strategy is now seen as a model for the other Overseas Territories.

2.2. Although many actions identified in the strategy are underway, it has not been possible to implement them all. Examples of important biodiversity action that is not being undertaken through lack of resources are:

¾ Control and eradication of invasive species [current funds not commensurate with scale of the problem] ¾ Completion of species action plans, habitat action plans, and nature reserve plans 113

¾ Implementation of the action identified in the above plans ¾ Monitoring of all the nationally and internationally important species ¾ Identification of key biodiversity sites in the marine environment

2.3. Falklands Conservation fully supports the conclusions reached in the Environmental Mainstreaming in the Falkland Islands: Workshop Report 21 May 2012, published by The Institute for European Environmental Policy on behalf of the FCO & JNCC. A copy has been included with this submission for reference.

2.4. The waters around the Falklands Islands are rich in marine biodiversity, including charismatic and globally threatened seabirds and marine mammals. There are potential threats arising from hydrocarbon exploration/ commercial development, fisheries and new development/ activities inshore. Existing practice and legislation are inadequate to manage current and potential threats, to protect threatened species, sites and habitats and to establish a basic representative network of marine managed/ protected areas.

2.5. A key recommendation of the mainstreaming document mentioned in 2.3 above is to create ”a coherent Marine Protected Area network that provides adequate protection for distinct areas of high value habitats.” Currently Falklands Conservation is pioneering a community‐based approach to protected areas on land but there is no such process currently underway for the sea. Although protected areas are not the only mechanism for achieving conservation, the Falkland Islands, uniquely amongst the developed UK Overseas Territories and all countries in its region, has neither formal Marine Protected Areas nor any marine spatial planning for developing these. This contrasts with Argentina, for example, which now possesses a network of coastal Marine Parks and Reserves, and where they are now considering designations in pelagic waters including areas abutting/ overlapping the Falkland Islands Exclusive Economic Zone.

3. Environmental Education

3.1. A key role of Falklands Conservation (see 1.5 above) is to undertake environmental education for the people of the Falklands, young and old, and we are the main organisation undertaking this in the islands. Although we get some support for this through funds from Birdlife/RSPB and other donors, we do not have enough resources to employ a full‐time education officer. It should be noted that such work is ineligible for funding under the new Darwin Plus.

4. Funding

4.1. The Falklands are an Overseas Territory with a high biodiversity value containing, for example, globally important concentrations of southern rockhopper penguins, gentoo penguins and black‐browed albatrosses. However a small human population of only c.2,500 people means it is difficult to raise enough money from within the islands to research, survey and manage this internationally important biodiversity.

4.2. While grant‐aid is available from the Falkland Islands government, most of the necessary conservation work can only be achieved with additional grant‐aid from the UK and Europe – see, for example, the list in paragraph1.7 above.

4.3. The recent combining of the Overseas Territories Environment Fund (OTEP) with the Darwin Fund to create Darwin Plus means that in practice two pots of money have been converted into one, reducing the opportunity for project funding. Although we welcome Darwin Plus, the wider remit of this grant scheme beyond biodiversity is likely to increase competition for the new fund. Evidence already suggests that the Darwin Plus fund is likely to be significantly oversubscribed. Hence Falklands Conservation is concerned about our future ability to undertake essential conservation work in the Falkland Islands owing to what, in practice, could be decreasing grant aid. 114

4.4. A new source of funding to the Overseas Territories has opened up through the EU BEST fund, which is to be welcomed. However, as this fund is not guaranteed into the future, Falklands Conservation would like to see the UK Government lobby for its continuation.

4.5. Additionally, EU LIFE+ funding is not available to the Overseas Territories. Again, we would like to see the UK Government continue to lobby for the extension of LIFE to the Overseas Territories, which might help address the funding gap identified in paragraph 11 above.

5. Recommendations

5.1. The UK Government should continue to support the Falklands Islands Government and its partners in full implementation of the Falkland Islands Biodiversity Strategy 2008‐18, through grant‐aid from Defra and also via the grant schemes outlined below.

5.2. The UK Government should support the Falkland Islands Government in implementation of the recommendations in the report Environmental Mainstreaming in the Falkland Islands: Workshop Report 21 May 2012 (Institute for European Environmental Policy, on behalf of the FCO/JNCC).

5.3. The UK Government should support all stakeholders in the Falkland Islands to develop a comprehensive network of Marine Protected Areas in Falklands‐controlled waters.

5.4. Grant‐aid should be made available to support environmental education in the Overseas Territories.

5.5. Darwin Plus is an excellent concept but intense competition for the available £2 million will mean that much essential conservation work will not be possible within the UK’s Overseas Territories (which contain a very high percentage of the UK’s biodiversity). Hence the fund should be increased.

5.6. The UK Government should lobby for the continuation of the EU BEST fund for EU Overseas Territories.

5.7. The UK Government should continue to lobby for EU LIFE+ to be made available to the Overseas Territories.

30 November 2012 115

Written evidence submitted by Cayman Islands Department of Environment

This submission is provided in the context of the Department of Environment’s remit as the agency responsible for the conservation and management of the natural environment and resources of the Cayman Islands. The views outlined in the submission relate not only to the key issues in respect of the challenges facing the natural environment but also those which ultimately impact greatest on the implementation of the principles of sustainable development, particularly the integration of environmental concerns in national decision making.

1 General Challenges to Sustainability

In general terms we see the main challenges as:

1.1 Lack of a national sustainable development framework. Achievement of sustainable development is impeded by the lack of adequate development planning and management legislation – there is no comprehensive development plan or planning policy, no comprehensive conservation legislation or environmental health regulations. This is particularly critical in the Sister Islands where there are no Development Plans and limited planning legislation. This situation is currently being exploited on these small islands, with a significant number of large tracts of undeveloped land being subdivided into small lots, marketed and sold by a UK based investment company with no regard to the immediate environmental impacts associated with potential development of the land (including the speculative clearing of these sites), as well as the wider socio‐economic considerations and the future infrastructure requirements to support such development.

1.2 Climate change, energy and coastal works (seabed) policies remain in draft form and therefore have limited, if any, influence on the environmental management and development process. Where policies exist, they tend to operate in isolation with little or no integration at a national or inter‐ disciplinary level. There is no strategic focus or plan for the economic development of the Islands which takes account of the Islands’ physical characteristics (size, environmental opportunities, assets and constraints), the indigenous population base and cultural identity. Economic planning and development decisions are largely reactive and often appear to be based on an inappropriate scale and business model. Collection, analysis and use of reliable and relevant data and statistics needs to be greatly improved in the interests of assisting in sound economic planning.

1.3 Rapid population growth – the absence of a long term planning strategy and lack of comprehensive conservation legislation, coupled with rapid population growth, has resulted in development which is undertaken in an ad hoc manner with little or no regard to preserving the integrity of the local environment. In addition, there is no strategic assessment of the infrastructure requirements associated with this increasing population, to the detriment of the environment. This problem is amplified by the high volume of cruise tourists that visit Grand Cayman (1.5 million visitors per annum) and piecemeal implementation of the National Tourism Management Plan.

116

1.4 No formal project appraisal/evaluation process (cost benefit analysis, strategic environmental assessment and environmental impact assessment) results in lack of integration of environmental concerns in economic development and causes conflict between technical advice and political decision‐making. Enactment of legislation – such as the draft National Conservation Law – is urgently required to provide a mechanism for environmental concerns to be integrated into national plans and policies.

1.5 Lack of long‐term sustainable funding for environmental programmes and projects due to inability to access the Environmental Protection Fund. An Environmental Protection Fee, first implemented in 1997, is collected from every person departing the Cayman Islands and is deposited in an Environmental Protection Fund within the Government’s General Revenue. This fee was initially proposed by the Department of Environment as a means of securing sustainable revenue for funding the purchase of conservation land and resourcing environmental projects, vetted against appropriate conservation criteria. However, the Fund which now stands at $43 million is not readily accessible for its intended purposes, as it is forms a large proportion of the overall Government cash reserve required under local financial management legislation. There is therefore an urgent need to decouple the Fund from General Reserves so that it can serve its intended purpose.

1.6 The environment is a low political priority which means that it is either not considered or is assigned a much lower weight than other factors in the decision making process.

2. Environmental Challenges to Sustainability

The main environmental challenges are as follows:

2.1 Climate change – the Cayman Islands will need to make a concerted effort to address the impacts of climate change (elevated sea temperatures, ocean acidification, storms, sea level rise etc.) by taking early steps to adapt as well as making a real effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A Draft Climate Change Policy was produced under the Enhancing the Capacity for Adaptation to Climate Change Project funded by DFID. Despite three years of public consultation, Government still has not formally considered the policy and it remains in draft form. A draft National Energy Policy is currently being reviewed and assessed by external consultants, whose brief is to evaluate the economic implications of the proposed policy. Both of these policies, if properly implemented, have the potential to make significant progress towards addressing climate change issues.

2.2 Habitat loss and fragmentation – the lack of a proper development approval and management framework, coupled with a lack of terrestrial protected areas, is resulting in an escalating rate of habitat fragmentation and loss on the three Cayman Islands. This potentially has grave consequences for biodiversity conservation and within a wider context, sustainable development in the territory.

117

2.3 Invasive species (marine and terrestrial) – dealing with invasive species is placing increasing pressure on human and financial resources for environmental management. On land the green iguana and select invasive plant species pose the greatest threat to native species. In the marine environment, the lionfish invasion which has become a regional problem within the Caribbean is a significant and increasing threat to local marine resources. A Private Members Motion, recently approved in the Legislative Assembly, has committed the Government to considering the establishment of a bounty of $5 per lionfish with the Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) being used to finance this initiative. The Department of Environment is very concerned as it believes that this is not an appropriate approach for addressing the problem of lionfish and will simply result in the rapid depletion of the EPF, with no tangible result.

2.4 Lack of a comprehensive solid waste management plan – the lack of an integrated approach to solid waste management and legislative framework to control or reduce the generation of waste requires urgent attention in order to address significant environmental impacts such as migration of landfill leachate directly into the marine environment. Regardless of the lack of a strategic waste management plan for the country, Government is currently considered relocating landfill operations to a privately owned wetland site, on the periphery of the Central Mangrove Wetland. A project‐ specific EIA has been commissioned for the site, but currently Terms of Reference exclude consideration of the wider issues of alternative locations and technologies, the cost‐benefit of addressing the countries solid waste requirements at the current site versus the proposed greenfield site. The lack of a strategic approach has polarized the community on this issue.

3. Governance for Sustainable Development

Within the Cayman Islands good governance with respect to sustainable development and the environment is impeded by the issues outlined below.

3.1 Lack of legislation and policies which correctly delineate technical and political decisions.

3.2 Lack of appropriate project/plan assessment and approval processes which create inconsistencies in decision making.

3.3 There is a lack of appropriate Government direction and coordination, technical oversight and analysis of major economic investment/development plans (e.g. port developments, For Cayman Investment Alliance, Enterprise City, Health City Cayman). This results in decisions being based on incomplete or inadequate information and environmental concerns being marginalized. Often the environmental costs and benefits of such projects are not properly identified and accounted for in the overall project cycle.

3.4 Limited public access to key decision making processes e.g. Planning approval, limited right to object.

118

3.5 Key decision making bodies such as the Central Planning Authority, which comprises a board predominantly representing the construction industry, are not representative of the community which they serve, making them inherently conflicted.

3.6 Large projects involving both offshore (Cabinet’s jurisdiction) and land based components (Central Planning Authority’s jurisdiction) are not reviewed, assessed and determined collaboratively and comprehensively. Separate decisions are issued independently by the two bodies. This creates the potential for applicants to achieve permission for one element (i.e. offshore or onshore) and not the other, resulting in an untenable situation for both the applicant and the decision‐making bodies. Consequently, poor decision making from an environmental perspective is greatly increased as it is often impossible to take full account of ecological linkages between the terrestrial and marine environment.

4. Cooperation with the UK

4.1 Traditionally, technical cooperation with the UK in the area of environmental issues has been in biodiversity/conservation management and planning. For example, collaborative projects between DOE and UK academic/conservation institutions with associated funding mechanisms (e.g. Darwin, OTEP, RBG Kew, JNCC and UKOTCF). These relationships have generally been beneficial; however, an area of concern remains the underrepresentation of the Cayman Islands/Territory views with respect to the UK’s position in negotiations on international treaties, due to the bloc voting approach of the UK within the European Union.

4.2 The Department values the introduction of the Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies Steering Group meetings (facilitated by the JNCC) as a coordinating mechanism for biodiversity issues.

4.3 The Cayman Islands does not fall into relevant categories that qualify them for various mechanisms of international funding and aid and subsequently many are not available for utilisation. Mechanisms that are available tend to focus at the Caribbean territories or regional level and are not country specific. Cayman’s relatively isolated geography presents some fairly unique challenges which would benefit from country specific approaches. Given the limited opportunity for the Cayman Islands to access external funding, the introduction of the Darwin Plus funding mechanism is extremely welcome.

4.4 It is critical that the Cayman Islands continue to have access to UK expertise, technical support and resources as we continue in our endeavours to promote sustainability in all three islands. However, the Department of Environment believes that in order to realise this aspiration and achieve a more sustainable future for the Islands, local action and political commitment is ultimately what is required.

30 November 2012

119

Written evidence submitted by Turks and Caicos Islands’ Department of Environment and Maritime Affairs

Summary Turks and Caicos Islands assets for effective sustainable management of natural resources include:

• An extensive Protected Areas network • Protective legislations including: o The National Parks Ordinance o Marine Pollution Ordinance o Coastal Protection Ordinance o Fisheries Protection Ordinance o Planning Ordinance o Other Legislation • Significant unspoiled land and wetland resources

Management deficiencies include:

• Inadequate labour resources for adequate enforcement • Lack of funding for critical scientific research • Lack of funding for critical scientific monitoring, such as water quality testing • Lack of political will to implement needed reforms to current development trends

The Extent to which UK Government strategy on the UKOT’s embodies the principles of sustainable development and appropriate trade-offs, environmental protection, social development and economic growth;

1. The Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) have made great strides towards developing strategies for balancing development with sustainable management of natural resources in recent years. Environmental protections are supported by a well-developed and managed Protected Areas System, in addition to protective laws that provide for effective management of fisheries and other natural resources.

2. Unfortunately, the vast majority of economic growth in TCI has come at the expense of the natural environmental, cultural and social baseline. On the island of Providenciales, the privatization and development of public lands has substantially degraded environmental and cultural resources. Relatively unchecked development practices allowed private interests to exploit natural resources and “externalize” environmental costs without restraint.

3. In 1960, Providenciales had no automobiles, paved roads or airport and a population of 518 people. The vast majority of the land area on the small, 37-square-mile island was public or “Crown” land. Ecosystems were in close to pristine condition and provided ample sustenance for all residents, human and non-human. The people were poor, but not impoverished. The quality of life was very high. Crime was virtually non-existent, and cultural values were well-defined.

4. Today, with the exception of two Protected Areas, virtually all of the land on Providenciales has been privatized and developed for tourism, residential and industrial use. Critical upland and wetland habitats have been cleared, dredged and filled. Marine ecosystems are

120

threatened by pollution and overuse. Fisheries catches are declining. The human population has exponentially increased to approximately 26,000. Illegal immigration and crime are rampant, and younger generations are adopting cultural values from nearby North America.

5. The above-mentioned benchmarks indicate that the pattern of privatization and development of land on Providenciales is not sustainable. The TCI are the current “hot trend” in Caribbean travel destinations, with a branding of “beautiful by nature.” However tourism development on Providenciales has been anything but “beautiful by nature,” with a steady erosion of ecological values, resulting from on-going land clearance for development. Unless the prevalent development model is altered, the current ecological values that TCI enjoys on the remaining islands will be lost. Ironically, the very aspect of the Islands that attracts tourists in annually record-breaking numbers has been rapidly eroded by its own appeal, paradoxically fueled by a historic paradigm of development that views nature as a resource to be exploited for individual human profit.

How the UK Government is fulfilling its responsibilities to protect biodiversity in the UKOTs;

In recent years, funding available to the Department of Environment and Maritime Affairs (DEMA) has been dramatically reduced, as budget cuts have been implemented.

6. UK has eliminated the Overseas Territories Environment Programme, merging it into the more rigid and restricted Darwin Plus programme that does not necessarily anticipate or address the needs of all of the territories. 7. UK government bodies seem to have become unaware of the role of the United Kingdom Overseas Territories Conservation forum, and have done a great disservice to all UKOTs by writing UKOTCF conference funding out of their budget. 8. UK Government’s cuts to UK conservation bodies active in UKOTs such as Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and Zoological Society of London mean that work in UKOTs is dependent on UKOT-sourced funding, which is often sourced from UK Government due to UKOTs restricted access to international funding – which means the same funding cut from UK bodies has to be sourced by UKOTs and goes to assist those UK bodies in UKOT work, meaning there is less to spend within UKOTs themselves.

How the UK Government is helping the UKOTs adapt to the impact of climate change;

9. The UK Government is speaking the right language but practice leaves a lot to be desired. Recent developmental approval in TCI by the UK Government during Direct Rule has included some quite potentially destructive proposals. There has been little enforcement in in-filling of wetlands on low-lying islands. 10. Furthermore, the Turks and Caicos Islands currently have a monopoly supplier of electricity that produces electricity exclusively from diesel powered generators. Numerous studies have indicated that due to the excessive cost of electricity generation in TCI, solar and wind technologies are not only economically viable, but offer a less-expensive alternative for private individuals. While the Islands have abundant solar and wind resources, these renewable energies have not been tapped, and are in fact discouraged by current policy. Currently, a home owner or private individual is not allowed to generate their own electricity with renewable technologies. Additionally, there are no plans to implement progressive net metering policies that would greatly reduce the cost of electricity for the average person and have a dramatic impact on the production of greenhouse gasses in TCI.

121

Whether the recommendations in our 2008 Report, Halting biodiversity loss, on safeguarding biodiversity and practising joined-up government to further conservation have been implemented;

11. These recommendations have not been implemented in TCI. The document is not circulated or referred to in any existing legislative or operational framework.

Whether UK Government strategy on the UKOTs is consistent with the conclusions and commitments on protecting biodiversity reached at the recent United Nations Rio+20 conference;

12. TCI has currently not had any active policy to implement strategies arising from that Conference.

How weaknesses in civil society and governance in the UKOTs impact on conservation; and

13. UK Government in direct Rule set a poor precedent in Conservation; it did not criticise the former administration’s quite anti-conservation stance, did not reasonably repair problems caused by that administration, and has not encouraged new administrations to become more conservation-minded, such that the environment was not mentioned in any political platform in the 2012 elections. 14. The UK Government’s Direct Rule administration’s willingness to entertain developments clearly in violation of Planning Ordinance, the Fisheries Protection Ordinance and the National Parks Ordinance and having potentially severe environmental impact has set a poor precedent for the elected government to follow. In fact, the statement that these decisions are best left to an elected government demonstrates a clear disregard for extant legislation and a government’s obligation to follow its own law. 15. The UK Government in direct rule dissolved the Conservation Fund, which was established to support conservation efforts in TCI, and absorbed it into the General Fund to cover general budget deficits. No alternative to the Conservation Fund has been established or suggested, and the loss of economic support has been detrimental to conservation efforts. 1. How the introduction of ‘Marine Protected Areas’ could safeguard the marine environment in the uninhabited territories.

16. The Turks and Caicos Islands have a well-developed Marine Protected Areas network. The limitations of this network exist as an extension of the lack of resources and funding needed for management and enforcement of the existing legislative framework. 17. While the Protected Areas network is extensive, management plans are only in place for three Protected Areas within the system. Management plans and the economic and labour resources needed to implement them are urgently needed.

30 November 2012

122

Written evidence submitted by the Chagos Conservation Trust

Summary and Recommendations

• The Chagos Marine Reserve was established in 2010 to safeguard the greatest marine biodiversity under the UK’s jurisdiction. This Marine Protected Area (MPA), currently the world’s largest ‘no take’ marine reserve, contributes significantly to the globally agreed target under the Convention on Biological Diversity to protect 10% of the oceans by 2020, and establishes the UK as a world leader in marine conservation. • Since its designation, the marine reserve has seen a dramatic increase in interest and visits by scientists for monitoring and research but only careful management through a properly co‐ordinated and centrally managed programme of enhanced enforcement, scientific monitoring, and conservation projects will it be possible to show whether the ban on fishing and other activities in the reserve has been successful over time in protecting its rich biodiversity. • To secure this, CCT strongly recommends that:

¾ the BIOT Administration in the FCO enacts specific legislation and accompanying regulations for the effective enforcement of the ban on fishing and other extraction activity and for the conservation and management of the ‘no‐take’ marine reserve;

¾ the BIOT Administration should adopt an up‐to‐date management plan to guide future conservation management priorities based on the suggestions already submitted by CCT;

¾ the FCO and DEFRA should establish a specific, ring‐fenced budget to fund the management of this reserve in the long term;

¾ MOD should periodically deploy Royal Navy (RN) and Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) vessels present in the region to provide faster and more effective enforcement than is possible using the current chartered vessel (the Pacific Marlin);

¾ measures are taken to enhance surveillance by technical means, including through collaboration with the US forces based on Diego Garcia, to facilitate the detection of poachers and other illegal activity in BIOT waters;

123

¾ the BIOT Administration continue to support and fund the development of Chagossian capacity in conservation already begun under the pilot project run by the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) with CCT and others; and that

¾ the FCO and the BIOT Administration make greater efforts to secure good publicity for this spectacular marine reserve, in particular through collaboration with selected wildlife film‐makers.

Background

1. The Chagos Conservation Trust (CCT) is a UK registered charity, established in 1992 to promote the protection and conservation of the natural environment of the Chagos Islands (British Indian Ocean Territory) and to raise awareness of environmental issues affecting the Chagos archipelago. It seeks to do so by supporting scientific and historical research and sustainable conservation projects, often in collaboration with partner members of the Chagos Environment Network (CEN). The CEN comprises, in addition to the CCT which acts as its secretariat, The Linnean Society of London, Pew Environment Group, The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), The Zoological Society of London (ZSL) and the Marine Conservation Society (MCS), Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Blue Marine Foundation, and Professor Charles Sheppard of Warwick University, amongst others.

2. CCT promotes scientific expeditions to monitor the status of the marine and terrestrial environment in the Chagos; provides a channel for bringing relevant environmental problems to the Government's attention; establishes links with other groups and scientists concerned with reef and island ecology, particularly in relation to the Indian Ocean; encourages research into the history of the Chagos Archipelago, and seeks to educate and to make available the results of its work to a wider audience both directly and through its website – visit www.chagos‐trust.org.

3. Located in the centre of the Indian Ocean, the Chagos Archipelago, a UK Overseas Territory, contains the world’s largest living coral atoll, over 60,000 square km of shallow limestone reef and associated habitats, and about 300 seamounts and half a million square kilometres of deep and abyssal habitats. It holds by far the greatest marine biodiversity under the UK’s direct control and responsibility. It also has one of the healthiest reef systems in the cleanest waters in the world, supporting half the total area of good quality reefs in the Indian Ocean. As a result, the ecosystems of the Chagos have so far proven resilient to climate change and environmental disruptions, and as such can provide unique insights for the scientific and wider community.

4. In March 2009, the Chagos Conservation Trust, with members of the Chagos Environment Network, published “The Chagos Archipelago: its Nature and the Future” proposing a large scale highly protected marine reserve be established in Chagos.

5. Following a public consultation during the winter of 2009‐10, the UK Government formally designated the Chagos Archipelago on 1 April 2010 as a strictly ‘no‐take’ marine reserve totalling more than 640,000 square kilometres (397,678 square 124

miles), currently the largest such ‘no take’ reserve in the world. The reserve covers all the islands and the entire EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) in BIOT, save for Diego Garcia and an area of 3 nautical miles of sea around that island. The combination of tropical islands, unspoiled coral reefs and adjacent oceanic abyss makes this marine reserve comparable in global importance to the Great Barrier Reef and the Galapagos Islands. As a fully protected marine reserve, all extractive activities, such as industrial fishing and deep sea mining, are prohibited in the Chagos. The reserve will safeguard the rich diversity of marine life found in the area and is a conservation legacy almost unrivalled in scale and significance. It will also contribute greatly to a number of globally agreed targets, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity target to protect 10% of the oceans by 2020, and undoubtedly establishes the UK as a world leader in marine conservation.

6. Since its designation, CCT with its CEN partners has encouraged various initiatives to support the BIOT Administration’s environmental management and conservation of the Chagos. Funding has been obtained to increase dramatically the number of science expeditions to BIOT for environmental monitoring and research, and to involve and train people of Chagossian descent in conservation work. A successful pilot project on the latter has already been completed by ZSL and its partners for Chagossians living in the UK (Crawley and Manchester), which we hope will be continued into future years (and extended, if possible, to Chagossian descendents living in Mauritius and the Seychelles) – see www.zsl.org/chagos.community. Major proposals have also been submitted (or are being prepared) for conservation projects to restore islands through the re‐establishment of native forest, to conduct a major botanical survey, to map and protect existing mangrove areas (which are under significant threat), and to establish a rat eradication programme on Ile Vache Marine.

7. Only careful management through enhanced enforcement, sustained scientific monitoring, and a programme of co‐ordinated and well‐targeted conservation projects will show whether the ban on fishing and other extraction activities in the marine reserve has been successful over time in protecting its spectacular biodiversity.

8. The BIOT Government has relied over the past years on existing fisheries and other legislation to manage the marine reserve. Whilst this has been generally effective, the reserve does not have specific protective legislation. Other countries have brought in legislation to protect their marine protected areas, which is stronger than that currently applying in BIOT. We believe that it would be desirable for the BIOT marine reserve to have its own specific (and tougher) legislation. Furthermore, there is a BIOT management plan which pre‐dates the establishment of the marine reserve. We believe that it would be desirable to update this to take account of the new reality of the marine reserve. A paper, requested by the BIOT Administration, making various recommendations to support a new management plan was submitted by Professor Charles Sheppard and others to the BIOT Administration several months ago (and published o the CCT website). We hope that the BIOT Administration will issue a new management plan soon.

9. It seems to us to be a reasonable assumption that the US uses various forms of surveillance to ensure the security of its base on Diego Garcia from sea‐borne and other threats, the more so because of lawless elements present in the Indian Ocean. 125

We believe that this surveillance could, if it was routinely shared with the BIOT authorities, be used to guide the UK’s enforcement efforts in the marine reserve to good effect. This would help both base security and the security of the marine reserve.

10. There may also be other measures that the UK Government could adopt, though we recognise the financial constraints. The marine reserve is currently enforced by a contracted vessel, the Pacific Marlin. This is an old and shallow drafted boat. Whilst the shallow draft is invaluable for passing over the reefs close to the islands, it is much less suitable for enforcement over the deep water between the islands and the 200 mile outer limit of the marine reserve. It is simply too slow. The periodic involvement of RN and RFA vessels that are in the region to patrol BIOT’s deep water area, particularly if combined with satellite surveillance information, would make a considerable difference to the effectiveness and extent of enforcement in the reserve.

11. For the long‐term sustainability of this marine reserve, we believe that the FCO, supported by DEFRA, should establish a transparent, ring‐fenced budget to fund the protection of the reserve.

12. Evidence has shown that there is considerable interest by wildlife film makers to produce programmes on the marine reserve and the terrestrial environment in the Chagos. We believe that it would be advantageous to the UK to get the publicity for its good custodianship of this marine environment that such programmes would bring.

30 November 2012

126

Written evidence submitted by the British Antarctic Survey

Summary: The focus of this submission conccerns the biodiversity, the marine protected areas, and the fisheries management of two Overseas Territories, namely South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (SGSSI) and the British Antarctic Territory (BAT). There are very brief comments on minerals. The British Antarctic Survey is a component part of the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), and this submission complements theirs.

Background 1. A significant part of the South Atlantic Ocean lies within BAT and SGSSI. These OTs include areas where levels of benthic biodiversity are greater than those in the Galapagos, often cited as an example of high biodiversity. BAT and SGSSI are areas of seabird biodiversity, including globally-important populations of both albatrosses and penguins.

2. The air temperature of the Antarctic Peninsula, which is largely encapsulated within BAT, has risen by 3o C in 50 years; this warming is greater than any other region in the Southern Hemisphere. The impacts are significant. In the last 50 years, nine major iceshelves have broken up, 87% of glaciers are in retreat contributing significantly to sea level rise, and winter sea ice extent has decreased by 10% per decade. Many animals rely on the algae under and in sea ice as a winter food source.

3. The populations of krill around South Georgia appear to have fallen by an order of magnitude in the last three decades, and this has been attributed to major reductions in sea ice.

4. The marine animals in BAT and SGSSI have evolved over many millions of years in a near-isothermal environment. The oceans have warmed significantly in the last 50 years and this is a potential threat to the fragile ecosystems in which the animals operate.

5. A further pressure comes from the increasing acidity of the ocean, arising from the absorption of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the ocean (ocean acidification); the rising CO2 levels arise from the increased burning of fossil fuels.

6. Icebergs scour the benthic communities, and the frequency of these events appears to be increasing as a result of the warming of the Antarctic Peninsula. The recovery time of the communities is sufficiently long that there are concerns that there may be irrevocable damage in some areas.

7. The Antarctic Treaty covers the area below 60°S latitude. It has been signed by 50 nations representing over 80% of the world population. Under the Treaty, further Conventions and Protocols have been developed to address the issues of Antarctic resources and protection of the Antarctic environment.

8. The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) was agreed in 1980. It aims to conserve all Antarctic marine living resources south of the polar front, the boundary between cold Antarctic seas and the warmer waters of the Atlantic, and thus includes both BAT and CCAMLR. Also of note, is the Environmental Protocol, which came into force in 1998 and establishes a framework for the comprehensive protection of Antarctica, including: 127

a. A complete ban on all commercial mining; b. A mechanism to ensure that the environmental impact of all activities undertaken in Antarctica is considered and mitigated as far as practicable; c. Comprehensive protection of Antarctic plants and animals; d. Stringent waste management procedures; e. Prevention of marine pollution; f. A system to protect the most sensitive and scientifically important areas of Antarctica.

9. British Antarctic Survey (BAS), in close collaboration with the Polar Regions Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, ensures the requirements of the Treaty are successfully delivered.

Fisheries management 10. The Southern Ocean, and particularly the South Atlantic sector, contains one of the last under-exploited sources of marine protein, Antarctic krill. If the potential allowable catch were to be taken, it would equate to approximately 7% of current landings from marine capture fisheries reported to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

11. Recent technological developments now enable krill to be harvested more economically, and new markets are now driving increased catches. The krill are used primarily for feeding aquaculture fish and for nutraceuticals.

12. CCAMLR, the fisheries management organisation for the Southern Ocean, regulates the multi-national exploitation of krill. The challenge is to do this without damaging the Antarctic marine ecosystem when the impacts of fishing and climate change are both increasing. CCAMLR adopts a precautionary principles based on estimates of krill biomass.

13. BAS scientists support the UK Government in the negotiations over the fisheries management, and carry out front-line research to understand the marine ecosystem.

Conservation 14. Albatrosses are regarded by many as iconic species and thus of cultural value, but their numbers are in serious decline. One of the impacts of long line fishing is the incident mortality of birds (by-catch). Typically a long liner deploys ~10000 baited hooks during a single long line haul. This attracts birds, such as albatrosses and petrels, and over the years thousands of birds have been caught and drowned.

15. Conservationists and scientists have been working with the fishing industry to reduce the deaths. Measures include having streamers behind the fishing boats to prevent birds getting close to the hooks before they sink out of range of the birds’ diving capabilities. These measures have meant that the by-catch of birds in the South Georgia area fell from ~6000 per annum in the late 1990s to none since 2006.

16. Albatrosses are still on the decline, currently at an unsustainable rate of 4% per annum for the wandering albatrosses. Research shows that birds are breeding just as successfully as previously but the returns of birds to breed are falling. New tracking technology, developed by BAS, allows scientists to show that albatrosses often go to South American and South African waters to feed; in these locations the same by-catch mitigation measures have not been fully implemented, and young birds are particularly vulnerable to being caught on the hooks or killed by contact with the fishing warps. 128

17. In 2009, CCAMLR established the South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf as its first Marine Protected Areas (MPA), and the first such area anywhere in the world to be designated entirely within the High Seas. The agreement of this MPA was of major significance in establishing a large area for the conservation of marine biodiversity.

18. The fundamental objectives of the MPA are to : • protect rare or vulnerable benthic and pelagic habitats • protect areas of ecosystem importance • protect trophically important pelagic prey species • protect areas important for key life cycle stages and processes for commercially important species • promote recovery of the marine ecosystem following historical harvesting • maximise ecosystem robustness and resilience to climate variability and change

19. There is still additional scientific evidence required to determine more robustly if the scale size of MPAs is well matched to the size at which ecosystems operate.

20. BAS scientists led the development of proposals to build the case for protection, and provided scientific and policy advice at every stage of review and stakeholder consultation through to political implementation. BAS continues to undertake field studies to understand more completely the MPA.

21. In February 2012, the entire Maritime Zone (north of 60°S) surrounding SGSSI was declared as a sustainably managed MPA, making it the largest such protected area in the world. BAS provided scientific advice on the initial declaration. The scientific justification for the MPA was founded on the results of an interdisciplinary suite of research, including biological studies and monitoring of land-based predators, fisheries biology and surveys, as well as physical oceanography, benthic surveys and remotely-sensed data.

22. BAS has recently completed a 2-year project to identify a range of sites to be proposed for additional protection as “no-take zones” within the MPA. Stakeholder consultation on the implementation of these new zones has just been completed, and their future ratification will help to support the sustainable development of fisheries for Patagonian toothfish and Antarctic krill in SGSSI waters.

23. BAS scientists are also leading a proposal to implement precautionary protection for marine habitats under ice shelves in the Antarctic Peninsula region, with the aim of providing scientific reference areas to facilitate studies of how ecosystems change following ice shelf collapse or retreat. It is hoped that this measure will be agreed by CCAMLR in 2013..

Physiological research 24. Fundamental research is being carried out at BAS to determine both the physiological and genetic responses of animals both to the long term warming of the ocean and to the impacts of ocean acidification. This is essential to allow insight into how ecosystems might evolve in the very rapidly chaning environments.

Terrestrial environment 25. The warming environment increases the threat from invasive species. There are many methods by which aliens species can reach BAT and SGSSI. In the past, there 129

are been transfer of species by humans intentionally as was the case with reindeer and some plants on South Georgia, and unintentionally with rats on South Georgia. Eridication is now being undertaken.

26. There are many scientists and over 30,000 tourists visiting Antarctica every summer; many land on the Antarctic Peninsula. Most scientists and tourists take great care in cleaning clothing and materials brought to Antarctic to minimise the risk of invasion. Research during the International Polar Year demonstrated that, despite the cleaning, seeds were being transferred into the Antarctic.

Economic opportunities 27. The fisheries are a major source of income for the Government of SGSSI.

28. South Georgia and the surrounding seas are products of relatively recent geological processes with historic volcanic eruptions in the South Sandwich Islands. In contrast to most other OTs, survey data sets for resource analysis and to underpin regulation of mineral resources and sustainable development in SGSSI territory are either lacking or partial. The lack of data is a result of remote location, access difficulties and extensive ice cover on land. Potential future resource development in SGSSI may include on-shore and sea-floor minerals activity and geothermal exploitation. There is as yet inadequate data and research to underpin regulation and sustainable development in the territory.

29. Mineral resource activity in BAT is regulated by the Antarctic Act 1994 and is restricted to scientific research under permit. Geological knowledge in BAT is highly variable; some areas are well understood with high quality data contrasting with other, less accessible areas that are poorly understood.

Future requirements 30. Much has been achieved to protect the biodiversity of the BAT and SGSSI with establishment of protected areas and through the attempts to prevent the transfer of alien species from other locations. The fishery management system has operated successfully for over 30 years but is coming under increasing pressure both through commercial exploitation and the effects of climate change.

31. There is still much to be understood about the ecosystems of BAT and SGSSI before robust predictions can be made, and this requires fundamental research at all levels from the gene to the ecosystem, and much more sophisticated modelling.

32. All the research and the successes to date have been underpinned by long term measurements. It is essential for these to continue.

Annex: The British Antarctic Survey 33. Antarctic Survey (BAS) is a component of the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). BAS supports stations in the Antarctic and on South Georgia, five planes and two ice-strengthened ships which are used both for research and for science.

34. Within BAT, BAS operates three stations. Rothera station (67°S; 68° W) has sophisticated biological laboratory facilities incorporating a cold water marine aquarium and a diving facility. At Signy Island (60°S; 46°W), a summer only research station, penguin, seabird and seal biology, limnology and terrestrial biology are undertaken. At Halley (76°S; 27°W) the science focus is on atmospheric research from the ground to space. 130

35. Within SGSSI, BAS operates two research stations, at Bird Island, South Georgia (54°S, 38°W) where the focus is on seabird and seal research, and King Edward Point, South Georgia (54°S, 36W), where applied fisheries research is carried out.

36. All these research facilities are used to support the research of BAS and the UK Universities, and frequently there are international collaborative research programmes undertaken.

4 December 2012 131

Written evidence submitted by Christine Rose-Smyth

Summary

1. The moral and legal duty established under international conventions and the Environmental Charter is not adequately recognised in the Cayman Islands. It is not at all clear that any relevant recommendations made by EAC in the 2008 Report, Halting Biodiversity Loss have been implemented to create a so‐called “joined up approach”.

2. Extensive preparatory work is sitting on the shelf.

3. Definitive action to halt biodiversity loss by halting primary habitat loss is required now, principally in the form of:

a. Adequate, integrated legislation for spatial planning and environmental protection ‐ a Framework for Environmental Responsibility with concrete outcomes set out for action within a defined time period complementary to the Framework for Fiscal Responsibility ‐ is required.

b. Utilisation of the Cayman Islands Environmental Protection Fund as originally envisage in 1995.

Introduction

4. Christine Rose‐Smyth carries out research on the Cayman Islands native orchid flora and is an administrator for eBird Cayman Islands. She is the recipient of a small 2012‐13 Overseas Territories Programme Fund Award1 and is a member of the Cayman Islands Orchid Society Conservation Group, but is otherwise self‐funded. The views expressed herein are personal and do not represent the opinions of any other group.

Comments

5. Comments are provided on two of the seven issues being examined:

• Whether the recommendations in 2008 Report, Halting Biodiversity Loss have been implemented. • How weakness in civil society and governance in the UKOT’s impact on conservation.

6. The pre‐eminent threat to biodiversity in the Cayman Islands both long term and immediate, is not climate change but human impact on primary habitat. Land conservation lags substantially behind marine conservation. All three Islands contain substantial tracts of primary habitat. For example: the Central Mangrove Wetland on Grand Cayman represents 17% of the land area of the Islands;

1 Development of Genetic Fingerprints for Endangered Endemic Orchids of the Cayman Islands; being executed in conjunction with RBG Kew.

132

the remaining Ironwood Forest fragment in George Town contains four important endemic plants, including two endemic orchid species. The ghost orchid, Dendrophylax fawcettii, was featured in the top 25 of endangered species selected for Priceless or Worthless launched at the World Conservation Congress in Korea in September 20122. At present voluntary stewardship or mere inaction are the only reasons areas like these remain relatively untouched. We have the option of ensuring protection now versus remediating them in the future at much higher cost, assuming it would even be possible.

7. A great deal of preparatory work has been done, much with the assistance of some of the support programmes provided by the UK Government, much by local endeavour of the Department of the Environment and non‐governmental organisations, especially the National Trust for the Cayman Islands and also by private individuals. At the macro level: a National Biodiversity Action Plan has been drafted (2009); a Conservation Law has been drafted (2002); a Green Paper: Consultation draft: Climate Change Issues for the Cayman Islands ‐ Towards a Climate Change Policy has been drafted (2010), an Environment and Coastal Zone Management Report on Proposed Amendments to the Development Plan 1997 has been drafted (2002); a ‘Go East’ – Strategy for the Sustainable Development of the Eastern Districts of Grand Cayman has been drafted (2009); new extended Marine Parks proposals are currently in the consultation phase (2012). This list is non‐exhaustive.

8. Whether the recommendations in 2008 Report, Halting Biodiversity Loss (RHBL) have been implemented.

9. In the RHBL you concluded that the UK Government must act immediately to protect the equally valuable and higher risk internationally important species and habitats found in the OTs. However, in my view, all the criticisms levelled by the UKOT Conservation Forum in the RHBL continue to plague progress on natural environment issues in the Cayman Islands.

10. The direct and indirect substantial benefits of biodiversity in the marine environment has fairly high recognition in the Cayman Islands due to the large part that diving and watersports play in the Islands’ tourism product. The value of terrestrial biodiversity receives much less consideration. Land is seen by an influential constituency as only there to be exploited through development. A significant and unusual contradiction to this was the community‐based successful opposition to the routing of a new arterial road through the Ironwood Forest of George Town in 2008 and more recently a proposed port development in the district of East End. However, a large tract of the land in East End that would have been affected by the port development has this year been stripped of its primary forest for no approved purpose.

11. More recent illustrations of the ineffectiveness of existing planning and environmental legislation are:

2https://www.zsl.org/conservation/news/the‐100‐most‐threatened‐species,997,NS.html & http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/44234ae6#/44234ae6/1

133

a. A Frank Sound development represents cumulative applications to the Planning Department for 535 acres of land for which Planning is apparently powerless to require a “planned area development” application;

b. A proposal for the Duck Pond area represents 416 acres of land in the Central Mangrove Wetland. Together these amount to more than 2% of the entire Cayman Islands;

c. At the Shetty Hospital site in East End substantial land clearance has already occurred;

d. Preparatory work has begun at the proposed Dart landfill site in Bodden Town ahead of a voluntary EIA. However, the draft terms of reference are of limited scope and subject to criticism. A fundamental flaw is the pre‐determination of the site without public input.

The limited ability to require Environmental Impact Assessments is either circumvented or nugatory.

12. How weakness in civil society and governance in the UKOT’s impact on conservation.

13. The Overseas Territories White Paper: Security, Success and Sustainability, June 2012 (White Paper) accurately identifies the glaring immediate threats to the pristine primary undisturbed habitats of the Cayman Islands: unsustainable development, less than ideal waste management practices and invasive species. Of these, the unmitigated advance of random, unplanned (in the sense that there is no true national planning and development policy) development, regardless of actual need is the primary problem. Fees and the benefit of short term economic activity are the foremost consideration even in times of prosperity and more so in an economic downturn. Culturally powerful, also, is a tradition of mastery over land. In its most extreme form this is manifested in absolute opposition to any proposals for environmental protection to the point of rejection of full compensation at market value as a model for acquisition of land for habitat conservation.

14. As a result successive governments have not been able to reconcile the laissez faire tradition with a recognised need for integrated national planning. The Cayman Islands desperately needs to break this deadlock.

15. Page 41 of the White Paper reports that DEFRA assists in meeting the requirements of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). At page 42 it is proposed that placing environmental consideration at the heart of decision making is to be achieved by a more strategic, co‐ordinated approach. This could not come soon enough in the Cayman Islands. With respect, the time for platitudes and preparation is over and the time for action is now. The comments made by Dr Peter Hayes on his recent trip to Cayman are therefore welcome.

16. I recognise that the description of protection efforts at page 98 of the White Paper as limited by space. It is inaccurate nonetheless. For example, it overlooks the great efforts with the marine parks system over the last 25 years and the blue iguana recovery programme. More importantly it over emphasises the role of the Botanic Park and the bird sanctuaries as safe environments. Both are under threat, the Park from proposed encircling development (see paragraph 11). The ponds described in the White Paper are inadequately protected by the antiquated Animals Law.

a. Animals are only protected within a 300 feet zone around the ponds. 134

b. The only such sanctuary in Cayman Brac, Dennis Point (Salt Water) Pond was deleted from the Schedule to the Animals Law on 5 November 20123. In 2009 the Premier of the Cayman Islands said, in relation to turning the pond into a marina open to the sea. “[If I have to] shift road a bit, chase away a few Whistling Ducks, but so be it, that’s common law. If I had my way today … I would sign that document today and say to those gentlemen that proposed it, go ahead and get it done.”4 Mr Bush signed the Environmental Charter for the Cayman Islands in 2001.

17. This is only one example of how conflicting goals in civil society and weakness in governance in this UKOT impact on conservation. Many other could be provided, in addition to those alluded to in paragraph 11 above.

Recommendations

18. The Bill of Rights (Part 1 of the 2009 Constitution) came into effect in November 2012. It mandates that the "government shall, in all its decisions, have due regard to the need to foster and protect an environment that is not harmful to the health or well‐being of present and future generations, while promoting justifiable economic and social development". The UK Government and the CIG must ensure that appropriate legislation is passed, environmental impact assessments are undertaken before approval for major development is given and the public must have reasonable time for consultation. At minimum the Development Plan 1997 (2010 Revision) must be updated (incorporating the Environment and Coastal Zone Management Report on Proposed Amendments to the Development Plan 1997 (ECZR)) and a Conservation law adopted followed by immediate integrated and effective implementation in conjunction with the National Biodiversity Action Plan. Separate legislation for Little Cayman and Cayman Brac should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.

19. It is argued by certain land lobbyists that the Conservation Bill 2009 is unworkable even though their objections are not well‐founded5. The Conservation Law must be finalised, passed and acted upon. A pilot management agreement programme for private land should be developed to provide illustrated concrete example(s). In the meantime publicity for voluntary adoption of the ECZR recommendation for conservation of primary habitat should be promoted.

20. Notwithstanding the vigorous debate as to the future site of landfill services in Grand Cayman 30 years of commissioning of reports must end. Little Cayman and Cayman Brac must adopt best practices as soon as possible as well.

21. The Cayman Islands Environmental Protection Fund must be utilised as originally envisage in 1995 by Governor Gore, the National Trust and others6. In 1997 an environmental protection fee was added to the tourist tax paid by all persons passing through the international ports, air and sea (essentially cruise ship traffic). As it stands the fee is being applied contrary to the legitimate

3 http://www.caymannewsservice.com/science‐and‐nature/2012/11/06/legislators‐defeat‐environment‐animal‐law

4 http://caymannewsservice.com/headline‐news/2009/08/31/bush‐supports‐brac‐marina

5 For example, objectors focus on the general penalty clause as if the Interpretation Law does not apply.

6 CALPE 2000: Linking the Fragments of Paradise. Proceedings UKOTCF 2001 pp118‐119 135

expectations of those who pay it. Proper implementation would involve forming the recommended independent oversight body, free from government interference; releasing the Fund from its role as a budgetary prop for the Cayman Islands government; applying the US$50 million (and accumulating) Fund for its intended use of acquisition of land, including the Central Mangrove Wetland. Do not use Fund monies for bounty programmes for invasive species (lionfish or otherwise). Matching funds from the UK would have a significant impact.

22. The Central Mangrove Wetland should be designated a Ramsar Site. The Crown wetlands in Little Cayman, that have not already been put under National Trust control and which already represent a significant eco‐tourism investment, should be vested in the Trust.

23. Guarantee funding of the core expenses of the National Trust to ensure that the Trust is able to deliver its mission without untoward government influence.

24. To assist with awareness, make BBC natural world programming free for broadcast on a local Cayman Islands station.

Conclusion

25. The failure to implement the 2008 recommendations adequately or at all, nor to address governance issues leads to the conclusion that :

a. The UK Government strategy, whether it actually embodies the principles of sustainable development or not, does not appropriately trades‐off environmental protection, social development and economic growth because it has not taken significant steps beyond the merely aspirational. b. The UK Government is not fulfilling its responsibilities to protect biodiversity in the Cayman Islands.

26. There are abundant opportunities for the UK Government to meet its obligations to this OT. The UK and Cayman Islands governments should as a matter of formal policy adopt the conclusions of the Bermuda Ombudsman: "The UK Charter is more than just a statement of good intentions. ... our signature on the UK Environmental Charter has the force of law. Our word must be our bond."7

4 December 2012

7 Today's Choices – Tomorrow's Costs, Systemic Investigation into the Process and Scope of Analysis for Special Development Orders, February 2012 and Special Report of 1 June 2012 (www.ombudsman.bm) 136

Written evidence submitted by WWF-UK

WWF is a leading global conservation organisation, employing over 5000 staff in more than 100 countries and with more than 5 million supporters across the world.

WWF has a longstanding relationship with Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, having been involved in Antarctic conservation for 35 years. Our founder, Sir Peter Scott, first visited Antarctica in 1966, following in the footsteps of his father, Capt. RF Scott RN. In 2006, we launched our Antarctic & Southern Ocean Initiative (ASOI), engaging many of our offices including the UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Argentina in a coordinated approach towards the management and protection of Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, including the areas covered by the British Antarctic Territory and the sub-Antarctic South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. WWF works closely and constructively with the UK Government at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM) and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), both of which we attend as part of the UK national delegation.

Summary

This short submission from WWF-UK addresses just two areas under examination by the Committee’s Inquiry into sustainability in the UK Overseas Territories: (i) Adapting to the impacts of climate change, and (ii) Marine Protected Areas. It focuses on two of the largely uninhabited territories (a) ‘British Antarctic Territory’ and (b) South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.

WWF recognise the UK Government as one of the champions of environmental stewardship within the Antarctic Treaty System, with a proven track record in Southern Ocean Marine Protected Areas. Furthermore, the Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands have recently designated the South Georgia maritime zone as a large scale IUCN Category VI (sustainable use) Marine Protected Area, and are working to improve the current level of protection by increasing the area set aside as ‘no take’. WWF has worked with the UK Government to highlight and raise the profile and understanding within the Antarctic Treaty System of climate change, adaptation and ecosystem resilience. We are currently undertaking a trail of a new methodology, developed for the Arctic, to identify and map areas of strategic conservation importance on the Antarctic Peninsula because they are likely to serve as sources of ecosystem resilience in a changing climate. However, significant work remains to be done by the UK Government and others to create political amongst all CCAMLR member states to establish meaningful, large scale Marine Protected Areas across the Southern Ocean, including British Antarctic Territory.

1. How the UK Government is helping UKOTs adapt to the impact of climate change

1.1 Climate Change in the Antarctic Peninsula region. The Overseas Territories – Security, Success and Sustainability (FCO, 2012) cites climate change as ‘the key, long term threat faced by the Territories’ and lists the need to address the challenges of climate change as a Priority for Action for the Uninhabited Overseas Territories, including British Antarctic Territory and South Georgia & the South Sandwich Islands.

1.1.1 Warming across the Antarctic Peninsula is now well established1. Average temperatures have risen by almost 3 ͦ C, a greater rate than almost anywhere else on our planet. This has caused the thinning of glaciers, the rapid retreat of ice-shelves and the exposure of new ice- 137

free terrain2. Climate change is likely to have significant implications for terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems.

1.1.2 Warming encourages the growth and spread of established plants.3 The introduction of non-native species, and corresponding competition with native species, is likely to be a major outcome of climate change within Antarctic terrestrial ecosystems3,4. 1.1.3 Antarctic penguins can be highly sensitive to climate variability and change; they are thought most likely to respond by dispersal rather than adaptation. The ice-obligate emperor and Adélie penguins are more vulnerable to warming, as their distribution will potentially shift pole-ward and contract. In particular, declining sea-ice extent will have a severe impact on emperor penguins, which generally rely on fast ice as a breeding habitat. Ice-intolerant species (e.g. gentoo penguins) may benefit as they expand their range southward15. 1.1.4 Warming of parts of the Southern Ocean surface waters could be as high as 1.5°C by 2100, although there is likely to be less warming (between 0.5 and 0.75°C) of bottom waters 1,6 and other surface waters . Ocean acidification as a result of increased CO2 uptake has recently been shown by British scientists to have had a detrimental effects on marine systems7, particularly on shell-building organisms including plankton species. 1.1.5 A reduction in annual mean sea-ice extent has been observed around the western Antarctic Peninsula8. Warmer waters and declining sea-ice have been associated with a decline in krill stocks of up to 80% in the southwest Atlantic9 and reduced availability of prey for higher predators 10,11,12. Changes in the extent of winter sea-ice habitat and prey availability may result in changes to the size and distribution of predator populations, or even the disappearance of some colonies. 1.1.6 Representative networks of marine and terrestrial Antarctic Specially Protected Areas (ASPAs) and Antarctic Specially Managed Areas (ASMAs) (designated within the framework of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting) and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) , designated by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR – see response to next section) are likely to become an increasingly important tool in mitigating the impacts of climate change, by ensuring that other pressures are minimised and thus improving the likelihood of withstanding or adapting to change. However, the timing, extent and location of climate change impacts on these ecosystems may be difficult to predict. It should remain a priority to aim for a representative network of ASPAs in line with Article 3 of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, whilst ensuring that the protected area system remains dynamic and flexible, with the ability to respond to changes in the distribution and characteristics of values for protection.

1.2 Rapid Assessment of Circum-Arctic Ecosystem Resilience (RACER), and its possible application to the Antarctic Peninsula Region.

1.2.1 WWF has worked with the UK Government to highlight and raise the profile and understanding of climate change, adaptation & ecosystem resilience, and ocean acidification at ATCM and CCAMLR. In 2012, the UK delegation introduced WWF’s RACER methodology to the Antarctic Treaty Committee for Environmental Protection. RACER (www.panda.org/arctic/racer) is a new tool for identifying and mapping places of strategic conservation importance because they are, and will continue to be, sources of ecosystem resilience in a changing climate. The CEP endorsed a trial of RACER on a terrestrial area on the Antarctic Peninsula, which will take place in 2013. 138

1.2.2 WWF developed RACER because current approaches to managing often vulnerable polar habitats and species are not necessarily keeping pace with accelerating climate change. RACER is a new approach which locates sources of ecological strength and durability in today’s Arctic ecosystems – known as ecosystem resilience - and tests their persistence in a climate-altered future. Focusing conservation attention on these enduring sources of resilience is important for the continued functioning of polar ecosystems.

1.2.3 As such, RACER might assist to underpin ecosystem-based management approaches for Antarctic environments in the context of climate change. The UK also introduced RACER to CCAMLR in October 2012, recommending that the Committee might remain alert to this trial in the terrestrial context, and assess whether such a trial might also be appropriate in the marine realm.

2. How the introduction of ‘Marine Protected Areas’ could safeguard the marine environment in the uninhabited territories

2.1 MPAs in the ‘British Antarctic Territory’.

2.1.1 WWF recognise that the UK Government, working with the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), are at the forefront of systematic conservation planning and marine protected areas in the Southern Ocean.

2.1.2 This was exemplified by the designation of the South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf Marine Protected Area (SOISS MPA) by CCAMLR in November 2009. The SOISS MPA, proposed by the UK, covers 94,000 km2. It was the world’s first MPA located entirely in the High Seas, and it prohibits all fishing activities. In 2010, WWF awarded BAS and CCAMLR its highest accolade – the prestigious Gift to the Earth award – in recognition of the SOISS MPA and CCAMLRs commitment to establishing a representative network of marine protected areas by 2012.

2.1.3 Despite some initial progress, however, CCAMLR failed to meet its MPA commitments this year, and much remains to be done by the UK Government, and others, to create the political will amongst all CCAMLR member states to ensure that ambitious and meaningful large scale MPAs, including marine reserves, are designated across the Southern Ocean, including the Antarctic Peninsula region, the Scotia Arc and the Weddell Sea. WWF and BAS participated in the first technical MPA planning workshops established by CCAMLR for the Antarctic Peninsula region (May 2012) and the circumpolar MPA workshop, including the Weddell Sea region (September 2012).

2.2 South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands MPA

2.2.1 In February 2012, the Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (GSGSSI) announced the designation of a Marine Protected Area covering 1.07 million km2 for the South Georgia maritime zone. WWF-UK considers this to be an important first step towards protecting one of the biodiversity 'gems' of the Southern Ocean, thereby helping to increase the resilience of the marine environment to the effects of climate change, and making a significant contribution towards CCAMLR's goal of a representative system of MPAs for the Convention Area, as well as wider global marine protection targets.

2.2.2 The provisions of the MPA management plan are set within the context of an exemplary fisheries management system which operates to an exceptionally high standard. Examples of existing good practice include minimum depth restrictions, responsive reductions in quotas, MSC certification of the South Georgia tooth-fish fishery and uniquely 139

identifiable markings on hooks. In many cases, the regulations are stricter and the quotas lower than those set by CCAMLR. However, the area set aside as IUCN Category 1b 'no take’ (closed to fisheries) is 20,000km, or less than 2% of the total area. Other sub-Antarctic MPAs have included a much larger percentage area as no-take, for example the Prince Edward Islands at 38% No-take or Macquarie Island at 36% No-take.

2.2.3 It is commendable that GSGSSI have developed a number of proposals for additional and improved temporal and spatial protection measures (including closed areas) within less than 1 year of adopting the Management Plan. This includes a proposal for the seasonal closure of the krill fishery from October to April to provide temporal protection during the critical breeding period for many South Georgia species. WWF would strongly encourage the UK Government and the GSGSSI to maintain this level of commitment to continuous improvement, and to ambitiously pursue a high level of marine protection for the exceptionally biodiverse and globally important South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Such an approach might also consider taking a more wide-ranging, precautionary approach (in line with CCAMLRs precautionary principles). This is wholly appropriate given that South Georgia hosts exceptional populations of a number of species, including gentoo penguins and light-mantled sooty albatrosses (IUCN status: near-threatened); macaroni penguins, grey-headed albatross, wandering albatrosses and white chinned petrel (IUCN status: vulnerable) and black-browed albatross (IUCN status: endangered)

2.2.4 The South Georgia MPA may also serve to reduce the risk of oil pollution within the Territory’s maritime and coastal zone. The Management Plan states that a ban on the use and carriage of heavy fuels in inshore waters around SGSSI is ‘being considered’. WWF would urge GSGSSI to implement this provision as a matter of urgency, to mirror the recent ban within the adjacent Antarctic Treaty Area (south of 60 ͦ S).

2.2.5 The management plan however does not explicitly include any ban on commercial mineral resource activities (including oil and gas development) within the region. WWF recommends that the UK Government work with the GSGSSI to ensure a complete and indefinite precautionary ban on all commercial mineral resource activities within the area covered by the MPA.

11 December 2012

140

Written evidence submitted by Government of Pitcairn Islands

1. Introduction The Pitcairn Islands are a group of four near-pristine small islands which can claim to be some of the most remote islands in the world. They consist of Pitcairn (the only inhabited island with a population of around 60); Henderson, a raised fossilised coral atoll which is designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site; Ducie, a coral atoll; and Oeno, a low coral atoll. All four islands in the group are recognised as Important Bird Areas (IBAs). Global Ocean Legacy, part of the PEW group, have submitted proposals to declare a Marine Reserve in the Pitcairn EEZ, covering 836,000 km2 of ocean. A National Geographic scientific expedition has declared the marine waters around Pitcairn Islands to be in a nearly unspoiled state. Pitcairn island itself is the peak of a extinct volcano with an approximate land area of 4.5 sq km and rising to a height of 347 metres above sea level. The inhabitants are mostly descendants of the mutineers of HMS Bounty and their Tahitian companions. The climate is sub tropical with rich volcanic soil and lush vegetation. Transport is by quad bike, and the island is in a mainly unspoiled condition.

Pitcairn has high volcanic steep slopes and a maximum altitude of 329m. Lying 1570km West of Easter Island, 5350km North East of New Zealand.

2. Non Government Organisations 2.1 Due to limited resources, a lack of academic experience and a vast array of challenges, the Pitcairn Islands rely heavily on the assistance and expertise of Non Government Organisations when it comes to environmental, conservation and legislative/procedure issues.

2.2 NGO’s such as UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (UKOTCF), The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) and others provide support. We also try to share experience and lessons with other OT environmental/conservation departments by reviewing their models, policies and legislation.

141

2.3 The Pitcairn Natural Resources Division is still relatively new (established in 2009) and evolving. It is therefore a priority not to re-invent the wheel but to share experiences with other OTs. 2.4 Compared to other OTs, Pitcairn’s Natural Resources Division is extremely small with a huge portfolio of responsibilities and no full-time staff. Limited Government salaries mean that the Division Manager is only paid to work 42 hours per month (the equivalent of just over 5 days a month) on leading this Government Division. In practice, many more (unpaid) hours are worked, but this is in a Territory with responsibility for over 40 globally threatened species, so much urgent work is necessarily left undone due to capacity constraints. More support is needed.

2.5 RSPB has played a major role in supporting Pitcairn’s conservation and rat eradication on Henderson Island. RSPB has provided long term support to Natural Resources Division and we will continue to work in partnership. This is a credit to RSPB.

3. Budgetary Aid/DFID 3.1 As Pitcairn is on Budgetary Aid we understand the responsibilities and accountability that lies with this. Budgetary Aid acts as a restraint on the development and implementation of certain areas within Natural Resources which can be frustrating for future development. As stated within the DFID Overseas Territories Department Operational Plan 2011-2015 the focus is on economic development and growth.

3.2 The Corporate and Programme Manager, Overseas Territories Department, DFID hasn’t visited Pitcairn, which is a disadvantage. In a recent Council meeting it was decided that a second invitation will be extended to the Corporate and Programme Manager to visit Pitcairn. The benefits of visiting Pitcairn will help the person within this role understand the logistics, infrastructure, and the daily workings of the Island without this creates a lack of knowledge first hand and reading from documents aren’t always accurate.

3.3 For the past 6 months the position of Environment, Climate & Natural Resources Adviser in DfID’s Overseas Territories Department has not been filled. Pitcairn relies on this position to provide information, advice and funding application assistance. It is disappointing that such an organisation has not filled such an important role.

4. UK Funding Streams 4.1 As a developing Division over the past 5 years we have utilised OTEP and now Darwin Plus for funding. We have received small grants from JNCC and RSPB during the Henderson Rat Eradication.

4.2 Other funding streams haven’t been utilised due to lack of knowledge, time constraints and lack of human resources and experience in drafting applications. Funding proposal timelines are often too short for small populated territories with limited resources and expertise. There is a huge and unrealistic pressure on the Pitcairn Natural Resources Division to perform at the same level as other, much larger, Environment Departments.

5. Conclusion 5.1 Pitcairn’s Natural Resources Division is an extremely small operation and must perform to the same level of competencies as other OT’s many of whom have full time government departments. This places unfair pressure on the Division Manager.

142

5.2 Overseas Territories are often seen as a burden and of lesser importance by HMG. Pitcairn as an OT is not a burden; there is an opportunity for HMG to promote the OTs rich environmental wealth of endemic flora and fauna. HMG should be proud to be part of such unique culture and history.

5.3 The support received from NGO’s is invaluable to Pitcairn’s development. NGOs should be applauded for the work and support they provide to OTs and Pitcairn. It is shameful that HMG shows little interest.

13 December 2012 143

Written evidence submitted by the Institute of Ecology and Environment Management

Summary

• IEEM welcomes the importance that the Government is starting to attach to the sustainable development within the UK Overseas Territories (UKOTs), especially in acknowledgement of the biodiversity that the UKOTs support. • IEEM also recognises the UKOTs as a priority area and has recently established an Overseas Territories Special Interest Group (OT-SIG). • The UK Government’s strategy for the UKOTs does incorporate the principles of sustainable development and discusses the need for the protection of biodiversity. Whilst the strategy identifies ways forward with regards to sustainable development, it is not clear how the UK Government intends to facilitate, generate or incentivise the relationships needed. • In addition, more information is required as to how the UK Government will ensure that environmental factors are taken into consideration during the UKOTs development consents process. • The IEEM OT-SIG is now building a network of partnerships across the UKOTs and their UK-based stakeholders to assist in co-ordinating, facilitating and supporting the balanced implementation of sustainable development, protection of biodiversity, climate change adaptation and the introduction of Marine Protected Areas within the UKOTs.

Introduction

1. The Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) aims to develop the science, technology and practice of ecology and environmental management for the benefit of people and biodiversity. As such, sustainable development is of paramount importance to its members. IEEM welcomes the importance that the Government is starting to attach to the sustainable development within the UK Overseas Territories (UKOTs), especially in acknowledgement of the biodiversity that the UKOTs support. IEEM also recognises the UKOTs as a priority area and has therefore recently established an Overseas Territories Special Interest Group (OT-SIG).

UK Government Strategy on the UKOTs

2. IEEM acknowledges the need for truly sustainable development within the inhabited UKOTs. This will allow them to grow within the international economy and meet the demands of inhabitants. The UK Government Strategy does acknowledge the key drivers for sustainable development. In light of the habitats and species present on this diverse range of territories, the UK Government must seek to do more to ensure that Territory Governments place “environmental consideration at the heart of decision- making” to balance the competing interests across the three pillars of sustainability (environmental, social and economic).

3. It still remains to be seen how the UK strategy will be translated into Territory policies, regulatory frameworks and decision-making and then implemented objectively. The UK Government needs to work more closely with the UKOTs administrations and local experts to ensure that the true ‘value’ of the 144

ecological resources present is formally recognised by the Territory Governments. By working with local administrations and experts, the UK Government will achieve a true representation of how policies on paper are reflected on the ground and in the decision-making process. These working relationships needs to be facilitated (and possibly part-funded) by the UK Government in order to meet the goals of “strengthening the links between the Territories and the UK”.

4. Developments should be objectively ‘screened’ against ecological and other environmental criteria and for larger development formal assessments (such as Environmental Impact Assessments) should be undertaken to determine the true nature and extent of any potential environmental impacts. Only once this has been done, can the facets of sustainable development be reviewed and the appropriate decisions made.

5. As mentioned in the recent White Paper, UK experts not only have a lot to offer the UKOTs, but can also learn a lot from the UKOTs. In-country experts will be vital to the surveying and recording of the species and habitats present. These experts should be encouraged to pass on these skills to other inhabitants of the UKOTs. This ‘educating’ of future in-country surveyors, by current in-country surveyors and supported by others, is the only way that future developments (and the development process) will become truly sustainable.

6. The UK is a heavily developed country (unlike large portions of the UKOTs). As such, UK ecologists and land-managers are experienced in indentifying potential impacts associated with a development and proposing mitigation measures to reduce these impacts. They are also experienced in undertaking robust, repeatable surveys to establish baselines against which the effects of these predicted impacts can be measured. These skills (especially impact assessment) can be used to support in-country ecologists and decision- makers. This will ensure that all future development projects within the UKOTs acknowledge potential impacts and weigh these up against other considerations (such as those of an economic or social nature).

7. The promotion and development of relationships between the UKOTs and the UK should therefore be a key goal of the UK Government strategy. This includes raising awareness of the UKOTs within the UK, identifying relevant bodies within the UK to support the UKOTs and facilitating dialogue between these parties.

8. It is promising to see the Government discussing both the ‘protection’ and ‘management’ of ecological resources within the UKOTs. However, more information is required regarding the funding for these works and the responsibilities associated with monitoring the management measures. In addition, it would be beneficial to the UKOTs to see the ‘enhancement’ of their ecological resources.

9. Protecting the ecological integrity of the UKOTs is paramount to the sustainable development of the Territories. This involves identifying what is present, the sensitivities of the receptors, the risk these receptors face and what techniques work best at avoiding impacts on these receptors. In addition, it relies on the legal protection of the most important species and habitats. This protection needs to be monitored and enforced to ensure the protection of the most valuable and important ecosystems within the UKOTs. 145

Without this formal protection it is harder to ensure that ecology factors into the decision-making process for developments.

10. The UK Government’s strategy for the UKOTs incorporates the principles of sustainable development and discusses the need for the protection of biodiversity. In addition, the White Paper provides examples of how activities such as tourism and fishing have been made sustainable with regards to ecological receptors. Whilst the strategy identifies ways forward with regards to sustainable development within the UKOTs, it is not clear how the UK Government intends to facilitate, generate or incentivise the relationships needed. In addition, more information is required as to how the UK Government will ensure that environmental factors are taken into consideration during the UKOTs development consents process. It is likely that much stricter protection of the UKOTs ecological assets will be required before they will fully feature in development decisions.

IEEM as Part of the Solution

11. It was recognised in informal discussions in November 2011 with representative of both the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (UKOTCF) and Joint Nature Conservation Council (JNCC) that IEEM members would be well placed to provide the UKOTs with information on best practice, governance and professional standards. Our members, through the IEEM OT-SIG, have expertise that covers not just ecological aspects, but also wider planning, EIA and sustainability considerations. These resources might be utilised in the form of the provision of electronic resources and documents, provision of visiting resources to the OTs, and through capacity building to develop appropriate skills for in-country ecologists, environmental managers and decision-makers.

12. The areas where there is most opportunity for the IEEM OT-SIG to provide input are through:

• volunteers working on the ground supporting local projects; • professionals providing remote or on the ground mentoring and specialist inputs to local initiatives; • identifying and assisting in applying for funding through a range of mechanisms; and • capacity building and support to local government organisations, communities, NGOs and other conservation bodies.

13. The IEEM OT-SIG is now establishing relationships with the view to building a network of partnerships across the UKOTs and their UK-based stakeholders to assist in co-ordinating, facilitating and supporting the balanced implementation of sustainable development, protection of biodiversity, climate change adaptation and the introduction of Marine Protected Areas within the UKOTs.

7 January 2013 146

Written evidence submitted by Buglife

1. Executive summary:

1.1. Buglife – The Invertebrate Conservation Trust is working in partnership on St Helena to develop invertebrate conservation. Through this work we have been made aware of a number of failings during the construction of the new airport. These are having a large, adverse impact on the island’s ecology.

1.2. St Helena is ecologically significant. On Island 400 invertebrate species are found nowhere else on earth – surpassing the number of endemic species found in the UK and all other Overseas Territories put together.

1.3. Plans for an airport have been confirmed and construction is underway. The airport is located within Prosperous Bay Plain in the east of the island, the flattest area on St Helena. Prosperous Bay Plain contains a unique desert ecosystem in its Central Basin and surrounding ridges and valleys, comprising grits and dust with sheltered rock outcrops.

1.4. Prosperous Bay Plain is the main evolutionary centre on St Helena for animals adapted to arid habitats. In the context of St Helena’s biodiversity, it is an area with an extraordinary concentration of endemic invertebrates – a globally significant ‘biodiversity hotspot’. It is clear that if located in the mainland UK, Prosperous Bay Plain would be within the very top tier of the country’s most important wildlife sites, and would be protected by a myriad of different national and international designations.

1.5. As part of planning process for the airport an Environmental Impact Assessment was carried out. This predicted a large adverse impact on the Island’s Central Basin and Prosperous Bay Plain and developed a draft Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and draft Landscape and Ecology Mitigation Plan (LEMP).

1.6. The primary objectives of the LEMP were to provide compensatory habitats and landscape treatment to reduce and offset the permanent impacts of the airport and its associated infrastructure. This includes direct loss of habitat and the direct and indirect impacts on the landscape of the island. The EMP makes it clear that the detailed landscape and ecological mitigation requirements would continue to be developed in parallel to the design to ensure that any changes to engineering works could be assessed and then avoided, mitigated or compensated.

1.7. The detailed design of the LEMP has not run in parallel and is starting 16 months after construction was initiated. As a result Buglife considers there has been the avoidable loss of or serious damage to a number of areas of high ecological value and sensitivity. This is due to requirements of the EMP not being met and/or not having detailed information to ensure areas of high importance are avoided or protected. This has been of particular impact when construction plans change.

1.8. No detailed surveys have been carried out to identify sensitive areas and guide construction as was planned. This is of particular issue when airport engineering plans change, as they seem to do frequently. Construction is then taking place before the impact has been assessed, without even thinking about how the loss or damage may be avoided, mitigated or compensated. This is having a serious impact on the population viability of rare species such as the endemic Mole spider.

147 1.9. There are on the ground examples indicating that airport construction is not being adequately mitigated and compensated. Avoidable loss of and damage to extremely sensitive, and globally significant, habitat has already been caused due to environmental protection being a low priority and a lack of forward planning. There has also been very little monitoring and enforcement by St Helena Government to ensure that environmental mitigation activities outlined in the LEMP are being adequately delivered. In the context of the UK’s responsibility to protect the biodiversity on Overseas Territories this unique biodiversity hotspot should be of the highest priority.

1.10. We strongly recommend that further information is sought from Department for International Development and the St Helena Government to clarify what steps are being taken to protect and also enhance biodiversity on St Helena. Permanent damage has already been caused and if action is not taken now species will become extinct.

2. Introduction

2.1. Buglife – The Invertebrate Conservation Trust is the only charity in Europe devoted to the conservation of all invertebrates, and is passionately committed to saving the small things that run the world. The charity was established in 2002 and has a strong conservation track record, saving sites that are home to endangered species; promoting the conservation of invertebrates to the public and land managers; undertaking research and surveys essential to planning effective action; and influencing policy and legislation so as to benefit endangered species.

2.2. Buglife strives to develop international invertebrate conservation by undertaking international projects. Invertebrates are not just in trouble on mainland UK, there are invertebrate conservation issues across the globe, and notably in other parts of the EU and on the UK Overseas Territories.

2.3. Funded by the Darwin Initiative, Buglife is working in partnership with the St Helena National Trust, St Helena Government and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (Edinburgh) to develop invertebrate conservation on St Helena and we therefore have an in depth understanding of the value of the St Helena wildlife.

2.4. St Helena’s flora and fauna evolved in extreme isolation, resulting in more than 400 invertebrate species found nowhere else on Earth. This total surpasses the number of endemics found in the UK and all its other Overseas Territories put together. For this reason, St Helena has been called the ‘Galapagos of the South Atlantic’.

2.5. Plans for the new airport on St Helena have been approved, funded and construction is underway. We do not seek to stop this. However, through its work on St Helena Buglife has recently become aware of the apparent failures in the delivery of the environmental mitigation and compensation strategy for the airport and significant changes to the development which have not had their potential environmental impacts assessed. In our view, this prevents the UK Government from fulfilling its responsibility to protect biodiversity in the UK Overseas Territories.

2.6. The purpose of this evidence is to raise awareness of the negative impact that the airport construction is having on the wildlife of St Helena which could be avoided. Going forward we hope to encourage better quality of work from an environmental management perspective that is more transparent and engages with conservation organisations on St Helena that have detailed knowledge and expertise of the island’s ecology.

148

3. Value of Prosperous Bay Plain

3.1. The airport is located within Prosperous Bay Plain in the east of the island, the flattest area on St Helena. Prosperous Bay Plain contains a unique desert ecosystem in its Central Basin and surrounding ridges and valleys, comprising grits and dust with sheltered rock outcrops.

3.2. Prosperous Bay Plain is the main evolutionary centre on St Helena for animals adapted to arid habitats. In the context of St Helena’s biodiversity, it is an area with an extraordinary concentration of endemic invertebrates – a globally significant ‘biodiversity hotspot’. As invertebrates are the principal group of endemic animals on St Helena, there being no native amphibians, reptiles or mammals and just a single, endemic land bird still extant, Prosperous Bay Plain is of major importance to St Helena’s natural heritage.

3.3. The dusty, level floor of the Central Basin, a low lying depression within Prosperous Bay Plain, is a unique habitat on St Helena. It is a miniature mature desert ecosystem, similar in character to deserts in continental Africa.

3.4. A total of 35‐40 animal species and six genera that have been recorded on Prosperous Bay Plain occur nowhere else in the world. As recently as 2003, ten species new to science were discovered there, indicating that the fauna is poorly understood and there are probably other un‐described species present. In addition, 51 species endemic to St Helena have been recorded from the area of Prosperous Bay Plain, though they are not restricted to it.

3.5. The invertebrates found only in the area of Prosperous Bay Plain are represented by a wide range of invertebrate groups, not just many similar species in a single group; there are centipedes, spiders, pseudoscorpions, mites, beetles, wasps, moths and flies:

• The pseudoscorpion Sphallowithius excelsus is like a miniature scorpion but without the stinging tail. It lives in the dusty areas of the Central Basin. • Wolf spiders are a really special component of the Prosperous Bay Plain fauna, several species make burrows in the soft dust, e.g. the Prowling wolf spider Hogna nefasta is the dominant invertebrate predator, while the Lurking wolf spider occurs towards the eastern end of the Central Basin, the area most at risk from the development, and is considered to be endangered and at serious risk (only eight specimens have been found to date). It has not yet been given a scientific name and has been temporarily assigned to Trochosippa sp. • A further un‐described and rare species of restricted range, recently christened the ‘Mole spider’, is also endemic to Prosperous Bay Plain. It is possibly the only large spider in the world to live rather like a mole, exclusively in subterranean tunnels which it digs itself. • Endemic weevils are very species rich on Prosperous Bay Plain, with Xestophasis xerophilus being found only there and associated with the native Samphire plant. • The tachinid fly Atlantomyia nitida is probably a parasite of the endemic grasshoppers but appears to be very rare.

3.6. It is clear that if located in the mainland UK, Prosperous Bay Plain would be within the very top tier of the country’s most important wildlife sites, and would be protected by a myriad of different national and international designations. Permission to develop such a site in the UK would be very unlikely to be granted.

149

4. Impact of airport construction

4.1. The airport development is predicted to take around 163 hectares of the Prosperous Bay Plain. In addition to this 8.11 hectares of the Central Basin will be lost to the airport development area.

4.2. The St Helena Airport Environmental Statement (2008) concluded that the desert habitats of Prosperous Bay Plain were of Very High Value for their ecological interest and of International Importance. A Large Adverse impact was predicted for the desert ecosystems of PBP and its Central Basin.

4.3. To mitigate and compensate the acknowledged Large Adverse environmental impact of the airport, a draft Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and draft Landscape and Ecology Mitigation Plan (LEMP) were produced. The documents were part of the St Helena Airport Environmental Statement published in 2007 and which subsequently supported the application for development permission in 2008.

4.4. Within these documents the St Helena Government (SHG) and Department for International Development (DfID) state that they will to seek the highest possible standards of environmental management during construction and operation of the [airport] works1. It also states that the Environmental Management Plan will remain in draft form to the start of construction2 and that changes, both significant and minor, will be incorporated into the Environmental Management Plan as it develops.

4.5. The primary objectives of the LEMP were to provide compensatory habitats and landscape treatment to reduce and offset the impacts of the airport and its associated infrastructure. This includes permanent direct loss of habitat and the direct and indirect impacts on the landscape resource of the islands. The EMP makes it clear that the detailed landscape and ecological mitigation requirements would continue to be developed in parallel to the design to ensure that any changes to engineering works could be assessed and avoided, mitigated or compensated.

4.6. The draft LEMP set out the range of activities considered necessary to establish the means to provide compensatory habitat and landscape treatment. Principle activities included: pre‐construction site preparation, plant production management, germplasm collection, plant production, landscape and ecology mitigation planting, alien plant control & maintenance and long term management.

4.7. The LEMP first initiated in September 2008 was scaled back significantly and then halted, understandably, following the pause and then cessation of negotiations for air access. This work was limited to a one‐year programme, which collected a very small amount of seed to start building up plant stocks for compensatory habitat. No direct mitigation for the permanent or temporary loss of habitat was undertaken.

1 Department for International Development and St Helena Government (2007) St Helena Airport and Supporting Infrastructure Environmental Management Plan ‐ Stage 1 Draft Report page 1 http://www.sainthelenaaccess.com/application/ 2 Department for International Development and St Helena Government (2007) St Helena Airport and Supporting Infrastructure Environmental Management Plan ‐ Stage 1 Draft Report para 1.3.1 http://www.sainthelenaaccess.com/application/

150 4.8. In June 2010 the Rt Honourable Andrew Mitchell MP, then International Development Secretary, confirmed the UK Government’s willingness to fund an airport for St Helena subject to conditions. In 2011 there were engineering modifications and an Environmental Statement Addendum was produced reviewing past work and addressing some of the engineering revisions.

4.9. In a written Ministerial Statement to Parliament on 3rd November 2011 it was confirmed that the conditions had been met and the design, build and operate contract awarded to Basil Read (Pty) Ltd.

4.10. In March 2012 DfID initiated the search to appoint a supplier to provide ecology mitigation services to the Government of St Helena to deliver LEMP (www.government‐online.net/ecology‐mitigation‐st‐ helena/).

4.11. A year later in March 2013 the Airport Project board that governs the Airport Project gave approval for the LEMP of £870,000 to be managed by the St Helena Government Air Access Office (AA). It is not clear how this sum is to be allocated, if it is enough to mitigate and compensate a major development with a large adverse impact or what will happen if further compensation work is needed once the fund has been allocated.

4.12. The St Helena Airport update issue no 28 (26th March 2013) stated that detailed design and planning for the LEMP has begun. As of May 2013 airport construction works have been underway over 16 months.

4.13. Due to the detailed design of the LEMP starting 16 months after construction was initiated Buglife considers there has been the avoidable loss of or serious damage to a number of areas of high ecological value and sensitivity. This is due to requirements of the EMP not being met and/or not having detailed information to ensure areas of high importance are avoided or protected. This has been of particular impact when construction plans change. For example:

i. Advanced pre‐construction works that formed part of the mitigation requirements of the project are not underway and this will impact on ecologically sensitive habitats and species as well as the quality of environmental management of the development. For example, ecologically sensitive areas of habitats and species, including and most importantly, the unique Central Basin area of Prosperous Bay Plain has not been adequately protected by physical barriers or signage to prevent damage or additional disturbance (by works or access) during construction. Fencing of the Central Basin was identified as a key method of limiting the damage to this area prior to the construction.

ii. The baseline surveys carried out as part of the original EIA do not provide an accurate baseline data set to work from. It was intended that more detailed surveys would be carried out prior to construction to inform development. As a result it is not possible to accurately assess the impact of construction or to guide construction works and mitigation plans to avoid unnecessary environmental damage.

We are aware that in some areas detailed habitat and invertebrate surveys have been carried out, but the report and its findings are not in public domain despite a number of requests for the information over the last nine months. Even more alarming is that one of

151 the areas identified as of high value was destroyed shortly after it was pointed out. This demonstrates the lack of transparency in the construction process.

Surveys appear to be either not undertaken at all or commissioned late in the construction process, which imposes limited options for avoidance, reduction, mitigation or compensation of impacts.

iii. The endemic Mole spider has been previously recorded in the Central Basin but no surveys of the size or health of the population have been conducted that we are aware of. It is also known on one site near the Airport Contractor's construction camp at Bradley's and on the southern ridge of the Central Basin3.

On the southern ridge, the one population was expected to be directly impacted by the construction and one to be lost entirely to the runway. Airport engineering plans have changed and the construction footprint has now resulted in the additional loss of the majority of habitat across the southern ridge. This could impinge on the viability of the population, particularly as no attempt has been made to mitigate this loss. It may have been possible to translocate the population had further assessment of the impacts been carried out in advance. Remaining areas of habitat may be at risk of additional disturbance and damage as there are no physical protective measures in place.

The population at Bradley’s Camp is now likely to be destroyed to create a triangulation station for the airport. It is not clear why this area of habitat has been selected when there are similar habitats unoccupied by the spiders, including the area temporarily being used to house septic tanks, all around this area. Unfortunately, the story of the mole spider is likely to be indicative of how other less charismatic species, concentrated around the Airport Development Area, are being affected by the development.

iv. The recently constructed access road from Rupert’s Bay has resulted in the creation of a spoil slip slope covering the original vegetation that is highly prone to erosion. The vegetation lost contained Samphire which was important for a number of species only recorded in that particular area. If there had been further refinement of the EMP this interest would have been identified and its loss may have been avoided.

v. Part of the mitigation strategy was to restore areas under temporary use and create compensatory habitat for permanent habitat loss using native species. Without detailed baseline surveys it is not possible to accurately assess the quantity and types of compensatory habitat required. As the surface of the majority of the construction area has now been scraped, this task has been rendered impossible.

vi. Some areas of compensatory habitat may need to be stocked with native species from areas to be lost to development. These would be propagated primarily through seed collection and then cultivated. The delay in the start of the LEMP means that important plant areas have already been destroyed, severely compromising this aspect of compensation.

3 Department for International Development and St Helena Government (2007) St Helena Airport Environmental Statement Vol 4 Appendix 9.1 Terrestrial Ecology and Nature Conservation ‐ Detailed Assessments page 14 http://www.sainthelenaaccess.com/application/

152 vii. In this arid and sensitive environment dust levels arising from the development are unavoidable but controlling them is an important and required component of the mitigation measures. We are concerned about dust levels and the need to protect ecologically sensitive habitats adjacent to the development. The impacts of dust on the habitats and species are not fully understood and need to be monitored in order to allow action if levels rise too high. Heavy coatings of dust are likely to have a serious effect, particularly on annual plants and sensitive lichen species, which form major food sources for the invertebrates of the Plain. The Environmental Statement indicates that barriers will be used as needed but none are evident at this point in time.

4.14. These examples indicate that the airport construction is not being adequately mitigated and compensated. Avoidable loss of and damage to extremely sensitive, and globally significant, habitat has already been caused due to environmental protection being a low priority and a lack of forward planning. There has also been very little monitoring and enforcement by St Helena Government to ensure that environmental mitigation activities outlined in the LEMP are being adequately delivered. In the context of the UK’s responsibility to protect the biodiversity on Overseas Territories this unique biodiversity hotspot should be of the highest priority.

5. Recommendations for Committee

5.1. As mentioned above, going forward we would like to see a more transparent way of working secured. Buglife and the on island conservation organisations are able to give specialist ecological advice on the wildlife of St Helena. As the construction is moving at such pace action needs to be taken quickly to ensure that further habitat is not destroyed or damaged needlessly.

5.2. Buglife recommends that further information is sought from DfID to establish the on Island situation and ensure that environmental protection is high on the St Helena Government agenda. This needs to be demonstrated on the ground through sensitive construction. We suggest the following information is obtained from DfID to help understand the situation: • What is the timetable for the revised LEMP and what impact on St Helena’s biodiversity will there be by not having this in place from the start of construction? • Will the revised LEMP review the level of mitigation and compensation required to offset the additional environmental impact? What will the procedure be if mitigation and compensation exceeds the budget set by DfID? • When engineering and design plans have changed is construction being realised after environmental assessment has been carried out? If so, when will the survey and impact assessment information be in the public domain? The current absence of detail is contributing to the lack of transparency around the project. • What monitoring and auditing is being carried out to ensure that mitigation measures are in place and working? • What process is used to weigh up the costs of impact on the environment (e.g. potential extinction of a very rare endemic species) relative to the financial savings gained by a particular change to the construction design? • To what extent has DfID devolved environmental management and oversight of the airport construction project to the St Helena Government? We have concerns that environmental protection is being and will continue to be compromised as St Helena Government is also required to deliver the airport to time and to budget. This is a clear conflict of interest.

153

13 May 2013

154

Written evidence submitted by the Governor of Gibraltar, Adrian Johns

Thank you for your letter of 25 March about the Environment Audit Committee’s Sustainability in the Overseas Territories Inquiry. Before addressing your questions I thought I would it might be helpful to you if I were to set out some of the context in which I am replying.

Under Gibraltar’s current 2006 Constitution, the Governor remains responsible for external affairs, defence, internal security and for certain functions in relation to appointments to public office while HM Government of Gibraltar (HMGoG) has responsibility for all areas not specifically assigned to him in the Constitution. This includes environmental management.

Of the Overseas Territories, Gibraltar holds the unique position of being within the European Union by virtue of Article 355(3) of the TFEU. This provides much of the framework for Gibraltar’s environmental law and practice. While the UK Government is ultimately responsible under the Treaty for the implementation of EU law in Gibraltar, EU measures are in practice implemented within Gibraltar by means of legislation enacted by Gibraltar’s Parliament. The Governor has no formal role in either Cabinet meetings or within Parliament, although all primary legislation comes to him for Assent. The Governor may withhold Assent in certain narrowly defined circumstances. In transposing the wide range of EU directives and regulations in the environmental sphere, HMGoG enjoys a healthy relationship with Defra and DECC from the initial proposal stage through to implementation. HMGoG is up-to-date in the transposition of post-Lisbon EU directives into domestic law.

What role do you have in regards to the environment in your territory, both in terms of overall strategy and on particular developments/projects in the territory?

As set out above, environmental management including sustainability is a responsibility devolved to HMGoG.

How much of a priority is the environment and sustainable development to the government of the territory? How do you engage with the territory’s government on these issues? Are there any particular examples of where developments/projects have proceeded which would damage the environment, and what if any input did you make in such cases?

The priority attached to the environment is a question more appropriately addressed to HMGoG given their devolved responsibility. I can however inform you that the present government’s manifesto does sets out their proposed environmental policies including a carbon neutral Gibraltar, an environmental impact assessment for all policies, examination of possibilities on bunkering at sea and land based storage, power generation/alternative energy, renewable energy funding and regulation of fishing. HMGoG hosted a Thinking Green conference and trade fair in October 2012 which profiled many of their policies. The speakers included former US Vice President Al Gore and Juan Verde, then International Co-Chair of President Obama’s re-election campaign.

155

The Environment Minister, the Hon Dr John Cortes, comes from a strong environmental background, is a Chartered Environmentalist and a member of the Institute of Ecology & Environmental Management. He received an MBE in 2003 for services to Ecology and the Environment.

What pieces of environmental protection legislation remain in draft form in your territory? Is there any draft environmental legislation that has stalled? Have you declined previously to enact any environmental legislation and what were the reasons behind that decision(s)?

Again a devolved area of responsibility but I am not aware of any stalled legislation. As mentioned, all necessary legislation to comply with EU law has been enacted.

What is the nature and frequency of your contact with UK government departments and UK Ministers on environmental or economic development issues in the territory?

HMGoG enjoy a healthy working relationship with Defra and DECC both on EU work and also relating to the extension of international conventions to Gibraltar. Minister Cortes called on Defra and DECC Ministers in April 2012 during a visit to the UK.

What scrutiny mechanisms are in place in your territory to hold the territory Government to account for their environmental practices?

Again this is a matter more appropriately addressed to HMGoG. I can however inform the Committee that it is an HMGoG policy to consider every decision against its potential environmental impact. The Development & Planning Commission (DPC) also considers the potential environmental impact of all new projects. The DPC is chaired by the (independent) Town Planner and commission members include the Environment Minister and Gibraltar NGO the Environmental Safety Group.

Gibraltar also has a Public Services Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is an independent authority, whose functions are to investigate complaints received from the general public about acts of maladministration undertaken by HMGoG and certain public bodies and contractors. This could potentially include environmental malpractice.

Given your role in regards to standards in public office, on what environmental grounds would you seek to remove territory government officials from office?

Through his general responsibility for ensuring good government, the Governor has responsibility for some public appointments including some senior civil servants. This question is however hypothetical and is more appropriately addressed to HMGoG.

I hope that the information above helps your inquiry. In my role as Governor, I of course keep in touch with HMGoG on a broad range of issues including the environment and I ensure that the UK Government is aware of the views of HMGoG including on EU issues relating to the environment and vice versa.

19 April 2013 156

Written evidence submitted by the Governor of Bermuda, George Fergusson.

Thank you for your email to me, along with the Governors of other Overseas Territories, enclosing a questionnaire about the role of Governors in dealing with environmental matters. I am attaching the questionnaire completed in respect of Bermuda.

You will see from the responses that Governors’ constitutional roles vary considerably across the Territories. In the case of Bermuda, the Governor’s formal constitutional role is limited to matters of national security, police, defence and international relations, together with a role in some important appointments, some of which, like that of the Ombudsman, can become involved in environmental matters. But for the most part responsibility for environmental matters is devolved to the elected Government. As a result, some of the answers to the questionnaire end up being more a matter for the Government of Bermuda than for the Governor. I have answered the questions as fully as I can, nonetheless, and hope they are of use to the Committee.

Bermuda is one of the most advanced Overseas Territories. Its constitution was adopted in 1968 and was designed to be a stepping stone towards independence. Unlike other Overseas Territories the Governor has no role in Cabinet or Legislative Assembly proceedings. He has the same special responsibilities (external affairs, defence, including armed forces, internal security and the police) but must work in collaboration with the relevant Minister to accomplish his goals. As the Governor does not sit in Cabinet he is kept informed of policies outside of his responsibility through Cabinet Papers, and is provided a copy of all papers which are presented to Cabinet. He also receives a copy of the minutes of Cabinet meetings following each meeting.

1. What role do you have in regards to the environment in your territory, both in terms of overall strategy and on particular developments/projects in the territory?

The Governor only has direct involvement in environmental projects if it is something which the UK Government is involved in, for example by a potential implication for international obligations and conventions, or if there is a project which cuts across his special responsibilities as set out in the constitution. Environment is a devolved responsibility of the Government of Bermuda. As such the Governor does not have any involvement in the development of overarching strategies for the environment. If there is an environmental project which involves international obligations Government House uses its excellent relationships with the Bermuda Department for Environment, the Minister and Permanent Secretary, to discuss the project or development and to help provide guidance and assistance. The cooperation has worked very well with projects such as the Sargasso Sea initiative being very much discussed between Government House and the Bermuda Department for Environment. The Governor also has an informal role through asking questions and making suggestions.

2. How much of a priority is the environment and sustainable development to the government of the territory? 157

The Government of Bermuda sees the protection of its natural environment as very important but this question is primarily a matter for the Bermuda Government itself. There are many Acts which protect the environment and promote sustainable development, including:

Protected Species Act 2003

Endangered Animals and Plants Act 2006

Water resources Act 1975

Clean Air Act 1991

Bermuda National Parks Act 1986

The Department for Conservation Services works to monitor and protect the environment. The Government of Bermuda signed up to be part of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and were asked to take part in the second. They have agreed in principle.

(a) Are there any particular examples of where developments/projects have proceeded which would damage the environment, and what if any input did you make in such cases?

The Governor appoints a number of senior officials within the Civil Service who work to oversee the work of government. One of these appointees, the Ombudsman, has investigated Special Development Orders (SDOs) in Bermuda for compliance with the UK Environment Charter. A copy of the special report, which was in some respects critical, can be found at www.ombudsman.bm. Bermuda signed up to the Charter in 2001 but has not followed it invariably in relation to large developments on the Island. As mentioned previously, when the Cabinet papers are seen in Government House it is possible for the Governor to raise an issue or offer help on a planned project. But we have no power to intervene unless it crosses one of the Governors special responsibilities.

3. What pieces of environmental protection legislation remain in draft form in your territory?

(a) Is there any draft legislation that has stalled?

We are not informed of draft legislation and its progress. This query would be better raised with the Government of Bermuda. Draft legislation is taken to the Cabinet before it is put forward to the House of Assembly.

(b) Have you declined previously to enact any environmental legislation and what were the reasons behind that decision(s)?

As far as we are aware the Governor of Bermuda has never refused to enact any Environmental Legislation. It is not in his power to do so unless it would breach the UK's international obligations.

4. What is the nature and frequency of your contact with UK government departments and UK Ministers on environmental or economic development issues in the territory?

When necessary we interact with the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) on matters pertaining to the environment in the 158

Territory. Ministers from Defra attended the Joint Ministerial Council hosted by the FCO which was attended by representatives from OT Governments. They were able to talk to the Territories and Governors about the environment and climate change. Most recently we have had contact with them over the Sargasso Sea initiative being put forward by the Government of Bermuda and the Sargasso Sea Alliance. Defra have been very involved and provided representation at international conferences and fora for the project. We have also begun work on an environmental mainstreaming project. This FCO-funded project which is managed by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee has been successfully piloted in the British Virgin Islands and the Falkland Islands. It aims to encourage elected representatives, civil servants and the private sector to consider environmental impact in decision- making across the board.

5. What scrutiny mechanisms are in place in your territory to hold the territory Government to account for their environmental practices?

See comments on the role of the Ombudsman under question 2a. Bermuda MPs can and do raise issues in the House of Assembly: there is an active civil society with a range of environmental organizations; and the media is active on environmental matters.

6. Given your role in regards to standards in public office, on what environmental grounds would you seek to remove territory government officials from office?

The Governor only appoints a small number of senior officials and has no role in appointing any other civil servants. The dismissal of any government official would be resolved through normal disciplinary procedures and the Government of Bermuda would be best placed to answer this question.

The Governor's Office and the Office of the Deputy Governor in Bermuda help support environmental projects where they can. Bermuda has recently benefitted from funding through the Darwin Plus Initiative and in the past has been a recipient of funding through the Overseas Territories Environment Programme. Government House keeps in touch with many environmental organisations and projects, providing support either through use of the House for events or through patronage at events. We continue to look for other ways to help environmental projects.

18 April 2013 159

Written evidence submitted by Gina Ebanks-Petrie, Director, Department of Environment, Cayman Islands

What particular aspects of environmental support/admin/funding from the UK Government is welcomed?

We particularly welcome the opportunity to access technical and scientific expertise in UK government environment departments and NGO’s on an ‘as needed’ basis. It is therefore important that we are able to identify individuals within Defra, DECC, FCO, UK CITES Management and Scientific Authorities etc to whom we can directly address questions. This is not always easy. We tend to have fewer communications issues with JNCC, Kew, etc. Any funding is appreciated and welcomed.

What environmental support/admin/funding is not welcomed?

Generally we welcome any support and funding that is offered. However, there are times when a request for assistance or involvement in projects materialises when either the project is not relevant to priorities in the territory or the timing is not convenient due to a lack of available resources. This can sometimes be counterproductive.

Would the Governor taking a closer interest in environmental protection be appropriate?

While political will to tackle environmental issues remains low it would be useful for the Governor to maintain an oversight role from the perspective of good governance.

What more should the UK Government be doing to support environmental protection in the overseas territories?

With the responsibility for the environment being a matter that has been constitutionally delegated to an elected Minister, the UK’s role in this regard is arguably limited to the provision of funding and technical support and/or expertise. However, we also believe it would be helpful for HMG to require regular reporting from UKOT Ministers of Environment on key environmental issues, perhaps by making the environment a regular/standing agenda item on the annual Ministerial Council meetings. We also think it would be useful for HMG to encourage and assist UKOTs to develop relevant biodiversity and sustainable development indicators which can be reported against.

Does the 2012 White Paper, which sets out the UK Government’s strategy, meet your expectations?

Not really - for a strategy level document we found the paper lacking in specifics and detail.

To what extent is the UK Government discharging its international responsibilities concerning the environment and biodiversity?

We find this difficult to answer. If the question can be asked differently we will attempt a response.

Do UK government departments work effectively together on overseas territory issues?

There is room for improvement. 160

Would you welcome stronger support from any UK departments in particular?

At the moment we would welcome stronger support from DECC on issues relating to Climate Change.

The UK Government has consolidated its environmental protection funding for the overseas territories into the ‘Darwin Plus’ Fund. Is this a positive development and is the Fund big enough to support the work that is needed?

Generally we welcome the launch of the Darwin Plus Fund in that its remit is wide enough to cover almost any issue that would be a priority in our territory. However, as we understand it, work in the UKOTS is now outside the remit of the regular Darwin Initiative funding which means that there is a real potential that the environmental agenda in the territories will be set by the funding needs of UK and/or international NGO’s and agencies, as opposed to being driven by realities and needs on the ground in the individual territories.

Do your environmental departments have enough staff and the technical expertise you need?

Generally speaking we are well resourced and there is a high retention of qualified, local personnel (currently there are 31 fulltime staff operating on the three islands, 90% of which are qualified Caymanians). However, we have recently lost funding for four research posts and three conservation (enforcement) officer posts so are feeling the impact of these losses on a daily basis. Our scientific and technical personnel also do not possess all of the skills and expertise that may need to be applied to particular problems so we very much rely on collaboration with UK and other academic institutions and government agencies.

What pieces of environmental protection legislation remain in draft form in the territory?

The Draft National Conservation Law, updated Marine Parks regulations, and regulations for the protection of Nassau grouper remain in draft form. Two national policies are also still in draft form – National Climate Change Policy and National Energy Policy. The Endangered Species Trade and Transport Law has been passed by the Legislative Assembly but has not yet been implemented. Also of note is the fact that the physical Development Plan for Grand Cayman is seriously out of date (the current plan is dated 1997), despite there being a legal requirement for it to be reviewed and revised every five years.

Is there a role for the UK Government to ensure that this legislation is enacted?

Perhaps through the reporting requirements mentioned earlier.

What estimates have the territory’s government made of the value of natural resources and ecosystem services to the economy of the territory?

None. However, the DoE is about to embark on a prioritisation exercise for economic assessment of ecosystem services through JNCC funding. 161

What scrutiny mechanisms are in place in your territory to hold the territory government to account for their environmental practices?

There is FOI legislation but without the National Conservation Law and a legal requirement to consult on the environmental impacts of decision, plans and policies (and no legislated process for EIAs) then the opportunities for scrutiny are very limited.

18 April 2013 162

Written evidence submitted by Nigel Haywood, Governor of the Falkland Islands

What role do you have in regards to the environment in your territory, both in terms of overall strategy and on particular developments/projects in the territory?

The Governor sees agendas and minutes of the Environmental Committee but does not typically attend the meetings. The Governor can feed his views to this committee through formal letters or informal conversation with committee members.

The Governor’s position in Executive Council enables oversight of all environmental policy/strategy within the Islands. The Governor has the authority to request Environmental Impact Assessments.

Environmental Mainstreaming Project oversight – The Governor has a place on the Project Oversight Group and attends meetings and contributes to this forum.

How much of a priority is the environment and sustainable development to the government of the territory?

The Environment is one of 11 priority areas identified in the Islands Plan, which aims to ensure the conservation of the Islands’ environmental heritage and biodiversity and seeks to enhance environmental protection.

The Islands developed a Biodiversity Strategy in 2008, supported by a detailed environmental baseline assessment (State of the Environment Report) which was reviewed in 2012.

The Falkland Islands Government (FIG) has signed up to a number of international agreements in its own right. FIG has committed to achieving the objectives of:

• The Kyoto Protocol • Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) • Ramsar Convention • Conservation of Migratory Species of Animals • Conservation of Albatross & Petrels (ACAP)

The Islands have been leaders in the development of wind power. The Islands’ six wind turbines provide 40% of Stanley’s electricity. Extensive investments have been made in providing wind power to settlements and individual farms in rural areas – to the extent that most now have 24hr power and with a commensurate reduction in the use of diesel fuels. FIG has recently concluded negotiations with the Ministry of Defence to construct additional turbines to provide power to the Mount Pleasant Complex, further reducing the use of fossil fuels on the Islands.

Environmental funding is low in the context of the overall FIG budget. Total annual funding of c£200,000 (less than 1% of FIG annual budget) includes funding for Falklands Conservation (£70k) and an Environmental Studies Budget (£60k).

The recently formed Environmental Mainstreaming Group is a Forum to further encourage and support ‘greening’ of government and industry. 163

In 2012 FIG announced the creation of the South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute, along with seedcorn funding to develop the institute over a three year period. The Institute has a high level of political support and is successfully engaging with partners from other OTs, in the UK and the rest of the world.

Reflecting the high priority attached to the environment in the Islands, FIG recently announced that hydrocarbon developments would be required to undertake a detailed ‘Environmental Case’ in support of any proposals put forward. This is a significant step and will enable the Islands to be at the forefront of environmental management of a new hydrocarbons sector. The Government is also actively reviewing its safety and emergency management processes and procedures, which will include environmental protection.

How do you engage with the territory’s government on these issues?

I engage with FIG regularly at a number of levels – through weekly meetings with Members of the Legislative Assembly, weekly meetings with the Chief Executive and Attorney General, and others as appropriate. More formally, I chair the monthly Executive Council. Environmental issues feature as appropriate in these discussions.

Are there any particular examples of where developments/projects have proceeded which would damage the environment, and what if any input did you make in such cases?

There are no specific examples. However planning and EIA legislation is dated, and is a concern as oil exploration progresses. The gap has been identified by FIG and plans are in place to address it.

The terrestrial Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) legislation is still in draft, and has not yet been subject to public consultation due to a lack of capacity in FIG (both in Environmental Planning and in Attorney General’s Chambers). I have not declined to enact any environmental legislation.

What is the nature and frequency of your contact with UK government departments and UK Ministers on environmental or economic development issues in the territory?

Such issues are discussed formally at the annual Overseas Territories Joint Ministerial Council, attended by Overseas Territories leaders, UK Ministers and Governors. Otherwise, contact is through Overseas Territories Directorate in the FCO as and when necessary.

What scrutiny mechanisms are in place in your territory to hold the territory Government to account for their environmental practices?

The Committee system within FIG is transparent and allows the public and NGOs to attend and the Environmental Committee has lay members. All committees are open for the press and public to attend. Agendas and papers are available for public scrutiny three days in advance of each meeting. 164

The JNCC Environmental Mainstreaming Project is attempting to encourage ‘green’ business and overcome what is perceived to be generally poor environmental practices in much of the private sector (and to some extent within Government).

Falklands Conservation provide independent scrutiny to FIG on environmental issues (though are largely funded by FIG).

Given your role in regards to standards in public office, on what environmental grounds would you seek to remove territory government officials from office?

It is difficult to answer such a hypothetical question. Discipline and removal of public officers is covered by s85 of the Constitution, and the Management Code which it describes. There are no explicit environmental grounds for removal set out in either document.

18April 2013

165

Written evidence submitted by Nigel Haywood, Commissioner for South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

The territory of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands has no resident population. It is managed by an appointed Government (GSGSSI), based in Stanley in the Falkland Islands. Oversight of the Government comes through the Polar Regions Department in the Overseas Territories Directorate of the FCO, but day-to-day management of the Territory, including environmental issues, rests with GSGSSI.

The Commissioner has overall responsibility for the management of the Territory and of the GSGSSI team, which has four full-time staff (including an Environment Officer) based in Stanley and three Government Officers, who work on rotation on South Georgia. There is a strong environmental element to the small Government team, with four of the seven full-time staff having a PhD in biological or environmental science.

Environmental issues are a high priority in all of GSGSSI’s work. South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands are home to an incredible abundance and diversity of both marine and terrestrial wildlife, including globally significant populations of seabirds and marine mammals. The presence of such diverse and abundant wildlife means that environmental protection is at the heart of all activities in the territory. Fisheries, which provide the main source of income to the territory, are amongst the best managed and most highly regulated in the world and this has been recognised by MSC certification of the Patagonian toothfish and mackerel icefish fisheries as well as part of the krill fishery. We continually strive to improve our fisheries management and have been pioneers in introducing environmentally sensitive fishing practices. Tourism is also carefully managed and monitored, with a limited number of sites accessible to visitors.

GSGSSI supported the establishment of the South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute (SAERI). The Chief Executive is a board member. GSGSSI provides some financial support, and has used its offices to establish a PhD studentship. We plan to use SAERI more extensively for logistical and coordination work as its capacities develop.

Legislation

Developing robust legislation is essential to underpin sound environmental management. In 2010 we enacted the Wildlife and Protected Areas Ordinance, which gives full protection to the native wildlife of the territory. It also enables the declaration of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and Specially Protected Areas. In February 2012 the Marine Protected Areas was enacted, creating a large (1 million km 2) sustainable use MPA, which will shortly be strengthened by additional protection.

Further legislation will be developed in the course of the next two years. Whilst particular focus will be on administration of justice, other areas of environmental legislation (notably marine pollution and terrestrial Specially Protected Areas) will be addressed. Legislation is drafted by the Attorney General’s Chambers in the Falkland Islands. Lack of capacity is an issue, and we are considering farming drafting out to the UK.

166

Funding and support from the UK Government

Links to UK Government departments are particularly important as a small team cannot have suitable expertise in all areas. In SGSSI we are fortunate to be able to call on expertise at the British Antarctic Survey, who have a long history of scientific research on and around South Georgia. GSGSSI staff are in regular contact with the Polar Regions Department in the FCO and links with DEFRA are facilitated through a JNCC point of contact, Anton Wolfaardt, who is based in Stanley. This post is part-funded by the South Atlantic OTs and partly by DEFRA. Dr Wolfaardt was originally appointed as co-ordinator for activities in the South Atlantic territories in support of the Agreement on Albatross and Petrels (ACAP), but has since taken on a broader role. Unfortunately he will be leaving post later this year, though we hope that his post will be retained.

The establishment of Darwin Plus is a step forward in that it combines funds previously available under OTEP and Darwin, however there is a considerable amount of high priority environmental work that is not funded. For example, in South Georgia an eradication of introduced reindeer is being funded from GSGSSI reserves, whilst a rodent eradication is being undertaken by a charitable trust (South Georgia Heritage Trust, SGHT). In the case of the reindeer eradication an application to Darwin was rejected. DEFRA have provided some funds towards the rat eradication and we understand the SGHT have recently secured some Darwin Plus funding to support the eradication of mice.

Further financial support from the UK Government would be of great benefit to SGSSI, priority areas include work on marine and terrestrial biodiversity to underpin our desire to see the Convention on Biological Diversity extended to the territory; work on invasive mammals and plants, including monitoring the recovery of the native wildlife after eradications; and work in support of our commitments to the ACAP.

Value of Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services

No formal assessment has been undertaken of the value of natural resources and ecosystem services, although in collaboration with United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre and funded by the Darwin Challenge fund, such an assessment is currently underway. However, in a place like South Georgia, where environmental considerations are central to all activities, outcomes of such analyses may not be particularly applicable.

Accountability

The GSGSSI team are accountable to the Commissioner and to the Overseas Territories Directorate in the FCO. GSGSSI organises an annual stakeholder meeting at which environmental issues are openly discussed. Any major projects are subject to expert and stakeholder review to ensure best practice is adopted.

18 April 2013 167

Written evidence submitted by Boyd McCleary, Governor of the British Virgin Islands

What role do you have in regards to the environment in your territory, both in terms of overall strategy and on particular developments/projects in the territory?

The environment is a devolved responsibility. Overall strategy and policy decisions on particular developments/projects are therefore matters for the Territory government. My main role within environmental decision-making is to promote good governance i.e. to ensure that proper procedures are followed which are in line with international best practice.

As Governor of the Territory, I chair meetings of Cabinet. In this capacity, I am involved in any environmental matters that come to Cabinet. My office liaises between the Territory Government and UK government departments to ensure that any requests from the Territory Government for technical assistance are passed on.

How much of a priority is the environment and sustainable development to the government of the territory?

This question would be better directed towards the bodies within the Territory Government with responsibility for environmental matters, currently:

• Environment - Ministry of Natural Resources and Labour; • Energy - Ministry of Communications and Works • Waste Management - Ministry of Health and Social Development • Development - Town and Country Planning, Premier's Office.

The Virgin Islands Constitution enshrines the commitment of the government to protect the environment. Section 29 of Chapter Two says -

‘Every person has the right to an environment that is generally not harmful to his or her health or well-being and to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through such laws as may be enacted by the Legislature including laws to -

• prevent pollution and ecological degradation; • promote conservation; and • secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.’

How do you engage with the territory's government on these issues? Are there any particular examples of where developments/projects have proceeded which would damage the environment, and what if any input did you make in such cases?

In line with the principles outlined in the 2012 Overseas Territories White Paper, we are able to put the British Virgin Islands Government in touch with UK Government Departments who can supply expertise, technical support and sometimes funding. 168

In addition to the Darwin Plus Fund which is administered by DEFRA, and open to all Overseas Territories, my office has a modest delegated project fund which we use to support projects by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Labour and Non-Governmental Organisations.

BVI has also participated in the pilot for an environmental mainstreaming project. This FCO-funded project aims to encourage elected representatives, civil servants and the private sector to consider environmental impact in decision-making across the board.

The BVI is co-hosting the Caribbean Challenge Initiative Summit in May which will see Caribbean political leaders and company CEOs come together to make significant environmental commitments - such as protecting 20% of near-shore coastal environment by 2020. My office is offering support where requested and I will attend. My office actively engages with BVI Government led initiatives. These include an annual clean up of coastal areas, Earth Day activities and supporting Environment Month.

My office also acts as a conduit between the Territory Government and the UK Government on international conventions relating to the environment.

Comprehensive environmental legislation entitled the "Environmental Management and Conservation of Biodiversity Bill" was drafted in 2008 and is currently under review by the Territory Government.

What scrutiny mechanisms are in place in your territory to hold the territory Government to account for their environmental practices?

The National Parks Act 2006 is one of the major pieces of conservation legislation. It allows for areas to be designated as, for example, nature reserves, wilderness areas or national parks. It makes it possible to restrict activities and access to terrestrial and marine areas. It also makes provision for voluntary conservation agreements with landowners. Science-based criteria form the basis for designations.

The Physical Planning Act 2004 sets out a development assessment regime, including restricting development, designating protection areas, controlling activities and access, and requiring EIA for certain activities (there are no SEA requirements). The Act provides for public participation and consultation on development and has mechanisms for enforcement and non-compliance, but it does not provide a comprehensive regime.

The Fisheries Act (1999) and Regulations (2003) makes provision for the promotion, management and conservation of fisheries resources. It allows for the designation of marine and fisheries protected areas and for measure to be taken to prevent, reduce and control pollution of fishery waters and the marine environment. 169

Also in April 2012, the British Virgin Islands signed the Protocols for Effective Financial Management (PEFM) and they were incorporated into law in October 2012. Section 11 of the PEFM says that for capital projects with a lifetime value above 5% of forecast annual recurrent revenue and funded from recurrent surplus or conventional borrowing:

‘independent expert advice such as (but not limited to) accounting, legal, financial, economic and environmental advice will be sought from parties outside the public sector.’

What is the nature and frequency of your contact with UK government departments and UK Ministers on environmental or economic development issues in the territory?

Environment and development issues are discussed formally at the annual Overseas Territories’ Joint Ministerial Council (JMC). This takes place in December in London each year and is attended by UK Ministers, Governors and Overseas Territories’ leaders. Governors also meet UK Ministers twice a year (i) prior to the JMC and (ii) during the week of the FCO’s annual meeting of senior civil servants the FCO Leadership Conference. We have been engaging with DFID in relation to the Caribbean Challenge Initiative Summit referred to above.

Given your role in regards to standards in public office, on what environmental grounds would you seek to remove territory government officials from office?

This is a hypothetical question, but I would follow the normal disciplinary procedures set out in the Constitution, relevant legislation and General Orders for the Public Service.

18 April 2013

170

Written evidence submitted by the Governor of Anguilla, Alistair Harrison

Thank you for your letter of 25 March 2013. I set out my answers to your questions below, but many of them are for the elected Government of Anguilla (GoA) to answer more fully. I have therefore forwarded your letter to the Minister for the Environment Hon. Jerome Roberts and his colleagues. I understand that you have also written separately to the Government of Anguilla (GoA).

Turning to your questions in order:

- As in most of the Overseas Territories, the environment is a devolved matter for the GoA. My role is limited to that on all devolved matters: I act as the Chair of Executive Council (EXCO, effectively the cabinet) and can therefore influence discussion to some extent. But decisions are taken by the four elected Ministers. However, in addition to the work we do with the Darwin Initiative and other strategic funds, my Office has some small devolved project funds that we use to assist Anguilla in capacity building and other support including environmental work. Examples are the support we have given to opening a Centre for Vocational and Technical Education, an outreach initiative with the National Trust “youth with nature” and a sports ground water capture and filtration system. Anguilla also recently participated in the environmental mainstreaming initiative which was funded by Defra (and managed by JNCC). The initiative aims to encourage elected representatives, civil servants and the private sector to consider environmental impact in decision-making across the board. The Governor’s office played a key role in working with JNCC to ensure local buy-in to this initiative -and I opened and closed the 3-day workshop.

- The priority placed on environment and sustainable development is a matter for the GoA. My input is limited to my chairing EXCO as noted above and where practicable helping to share UK best practice and expertise.

- Legislation pending is also a matter for the GoA, who bring legislation to the House of Assembly. My input is as above and I have never declined to assent to environmental legislation. Nor, as far as I am aware, have any of my predecessors.

- I attend the annual meeting of the Joint Ministerial Council (JMC) which brings together the Governors and elected governments of all the OTs in London each autumn, and associated meetings involving all Governors. There are usually further meetings involving Governors in London in the late Spring. Defra is represented at the JMC at Ministerial level, and officials attend relevant parts of the other meetings.

- All projects, including those with potential environmental impact, are subject to local planning laws. In the case of the marine environment, for example, a decision by the Minister for the Environment can be appealed to the full EXCO (as has happened on two occasions recently – you have received a letter dated 16 April from one of the appellants in the most recent appeal).

- This is a hypothetical question, but I would follow the normal disciplinary procedures if necessary.

18 April 2013 171

172



173



174



   

4 http://jncc.DEFRA.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=5283

175

176



 

177

Written evidence submitted by the Governor of Montserrat, Adrian Davis

1. Thank you for your letter of 25 March.

2. Environment conservation and protection is a devolved responsibility on which the Government of Montserrat (GOM) takes the lead. Environmental issues and the need for legislation etc. would generally be decided in Cabinet and I chair discussions in Cabinet.

3. The Governor’s office has provided £10,000 to help with the establishment of an environmental programme by Coral Cay Conservation http://www.coralcay.org/expedition- locations/montserrat/. There is also an on-going project on preserving the mountain chicken funded by the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust http://www.durrell.org/animals/amphibians/mountain- chicken/

Under the Darwin Initiative, a project was completed to designate the Centre Hills as a national park. Like other Overseas Territories, Montserrat is eligible to apply for project funding from the Darwin Plus Challenge Fund.

4. The issue of how much priority is given to the environment is a question that should be addressed to the Government of Montserrat. I engage as necessary via my chairmanship of the Cabinet. I would simply note that the implementation of a Strategic Growth Programme (SGP), which is being agreed with DFID, is Montserrat’s highest priority. This consists of the development of geothermal energy, improved access by air and sea, the construction of a port and breakwater and the re- installation of a fibre optic cable. Discussions are ongoing between the UK and Montserrat Governments about how the SGP will be funded. Project design has fully taken on board the need to conduct environmental impact appraisals and to ensure adequate public consultation as required by existing legislation.

5. On environmental legislation, the Conservation and Environmental Management Bill remains in draft form. The latest draft of the Bill was submitted to the Ministry of Housing, Agriculture, Lands and the Environment (MAHLE) on April 2, 2013 for review and distribution to the relevant stakeholders. Once the draft Bill is deemed satisfactory, the next step will be submission to Cabinet. There is currently no stalled draft environmental legislation. Additionally, there is no record of any environmental legislation for which enactment has been declined.

6. The SGP is governed by a Memorandum of Understanding which was signed by DFID Ministers and the GOM on 1 May 2012. The MOU specifies that an appropriate legal and institutional framework for environmental management should be in place. This includes GoM enacting the Conservation and Environmental Management Bill. GoM is in the process of recruiting an Environment Officer for MAHLE which will be financed from DFID technical cooperation funds.

7. The primary existing legislation governing environmental matters is the Forestry, Wildlife, National Parks and Protected Areas Act (Cap. 12.03), which provides for the administration, conservation and proper use of forests, the protection and management of wildlife, the establishment 178

and maintenance of national parks and protected areas and for connected matters. The Endangered Animals and Plants Act (Cap. 12.01), Beach Protection Act (Cap. 12.04) and the Turtles Act (Cap. 12.06), to a lesser extent address environmental matters.

8. Our main contact with UK Government Departments other than the FCO is with DFID. All DFID projects (which form the bulk of GoM development projects) are subject to climate and environment appraisal prior to completed design and implementation. For example DFID are financing the development and rehabilitation of the hospital on the existing site rather than expecting GoM to develop a new site. As mentioned above, the exploitation of geothermal energy exploration will hopefully improve Montserrat’s economy and fiscal position but also to reduce or remove GoM dependence on fossil fuels. The DFID contribution to the island is considerable. They expect to spend around £36 million in Montserrat in 2013/14.

9. Environment and development issues are also formally discussed at the annual Overseas Territories’ Joint Ministerial Council (JMC). This takes place in November/December in London each year and is attended by UK Ministers, Governors and the leaders of the Overseas Territories. Governors also meet UK Ministers twice a year (i) prior to the JMC and (ii) during the week of the FCO’s annual meeting of senior civil servants.

10. In respect of the scrutiny mechanisms in place by virtue of the legislation set out above, the MAHLE is best equipped to provide a more comprehensive response. As mentioned, there is a standard requirement for EIAs for major project proposals. Ultimately recourse to the courts can be pursued. Under the new Montserrat constitution a Complaints Commission has been established which provides another avenue for citizens to make their concerns known. If representations are made to me, I will pursue issues with the relevant officials if I consider it appropriate.

11. The final bullet point is entirely hypothetical. Proposals to remove any public officials need to follow established procedures as set out in the Public Administration Act and in the general orders covering the roles and conduct of public servants.

18 April 2013 179

Written evidence submitted by the Governor of the Cayman Islands, Duncan Taylor

Thank you for your letter dated 25 March 2013 in which you asked for information about how UK government departments support Overseas Territories’ governments on environmental matters.

What role do you have in regards to the environment in your territory, both in terms of overall strategy and on particular developments/projects in the territory?

As you rightly state, environment is a devolved responsibility. Overall strategy and policy decisions on particular developments/projects are therefore matters for the local government. My main role within environmental decision‐making is to promote good governance i.e. to ensure that proper procedures are followed which are in line with international best practice. My office liaises between the Cayman Islands Government and UK government departments to ensure that any requests for technical assistance are passed on.

How much of a priority is the environment and sustainable development to the government of the territory?

This question would be better directed towards the bodies within the Cayman Islands Government with responsibility for environmental matters, currently:

• Environment ‐ Ministry of Health, Environment, Youth, Sports and Culture; • Energy and Waste Management ‐ Ministry of Finance, District Administration, Works, Lands and Agriculture; • Development ‐ Ministry of Tourism and Development.

You may be aware that a general election will be held in the Cayman Islands on 22 May. The allocation of responsibilities/portfolios may change with the formation of a new government.

In line with the principles outlined in the 2012 Overseas Territories White Paper, we are able to put the Cayman Islands Government in touch with UK Government Departments who can supply expertise, technical support and sometimes funding. In addition to the Darwin Plus Fund, which is administered by DEFRA and open to all the Overseas Territories, my office also has a modest delegated project fund which we use to support projects by the Department of Environment (DoE) and Non‐Governmental Organisations.

Projects which we have supported since 2011 include:

• A DoE lionfish study. The study analysed the population and feeding habits of this invasive species; • Funding attendance at regional conservation workshops for National Trust representatives; • A study by a private individual and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew seeking to develop genetic fingerprints for endangered endemic orchids; 180

• Purchase of an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler for the Central Caribbean Marine Institute on Little Cayman.

We have also begun work on an environmental mainstreaming project. This FCO funded project which is managed by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, has been successfully piloted in the British Virgin Islands and the Falkland Islands. It aims to encourage elected representatives, civil servants and the private sector to consider environmental impact in decision‐making across the board.

The most important piece of legislation which remains in draft form is the National Conservation Law. There is currently no requirement in the Cayman Islands for environmental impact to be taken into account when making decisions on development projects. This comprehensive draft law would rectify this, requiring environmental impact assessments to be carried out and public consultation to be conducted. It would also create a list of endangered species to be protected and put restrictions on land use in some areas. Despite having first been drafted a decade ago and despite extensive public consultation, this Bill has not yet been taken to the Legislative Assembly. It was included in the Throne Speech setting out the Government's legislative proposals for the years 2010 and 2012 but was not brought forward.

There is also a draft Climate Change Policy. This is the result in part of a DfID sponsored project. Again, there has been much public consultation, but no bill has been taken to the Legislative Assembly yet.

The Endangered Species (Trade and Transport) Law (2004) has been enacted by the Legislative Assembly, but it has not yet been put into effect by the Cabinet of the Cayman Islands Government. The Law would bring the Cayman Islands into compliance with CITES. The Cayman Islands currently rely on CITES legislation dating from 1976, and some species newly included under CITES e.g. black coral, are not included in the older legislation.

What is the nature and frequency of your contact with UK government departments and UK Ministers on environmental or economic development issues in the territory?

Environment and development issues are discussed formally at the annual Overseas Territories’ Joint Ministerial Council (GMC). This takes place in December in London each year and is attended by UK Ministers, Governors and Overseas Territories' leaders. Governors also meet UK Ministers twice a year (i) prior to the JMC and (li) during the week of the FCO's annual meeting of senior civil servants the Leadership Conference.

What scrutiny mechanisms are in place in your territory to hold the territory Government to account for their environmental practices?

In November 2012, part 1 of the 2009 Cayman Islands Constitution ‐ the Bill of Rights – came into force. Unlike many countries' Bills of Rights, it contains a section on the environment. Section 18 Protection of the Environment states: 181

(1) Government shall, in all its decisions, have due regard to the need to foster and protect an environment that is not harmful to the health 01' well‐being of present and future generations, while promoting justifiable economic and social development.

(2) To this end government should adopt reasonable legislative and other measures to protect the heritage and wildlife and the land and sea biodiversity of the Cayman Islands that

(a) Limit pollution and ecological degradation;

(b) Promote conservation and biodiversity and

Also in November 2012, the Cayman Islands enshrined the Framework for Fiscal Responsibility (FFR) into law. Section 20 of the FFR requires that for any development projects with a value above CI$10m (approximately £8m) or projects which are Public Private Partnerships:

... the Cayman Islands Government will retain independent accounting, legal, financial, economic, environmental, and other technical advice as appropriate to ensure value for money.

However, the National Conservation Law, which would become the main scrutiny mechanism, has not yet been passed into law.

Given your role in regards to standards in public office, on what environmental grounds would you seek to remove territory government officials from office?

The dismissal of any government official would be resolved through normal disciplinary procedures as set out in the Public Service Management Law.

I understand that you and another member from your Committee will be visiting the Cayman Islands in June. I look forward to meeting you and to discussing these issues with you.

18 April 2013 182

Written evidence submitted by Governor of St Helena, Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha, Mark Capes

Background note:

Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) has developed a more-coordinated approach to environmental management in the United Kingdom’s Overseas Territories (UK OTs) since 2008 with the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) playing a more prominent role. The cross-Whitehall approach appears to be extending to other departments of HMG in keeping with the principles of the Overseas Territories White Paper.

Although there are similarities among the UK OTs, there are significant differences in scale, location, isolation, climate, population and wealth, which means that when addressing conservation issues in the OTs, one size does not fit all.

St. Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha welcome and have benefitted from UK government funding and technical support and this has made a significant difference for nature conservation and environmental management in general on the islands.

To successfully address the threats to biodiversity, St Helena in particular will continue to rely on the UK for financial and technical support for some years but the short term nature of project funding is not always the most cost-effective or sustainable way of supporting environmental work. A longer- term programme approach to support would probably deliver efficiencies and better value for money.

Questions for the Governor

(1) What role do you have in regards to the environment in your territory, both in terms of overall strategy and on particular developments/projects in the territory?

I am Governor of three territories: St Helena, Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha.

St. Helena Government (SHG) has a Natural Resources, Environment and Development Committee, chaired by an Elected Member of Legislative Council; it has political oversight of the environment portfolio within Government. The Governor in Council makes higher level strategic decisions drawing on advice and recommendations from the Environment Committee and other stakeholders. Since the establishment of our Environmental Management Directorate, we have:

• Included ‘effective management of the environment’ in St. Helena’s Sustainable Development Plan as one of our 3 national goals reflecting the 3 pillars of sustainable development. • Created our National Environmental Management Plan • Designated 23 National Conservation Areas in our land development control plan • Added environmental law to our legislation calendar (this law is currently being drafted) • Created a solid waste management strategy for the island • Agreed that tax incentives for importing ‘green’ materials will be considered this year. • Signed off a solid waste management capital project • Formalised the species action plan for the critically endangered Wirebird 183

• All Executive Council (Cabinet) memos require a statement on the environmental impact of the decisions being put to Council. This statement is reviewed by our Environmental Management Directorate and taken into account when decisions are made.

Through my office I make financial contributions to work on the environment through the Overseas Territories Programme Fund (OTPF) and ‘Darwin Plus’ funded by the FCO, DfID and DEFRA. Some recent contributions were:

o St. Helena Active Participation in Enterprise (SHAPE):: Darwin Plus 99,200 pounds for a paper and card recycling unit o St Helena National Trust: OTPF 10,000 pounds for ‘Heritage Building Skills’ training o EMD: OTPF 4.940 pounds to erect an information hut in the Peaks National Park o St Helena Conservation Group: Darwin Plus 8,650 pounds to fund a rare plant census

SHG’s recurrent budget provides core funding to:

• The Environmental Management Directorate, to provide strategic oversight of the environment. • Health and Social Welfare Directorate to run the waste collection service • SHAPE a social enterprise focussing on employment for disabled people, a key focus of which involves recycling paper and cardboard products. • The St. Helena National Trust, a non-governmental organisation focussed on protection and conservation of the natural and built environment • The museum of St. Helena

On Ascension Island, I chair the Ascension Island Council, which provides me with advice on all issues impacting the Island, including on the environment. I also have overall oversight of the Ascension Island Government, though day-today running is vested by me in the Administrator of Ascension Island. The Ascension Island Government funds a Conservation Department and an Environmental Management team. A review of the structure of these teams, with the aim of developing one, efficient structure with oversight of conservation, waste management and climate change issues under one senior official reporting to the island’s Administrator, has started. These teams preserve and protect the island’s conservation and biodiversity including endemic plants and animals, provide solid waste management and provide oversight of and support for scientific research on the island.

The Conservation Department has received significant projected funding from the Darwin Fund and OTEP. The Administrator has also used funds devolved to him by me to provide smaller support, most recently to promote biodiversity awareness on Green Mountain.

On Tristan da Cunha, the Administrator, appointed by the Governor, is President of the Island Council, which has oversight of environmental issues. Council has a Conservation Committee where policies are formulated and environmental issues discussed.

There is a conservation department that manages conservation and environmental issues. The Administrator is line manager of the head of conservation, has regular contact with the department 184

and regularly visits and reviews their projects. He also keeps in close contact with major environmental stake holders e.g. RSPB.

(2) How much of a priority is the environment and sustainable development to the government of the territory? How do you engage with the territory’s government on these issues? Are there any particular examples of where developments/projects have proceeded which would damage the environment, and what if any input did you make in such cases?

Conservation of the environment is of vital importance to the government of St Helena, not least because it is a key part of St Helena’s attraction for tourists. As mentioned above in (1) the environment is one of our 3 National Goals and is supported by a National Environmental Management Plan.

There is a rigorous Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process in place, so the requirement for an EIA is identified for developments through a recently modernised planning application process. Not aware of any development projects that have not been properly managed from an environmental perspective.

The same priority on these issues is given by the Ascension Government. While a formal EIA process is not yet in place, environmental impacts are part of the process in the development of projects and legislation.

As the Tristan archipelago includes two world heritage sites (Gough and Inaccessible) and is an important home to millions of sea birds and endemic species, the Tristan Government takes its bio diversity responsibilities seriously. This was highlighted in 2011 when a bulk carrier went aground and sank off Nightingale Island. The Island’s response to this environmental disaster illustrated just how vital the Tristan Government considers the environment, despite the extreme lack of resources and capacity on the island. The community’s response was recognised with the award of the 2012 RSPB Medal.

(3) What pieces of environmental protection legislation remain in draft form in your territory? Is there any draft environmental legislation that has stalled? Have you declined previously to enact any environmental legislation and what were the reasons behind that decision(s)?

St Helena has recently reviewed all of its environmental legislation and is in the process of drafting a new environment law to update and address any gaps. When drafting work is complete the new law will follow the same process as any other law required to be enacted on island. I have not declined to enact any environmental legislation.

On Ascension, the Island Council is considering a draft Ordinance on Marine Protection. This will allow the Administrator, on the Council’s advice, to bring in protection measures for particular marine species. I have not declined to enact any legislation relating to Ascension.

Tristan’s conservation legislation was updated in 2006. There are no outstanding or stalled ordinances in the pipeline. 185

(4) What is the nature and frequency of your contact with UK government departments and UK Ministers on environmental or economic development issues in the territory?

As Governor I Chair Executive Council (Cabinet) and so have oversight of every major policy decision taken by government that has an environmental impact. On some environmental issues I may consult with the FCO or other UK government departments. For example, in looking to develop a sustainable fishing industry we have had close and detailed consultations with UK officials to ensure that any fishing activity is well regulated and managed to ensure compliance with UK and international best practice. Last year I held a video conference with DEFRA Minister Richard Benyon to mark the launch of SHG’s new Environment Management Directorate. There was also input from DEFRA at the annual Joint Ministerial Council for Overseas Territories held in London last November. We work closely with DfID in particular on managing the environmental aspects of the airport construction project on St Helena.

The same applies for Ascension Island except day-to-day interaction with UK Government Departments is managed by the Administrator.

On Tristan the Administrator keeps in contact with the FCO and DfID on both economic development and environmental issues but with officials, not ministers. Tristan is in receipt of JNCC, OTEP, Darwin and RSPB funding.

(5) What scrutiny mechanisms are in place in your territory to hold the territory Government to account for their environmental practices?

The Natural Resources, Environment and Development Committee (see 1, above) has political oversight of our environmental issues, which are also closely monitored by NGOs such as the St Helena National Trust and the Heritage Society. Development legislation and regulations apply strict environmental controls to planning and development permission.

On Ascension, political oversight is provided by the Island Council.

On Tristan conservation legislation and Council oversight of environmental and conservation issues ensures that Tristan’s environmental responsibilities are scrutinised. The conservation department itself plays an important part to ensure compliance. A fairly recent example was when some wooden containers were brought in from Cape Town for a major project. The department was quick to alert government that the wood was not properly treated and suggested steps to mitigate against the impact of invasive beetles.

Tristan has a bio diversity action plan to cover the period 2011-2015, which spells out the responsibilities of individual departments and individuals.

All visitors to Gough, Inaccessible and Nightingale must comply with landing regulations. All landings at the outer islands must be accompanied by environmental/conservation officers.

(6) Given your role in regards to standards in public office, on what environmental grounds would you seek to remove territory government officials from office? 186

Any dismissal from the public service would be guided by the employment rules covering the actions of public servants.

18 April 2013 187

Written evidence submitted by Nick Rendell, Environmental Officer, Environmental Planning Department, Falkland Islands Government.

Thank you for your letter of 25th March 2013 requesting information relating to sustainability in the Falkland Islands. I have put together a response to the specific questions you supplied which has been copied to members of the Environmental Committee – the statutory committee administered by the FIG Environmental Planning Dept and is responsible for overseeing environmental management in the Falkland Islands.

What particular aspects of environmental support/admin/funding from the UK Government is welcomed? What environmental support/admin/funding is not welcomed? Would the Governor taking a closer interest in environmental protection be appropriate?

Funding

UK Government funding is vital to running conservation programmes in the Falkland Islands. The Falkland Islands Government has made it clear in the past that external funding is necessary to implement the Falkland Islands Biodiversity Strategy 2008-18. We currently require roughly £300K per year (2008 figures, so this figure is higher in real terms now) to undertake conservation-based research and environmental management to fully implement the Biodiversity Strategy. Of this around £200K is provided by FIG, to Falklands Conservation (the main conservation NGO in the Islands) and FIG Environmental Planning Dept. The remainder is down to external funding. There are very few environmental funding streams available to us. Those available funding streams we have accessed are Darwin Initiative funds (now Darwin Plus only), EU BEST and EDF funding and historically OTEP. Project application success has varied, and has led to ad hoc delivery of conservation programmes and research.

Long-term funding is required to support capacity building, retaining locally-based individuals in conservation and environmentally related positions to retain knowledge and integrate conservation efforts into the community.

Support and Admin

JNCC offer useful support and admin to facilitate small scale training as well as securing larger one off funding support. This is very much appreciated and is the main contact the Environmental Planning Dept has with UK Government Departments. I am not aware of the FI NGO groups having relationships with any UK Government Departments.

Governor’s role

There is a subtlety regarding perceptions of recommendations on environmental action being placed by UK institutions on the Falkland Islands. FI led priorities stemming from the Biodiversity Strategy and FI Islands Plan should be identified and pursued by the Governor where appropriate. 188

What more should the UK Government be doing to support environmental protection in the overseas territories. Does the 2012 White Paper, which sets out the UK Government’s strategy, meet your expectations?

There should be a commitment from UK Government to better support the OTs through enhanced long-term project funding, given that the vast majority of UK biodiversity is held in the Overseas Territories. The 2012 white paper sets out this commitment in principle but does not detail an adequate funding strategy.

To what extent is the UK Government discharging its international responsibilities concerning the environment and biodiversity?

The Environment is one of 11 priority areas identified in the Falkland Islands ‘Islands Plan’, which aims to ensure the conservation of the Islands environmental heritage and biodiversity; and seeks to enhance environmental protection.

The Falkland Islands developed a Biodiversity Strategy in 2008 (supported by a detailed environmental baseline assessment (State of the Environment Report) which was reviewed in 2011.

The Falkland Islands Government has signed up to a number of international agreements in its own right. FIG has committed to achieving the objectives of:

– The Kyoto Protocol

– Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)

– Ramsar Convention

– Conservation of Migratory Species of Animals

– Conservation of Albatross & Petrels (ACAP)

The Islands have been first movers amongst OCTs in the development of wind power. The Islands six wind turbines provide 40% of Stanley’s electricity and extensive investments have been made in providing wind power to settlements and individual farms in rural areas – to the extent that most now have 24hr power and with a commensurate reduction in the use of diesel fuels. FIG has recently concluded negotiations with the Ministry of Defence to construct additional turbines to provide power to the Mount Pleasant Complex, further reducing the use of fossil fuels on the Islands.

The recently formed Environmental Mainstreaming Group is a Forum to further encourage and support ‘greening’ of government and industry.

of political support and is successfully engaging with partners from other OTs, in the UK and the rest of the world.

There is a relatively small amount of funding available for environmental work in the OTs. Two million pounds per year from UK Government compared to hundreds of million available to UK mainland projects.

Do UK government departments work effectively together on overseas territory issues? Would you welcome stronger support from any UK departments in particular?

I do not understand the UK Government Department structures well enough to comment in detail. There seems to be very poor connectivity between UK departments and down to OTs. JNCC are a very useful contact who are very supportive and could give access to UK Government depts.

The Darwin Plus Fund is positive, but at £2 million between 14 territories, this is still not enough funding. The removal of eligibility of non-ODA eligible OTs from Darwin’s main round is a backward step.

Do your environmental departments have enough staff and the technical expertise you need?

No. One full time staff member within FIG working on the environment. A subvention of £70K to Falklands Conservation helps support 3 positions. Support for more permanent positions should be a responsibility of FIG.

We do have access to outside expert advice on many subjects from JNCC and RGB Kew which is helpful. Low staffing means we rarely have time to draw on sources of external advice fully.

What pieces of environmental protection legislation remain in draft form in the territory? Is there a role for the UK Government to ensure that this legislation is enacted?

Notable is draft terrestrial Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) legislation. This is in draft form and not yet consulted on due to general lack of capacity in FIG, both for relevant departments to comment and for Attorney General’s Chambers to progress.

What estimates have the territory’s government made of the value of natural resources and ecosystem services to the economy of the territory? 190

Very crude estimates on primary economy areas (fisheries, agriculture and some aspects of tourism). Currently a FCO and JNCC-funded pilot project assessing ecosystem services in the Falklands which may lead to a National Ecosystem Assessment exercise. So some progress in this area. Support for this work is mixed at all levels.

What scrutiny mechanisms are in place in your territory to hold the territory government to account for their environmental practices?

The committee system within FIG committees is generally transparent and allows public and NGOs to see what is planned and taking place and to advise and comment.

Environmental Mainstreaming Project is attempting to better ‘green’ business, as there is a poor approach to environmental thinking in government department s and much of the private sector.

Falklands Conservation provide independent scrutiny to FIG on environmental issues. Even with links to Birdlife International, FC are fully occupied implementing their own research and conservation priorities and do not have sufficient resources to undertake this as well as they might.

18 April 2013 191

Written evidence submitted by Mr Karim V D Hodge, Director, Environment: Anguilla Department of Environment

What particular aspects of environmental support/admin/funding from the UK Government is welcomed?

Support funding and technical assistance is welcomed and will be for the foreseeable future, until the required skills and the means to continue the development of such are retained locally.

Support is needed for some infrastructure, and continued research into areas of the environment from which Anguilla can have appropriate environmental management that can lead to a sustainable economy. Potential research areas include but not limited to biotechnology, habitat restoration, protected areas management (terrestrial and marine) integrated coastal management, climate change adaptation and mitigation (specifically renewable energy), waste management, fisheries development and management, agriculture improvement and development etc. The development of a Sustainable National Development Plan (for the next 20-25 years) along with a robust but realistic economic strategy is needed to provide vision, purpose and measurable targets. Therefore, environmental research will play a pivotal role in the development of both the plan and strategy. This will require commitment of capital investment and continued technical and financial support beyond the original investment to ensure sustainability. Perhaps the UK Department Commerce, Investment and Trade (UKDCIT) can assists in various ways other than monetary, for example, network current innovators, potential investors and legitimate business initiatives. OT’s must be a part of the UKDCIT’s mandate. In order for the abovementioned to be achieved, the appropriate and affordable legal and institutional changes that can effectively and efficiently manage such actual realities on the ground must be implemented.

The Department of Environment (DOE) Anguilla has championed and implemented some relevant supportive policy documents related to the environment that should be integrated into both the National Development Plan and Economic Strategy. This can also be further facilitated by the UK Government extending their existing funding arrangements to the OT’s, specifically along the Environment and Natural Resources theme. For example UN-FAO, GEF, UNDP and UNEP granting schemes.

What environmental support/admin/funding is not welcomed?

Initiatives and collaborations of external parties (i.e. NGO’s, Universities and Research Agencies) are often welcomed. However, the projects that are not national priorities or supportive of national policy although supported by the UK Government or any other donor agencies, should not be considered.

This form of support should be innovative and have comprehensive national government support if the end products are to be useful. The UK HMG needs to rethink whether the support for projects by external parties are synonymous with national policy aligned with current medium term strategies, critically making national impact or contrarily, are they only really addressing academic and scientific purpose. 192

These projects should have national support by local government at the highest level so that they can be appropriately be integrated into national plans, programmes and Ministries mandates.

Would the Governor taking a closer interest in environmental protection be appropriate?

It is strongly believed that the Governor should take a closer interest in environmental management and biodiversity conservation, especially where the UK has international obligations.

In the past, the Governor’s intervention (even if subtle) has influenced positive strides for instance, the sea turtle moratorium; legislation- BHCA, TESA EPA ANT and more.

Having the Governor take a more pronounced stance on the environment will enable the environment to be seriously considered at the highest levels whereby in some instances crucial environmentally related matters are not thoroughly disseminated and thought of prior to a final decision being made.

What more should the UK Government be doing to support environmental protection in the overseas territories?

As highlighted by a number of UK and international reports, it is clear that the United Kingdom Overseas Territories (UKOTs) and Crown Dependencies (CDs) represent the majority of the UKs biodiversity and environmental assets globally.

The UK should develop with OT’s and CD’s input two documents for which annual reporting will be required at the UK OT/CD Consultative Council Meetings. These two documents can be as follows; A UKOT/CD Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan and A UKOT Environmental Management Strategy and Action Plan. These two documents should mirror the process, concept, content, and design layout of the St. Georges Declaration of Principles for Environmental Sustainability in the OECS (In which Anguilla, BVI and Montserrat holds membership) as well as the reporting template for the same. The UKOT/CD Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan online should be along the format and layout, with the ACHI Targets of the Convention of Biological Diversity being the main goals, but design with OTs realities.

DEFRA and its many units specialised or not, needs to have OT’s as part of their mandate, work plan or programme. These services can range from technical attachments, training, advice and offer direct services in marine, terrestrial, pollution, air quality, pesticides, biodiversity, etc. Other relevant UK Environment agencies should also provide similar services.

Does the 2012 White Paper, which sets out the UK Government’s strategy, meet your expectations?

The White Paper meets my expectations. However, the HMG needs to execute more meaningful and clear action to illustrate to OT Governments that they are serious about the environment and biodiversity. The development of a UKOT (individual OT’s) agreed UKOTs Environmental Management Strategy with a component to allow annual reporting at the UKOT Consultative Council Meeting in paramount, for transparency. It needs a general document addressing environmental management and biodiversity in the OTs which can consequently form the basis for developing 193

national environmental management strategies. This means there will be a similar strategy for all OTs and specific targets to be developed given the various OT environmental contexts.

To what extent is the UK Government discharging its international responsibilities concerning the environment and biodiversity?

Through the JNCC/DEFRA, FCO, DFID and FERA, the UK Government has been ensuring that some of its international obligations concerning biodiversity conservation and environmental management are discharged. The Biodiversity Strategy developed by DEFRA, JNCC, FCO and DFID is an excellent start. A revision of this document is needed and could take the approach used by OTs, Anguilla, Montserrat and BVI in developing their National Environmental Management Strategy. The UK Government needs to ensure that the local legislation is in place prior to extending international conventions. It is also important that the UK Government examine the practicality of the Convention in that OT.

Do UK government departments work effectively together on overseas territory issues?

There is room for improvement or rather widening the involvement of other agencies which should and must have an input on overseas territories. There is obviously great cohesion between DEFRA, DFID, JNCC and the FCO. However, there has to be a larger role for the involvement of DECC, given that the biodiversity and the environment on which the UK holds in high esteem is under threat from climate change realities. Also, the role of the DMSC is also needed where heritage issues are of utmost importance.

Would you welcome stronger support from any UK departments in particular?

Stronger support is required especially from DMSC with regard to Culture/World Heritage and DECC to ensure that OTs become part of their mandate and work plan programme annually and that OTs are streamlined across the units of Energy and Climate Change of the Agency. DFID, DEFRA, JNCC and FCO have been excellent partners in ensuring that the environment and development is supported especially the element of livelihoods and sustainability. However, the relationship between the OTs, DEFRA, JNCC, FCO and DFID can be strengthened.

The UK Government has consolidated its environmental protection funding for the overseas territories into the ‘Darwin Plus’ Fund.

Is this a positive development and is the Fund big enough to support the work that is needed? While it is a positive development, the fund is not large enough to make a medium-term (Short term 1-2 years, Medium term 3-5 years) meaningful impact as is needed to ensure continued sustainable ecosystem functioning in OT’s given the challenges of trade, development and climate invariabilities. As a condition of granting support under the fund, OT governments (Finance Ministries) should be made to support in writing that they will ensure sustainability through providing the adequate financial commitment.

Do your environmental departments have enough staff and the technical expertise you need? 194

Anguilla is not in a unique position, like all OTs we need additional hands to effectively carry out the work that needs to be done. Additional skill sets, equipment and resources need to be added, however the realities of the local economy do not allow for this to occur normally. Alternatives, such as attachments with other agencies in the UK or other OTs to build technical skill sets must be explored and are needed.

What pieces of environmental protection legislation remain in draft form in the territory?

Draft Bill for the Environmental Protection Act and its regulations (2008), The Regulations for the Biodiversity Heritage Conservation Act and the Bill for the Physical Planning Act and its regulations 2005.

Is there a role for the UK Government to ensure that this legislation is enacted?

Yes there is a role. The portfolio for biodiversity and environmental management should remain with the OT governments, however, where there are international obligations the Governor and HM Government should ensure that the proper environmental and biodiversity legislation are implemented within each OT.

What estimates have the territory’s government made of the value of natural resources and ecosystem services to the economy of the territory?

The Department of Environment has embarked on the first stage (Scoping exercise) of conducting a National Ecosystem Assessment which involves an economic valuation, scoping exercise and study. On completion of this stage a full proposal will be developed to actually conduct Anguilla’s first National Ecosystem Assessment for any UK OT, which will have significant lessons learnt.

What scrutiny mechanisms are in place in your territory to hold the territory government to account for their environmental practices?

The scrutiny mechanisms exist in the draft legislation mentioned above, hence at present, the level of meaningful scrutiny is non-existent. This does not mean that a stand-alone piece of legislation that would assist in scrutiny and holding OT governments accountable is not needed.

18 April 2013 195

196

197