Report on the United Kingdom and Its Overseas Entities

Home , Ascension Island, Gough Island, Nightingale Islands, Tristan da Cunha

Review of the Status of Implementation

of the Convention on Biological Diversity and of Biodiversity Action Plans

in the European Union Overseas Entities

REPORT ON THE UNITED KINGDOM AND ITS OVERSEAS ENTITIES

A report to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

December 2010

Gillian Cooper, Consultant

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS ...... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 5 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 8 2. CURRENT STATUS ...... 9

2.1. THE UKOT S ...... 9 2.2. UK TO UKOT RELATIONSHIP AND ENGAGEMENT IN THE CBD ...... 11 2.3. NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLANS ...... 12 2.4. LOCAL BIODIVERSITY STRATEGIES AND ACTION PLANS AND POLICY AND PLANNING INSTRUMENTS RELEVANT TO BIODIVERSITY ...... 12 2.4.1. BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS ...... 12 2.4.2. CAYMAN ISLANDS ...... 14 2.4.3. ST HELENA , ASCENSION AND TRISTAN DA CUNHA ...... 16 2.5. OTHER INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL POLICIES AND AGREEMENTS ...... 19 2.5.1. INTERNATIONAL MULTILATERAL AGREEMENTS ...... 19 2.5.2. REGIONAL POLICIES AND AGREEMENTS ...... 20 3. PROCESS OF STRATEGY AND PLAN FORMULATION ...... 23

3.1. HISTORY OF UKOT RELATIONS IN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ...... 23 3.2. THE UK BAP PROCESS AND REPORTING ON OT ACTIVITIES TO THE CBD ...... 23 3.3. THE ENVIRONMENT CHARTERS ...... 24 3.4. THE 2009 UKOT BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY ...... 24 3.5. BAP AND STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES IN THE UKOT S ...... 25 3.5.1. BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS ...... 25 3.5.2. CAYMAN ISLANDS ...... 26 3.5.3. ST. HELENA , ASCENSION AND TRISTAN DA CUNHA ...... 27 4. POLICY COHERENCE AND LINKAGES ...... 29

4.1. LINKS TO GLOBAL POLICY ...... 29 4.2. LINKS TO EU POLICY ...... 29 4.3. LINKS TO NATIONAL POLICY ...... 30 4.4. LINKS TO REGIONAL POLICY ...... 31 4.5. LOCAL POLICY COHERENCE ...... 31 5. IMPLEMENTATION ...... 32

5.1. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS IN THE UK FOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN THE UKOT S ...... 32 5.1.1. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ...... 32 5.1.2. OVERSEAS TERRITORIES TRAINING AND RESEARCH GROUP ...... 33 5.1.3. UK NON -GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS AND STATUTORY ORGANISATIONS ...... 34 5.2. GLOBAL AND REGIONAL NON -GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS AND STATUTORY ORGANISATIONS ....35 5.3. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS IN THE UKOT S...... 35 5.3.1. BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS ...... 35 5.3.2. CAYMAN ISLANDS ...... 37 5.3.3. ST. HELENA ...... 38

5.3.4. ASCENSION ISLAND ...... 38 5.3.5. TRISTAN DA CUNHA ...... 39 5.4. MAIN ACTIONS AND ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTED ...... 41 5.4.1. BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS ...... 41 5.4.2. CAYMAN ISLANDS ...... 47 5.4.3. ST. HELENA , ASCENSION AND TRISTAN DA CUNHA ...... 56 6. RESULTS AND IMPACTS ...... 63 7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 68

7.1. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND POLICY CONTEXT IN THE UK ...... 68 7.2. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND POLICY CONTEXT IN THE UKOT S ...... 69 7.3. CONTENT AND PROCESS OF STRATEGIES IN THE UKOT S ...... 70 7.4. FUNDING AND FINANCING ...... 70 7.5. PLANNED CONSERVATION ACTIONS AND RESULTS OBTAINED ...... 71 8. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 72 ANNEX 1: PERSONS INTERVIEWED ...... 74 ANNEX 2: BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 75 ANNEX 3: MEMBERSHIP OF JNCC UKOT AND CROWN DEPENDENCIES TRAINING AND RESEARCH COMMITTEE ...... 78

ACRONYMS

ACAP Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific states AIG Ascension Island Government AOSIS Alliance of Small Island States BAP Biodiversity action plan BEST Biodiversity Ecosystem Services for the EU Overseas Territories BIOT British Indian Ocean Territory BSAP Biodiversity strategy and action plan BVI British Virgin Islands CANARI Caribbean Natural Resources Institute CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CCCCC Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre CFD Conservation and Fisheries Department (of the British Virgin Islands) CITES Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species CMS Convention on Migratory Species DCMS Department for Culture, Media and Sport (UK) DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (UK) DFID Department for International Development (UK) DG Environment Directorate-General for the Environment (of the European Commission) DoE Department of Environment (of the Cayman Islands) EDF European Development Fund EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EFOT Environment Fund for the Overseas Territories EIA Environmental impact assessment EU European Union FCO Foreign and Commonwealth Office FTE Full-time equivalent GBSC Global Biodiversity Sub-Committee GEF Global Environmental Facility GLISPA Global Islands Partnership IRF Island Resources Foundation IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee JVDPS Jost van Dyke Preservation Society LDCP Land development control plan MDG Millennium Development Goal MEA Multilateral environmental agreement NBSAP National biodiversity strategy and action plan NCL National Conservation Law (of the Cayman Islands) NEAP National environmental action plan NEMS National environmental management strategy NIDS National integrated development strategy NGO Non-governmental organisation NPT National Parks Trust (of the British Virgin Islands) NSDS National sustainable development strategy OCT Overseas Country and Territory OECS Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States OR Outermost Region

OTEP Overseas Territories Environment Programme OT Overseas Territory RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds SAISP South Atlantic Invasive Species Programme SEAFO South East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation SGD St. George’s Declaration of Principles for Environmental Sustainability in the OECS SIDS Small island developing state SPAW Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife UK United Kingdom UKOT United Kingdom Overseas Territory UKOTA United Kingdom Overseas Territories Association UKOTCF United Kingdom Overseas Territories Conservation Forum UNCHS United Nations Centre for Human Settlements UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme VIEC Virgin Islands Environmental Council WHS World Heritage Site

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Current status The United Kingdom’s Overseas Territories are 14 small island territories, some uninhabited, located in the Caribbean Sea, Indian Ocean, Pacific and South Atlantic. Low in population size, they range from 51 (Pitcairn) to 110,000 (British Virgin Islands) inhabitants. As a result of their isolation, these islands have high levels of endemic biodiversity, provide key habitat for migratory species such as sea birds and host rich coral and marine life, but are disproportionately vulnerable to the impacts of climate change in comparison to their size and population as well as impacts of alien invasive species. The UK’s OTs collectively contain 240 globally threatened species, 74 of which are critically endangered.

The UK signed the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) on behalf of the Kingdom, including its Overseas Territories (OT), but only three of these are included, at the request of their governments, in the UK’s ratification of the CBD (1994). These are the British Virgin Islands (BVI), Cayman Islands and St. Helena, Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha.

OTs not included in the ratification of UK’s CBD are not legally covered by the Convention. UK reports to the CBD Secretariat provide limited information on the OTs and are inconsistent on which OTs are included in the reports. In practice, OTs covered and not covered by the CBD are treated the same in terms of eligibility for UK funding and conservation support.

Background Until 2001, biodiversity conservation in each of the OTs was viewed by the UK government as primarily the responsibility of the local OT government. At the time of drafting the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) in 1994, OT biodiversity resources were treated as non-British resources and given limited attention in the 1994 UK BAP and 2007 UK BAP update.

However, the UK government acknowledged greater commitment to UKOT biodiversity conservation in 2001 with the signing of Environment Charters between the UK government and each of the OT governments. This was accompanied by funding support through the current Overseas Territories Environment Programme funded jointly by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office was responsible for overseeing the Charters’ implementation because of its mandate to coordinate all UK Government policy on the OTs. However it was hampered in this role because of its lack of a formal mandate for biodiversity and environmental issues.

Institutional arrangements, policies and conservation actions Between 2007 and 2009 changes were made to the UK institutional arrangements for biodiversity conservation and support to the OTs. This included the establishment of a Cross- Departmental Overseas Territory Biodiversity Partnership, chaired by the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development, the UK Overseas Territories Association and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), which acts as the Secretariat, are all part of the Partnership. In 2009, a United Kingdom Overseas Territory Biodiversity Strategy was developed which gives recognition to the globally significant biodiversity in the OTs and underscores the UK government commitment to support Territory governments to meet international obligations.

The strategy is backed up by the JNCC’s 2008-2011 Programme Plan for JNCC’s Nature Conservation in the OTs.

There is a vast difference in the size and capacity of the environment and conservation departments in the OTs. They range from a relatively large and well resourced department in the Cayman Islands with 37 staff to that of Tristan with two staff members and sporadic volunteer support.

Despite the constraints, considerable progress has been made by OT governments in analysing how policies and existing institutional arrangements can be better integrated for more holistic approaches to sustainable development, and in developing strategies and action plans best suited to their capacity. The Cayman Islands and Tristan have both developed Biodiversity Action Plans. The BVI, St. Helena and Ascension all have a current plan or strategy that provides a guide to biodiversity conservation needs on the territories. In the development of each of these documents, a consultative and participatory approach has been employed.

In the territories where BAPs have been developed, the process appears to have been an important ‘growth’ opportunity within the conservation departments. Skills and knowledge have been improved in marshalling the required information for the BAP - inventories of island species and habitats as well as in the development and monitoring of plans.

On the ground, OTs have made significant and steady progress in designating protected areas, in endemic species and habitat conservation, and in the control of invasive species. In many cases this has been achieved by small and resource poor NGOs and conservation departments. However, progress is lacking in holistic and ecosystem approaches to conservation such as watershed management and building climate change resilience. Comprehensive management and a strategic approach to maintaining representative ecosystems need greater consideration. In general, issues affecting biodiversity conservation outside protected areas, such as land use control and development, have been far more challenging.

Main conclusions The peculiar sovereignty status of the UK’s OTs makes the mechanisms through MEAs as well as EU and regional policies complex and unclear. In most cases these OTs are excluded from the funding mechanisms for MEAs afforded to sovereign states. At the level of the EU, OTs are given disproportionally low attention to the value of their biodiversity. OTs have traditionally occupied a development aid relationship. EU Member States should seek to move beyond this classic relationship and develop a more equitable relationship with regard to biodiversity conservation policy and practice.

The recently established UK institutional arrangements and strategy to address biodiversity conservation in the OTs have helped to solidify roles and responsibilities. However, at present there seems to be, in general, a one-way, linear communication flow from the UK to the UKOTs. It is as yet unclear how achievements and lessons learned from biodiversity work in the UKOTs are disseminated to the wider UK biodiversity ‘community’. At present UKOT biodiversity work appears ‘sectoralised’ and lacking integration within the public sector bodies and other institutions dealing with biodiversity throughout the UK.

In the UKOTs, governments have made an effort to develop policies and institutional arrangements better suited to delivering sustainable development and meeting conservation goals. However the implementation mechanisms and legal tools to put plans into practice appear to have fallen short.

Firstly, management functions for biodiversity related issues are spread across a number of departments, making coordination complex. Secondly, the overall legislative framework is outdated and weak implementation and enforcement have caused biodiversity loss. In many cases, comprehensive new legislation has been drafted but not yet enacted years later. Thirdly, the political nature of land use and development control brings conservation and environmental departments and NGOs into conflict with more powerful development interests. The ability of environment agencies tasked with the implementation of CBD commitments to influence development planning and land use is often limited, even in cases where there is an environmental impact assessment (EIA) and established planning process.

Finally, shortage of funding remains a major constraint for meeting biodiversity targets. The earmarked £1.5 million from DEFRA’s Darwin Initiative for OT conservation work has been welcomed by conservation practitioners. However, in addition to the £1 million from the Overseas Territories Environment Programme, it is minor in comparison to the £450 million spent on biodiversity conservation in the UK. For aid dependent OTs, conservation work is totally dependent on grants through these two funds. Programmatic funding rather than one-off conservation projects would be preferred in many cases to sustain conservation gains. This arrangement is not uncommon for conservation activities in metropolitan UK where the global significance of biodiversity is poor in comparison to the global biodiversity value residing in UKOTs.

1. INTRODUCTION

There are thirty overseas entities that are linked to six Member States of the European Union (EU): Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom. Spread on all oceans, home to a unique diversity of species and ecosystems, these European Outermost Regions (OR) and Overseas Countries and Territories (OCT) are of crucial importance for biodiversity at a global scale. They are located in biodiversity hotspots (Caribbean Islands, Madagascar and the Indian Ocean Islands, Mediterranean Basin, New Caledonia, Polynesia- Micronesia), in major wilderness areas (Guiana shield), and in key regions for polar ecosystems and fish stocks (Greenland, Falkland Islands, French Sub-Antarctic islands, South Georgia). Together, they host more than 20 % of the world’s coral reefs and lagoons, and a lot more species than mainland EU. For example, New Caledonia alone has about as many endemic species as the entire European continent, French Guiana includes an area of Amazon rainforest the size of Portugal and the Chagos archipelago in the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) is home to the largest coral atoll in the world.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is the main global instrument to guide biodiversity conservation and management. Following the negotiation of a text under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) between 1988 and 1992, the Convention was opened for signature on 5 June 1992 at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. It remained open for signature until 4 June 1993, by which time it had received 168 signatures, and it entered into force on 29 December 1993. With 193 State Parties, it is a broad global treaty that provides a comprehensive framework for the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.

Because of the richness and value of their biological diversity, and because of the constitutional and institutional peculiarities of the overseas entities of the European Union, IUCN saw the need to conduct an in-depth review of the status of implementation of the CBD and of specific strategies and plans as part of CBD-determined National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAP) at national levels, for the purpose of:

o identifying the current status of the various legal and policy instruments, strategies, action plans and institutional frameworks for biodiversity conservation in the EU overseas entities;

o noting the extent to which these instruments have been and are being implemented, as part of national processes, and assess the main factors and processes that support or alternatively hinder implementation;

o identifying the main lessons learned and documenting some of the best practices and exemplary cases of biodiversity conservation in the overseas entities;

o analysing the extent to which these instruments are consistent with, supportive of, and supported by the legislation, policies, strategies and institutional arrangements for biodiversity conservation that exist at national, regional, European and global levels.

This work is part of the IUCN Programme on EU Overseas Regions and Overseas Countries and Territories. It builds on IUCN’s earlier efforts in support of biodiversity conservation and adaptation to climate change in the EU overseas entities, with the hosting of the Conference on

“The European Union and its Overseas Entities: Strategies to Counter Climate Change and Biodiversity Loss ” held in Reunion Island in July 2008, which resulted in the publication of the Message from Reunion Island as well as a comprehensive report entitled ‘ Climate Change and Biodiversity in the European Union Overseas Entities ’. This IUCN Programme, which is funded by the Government of France, aims to implement some of the 21 recommendations endorsed at the 2008 IUCN Reunion Island Conference. One of the results expected is the strengthening of, and the provision of support to, biodiversity strategies in these overseas entities, and in the geographic regions of which they are part.

This national study of the status of implementation of the Convention of Biological Diversity and Biodiversity Action Plans in the overseas entities of the United Kingdom was authored by Gillian Cooper, independent consultant. This is a technical report, and its contents do not necessarily reflect the policies, positions and views of the United Kingdom, IUCN or any of its Members and partners.

2. CURRENT STATUS

2.1. The UKOTs

The United Kingdom’s Overseas Territories 1 (UKOT) are 14 small territories, mainly islands, some uninhabited, located in the Caribbean Sea, Indian Ocean, Mediterranean, Pacific and South Atlantic 2. Low in population size, they range from 51 (Pitcairn) to 65,000 (Bermuda) inhabitants. As a result of their isolation, these territories have high levels of endemic biodiversity, provide key habitat for migratory species such as sea birds and host rich coral and marine life, but are disproportionately vulnerable to the impacts of climate change in comparison to their size and population as well as impacts of alien invasive species. The UKOTs collectively contain 240 globally threatened species, 74 of which are critically endangered.

The Overseas Territories are not constitutionally part of the UK. This means that they are not represented in UK Parliament. They are self governing, with their own constitutions and governing structure. The UK Government, through an appointed Governor, retains responsibility for such issues as external affairs, defence, international representation, law and order, and the public service. Responsibility for the implementation of international agreements, such as the CBD, and other multi-lateral agreements is also retained by the UK government. This study focuses in particular on the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and St. Helena, Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha, as these are the only three UKOTs that were included in the UK’s ratification of the CBD 3.

The British Virgin Islands (BVI) consist of 40 small islands and cays located in the Eastern Caribbean (see Figure 1). The four main islands are Tortola (54 km 2), Anegada (38 km2), Virgin Gorda (21 km 2) and Jost van Dyke (9 km 2). Most islands are hilly with steep slopes (uplifted

1 Language used in the first UK Biodiversity Action Plan refers to the Overseas Territories as Dependent Territories. This language was changed to Overseas Territories in 1998/9. 2 Although Gibraltar (UK) is part of the EU, it is not listed as an OR or an OCT under EU treaties and therefore is not considered an overseas entity for the purpose of this study. It is considered by the UK as an Overseas Territory. 3 Information on other UKOTs that have also made significant achievements in their biodiversity conservation can be found at http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4373 , http://www.kew.org/science/ukots/index.html and http://www.ukotcf.org/

9 submerged volcanoes) except for Anegada, the northernmost island of the BVI, which is a coral limestone platform. Tortola is the most developed. The main economic activity is tourism, with yachting being an important sector within the industry.

The Cayman Islands are located further west and north of the BVI, in the Greater Antilles (see Figure 1). The territory consists of three islands, Grand Cayman (197 km 2), Cayman Brac (36 km 2) and Little Cayman (26 km 2). The islands form emergent peaks of a partially submerged mountain range which extends from southeast Cuba across the northwest Caribbean to the Gulf of Honduras. Most of the population lives on Grand Cayman. The island’s economy is based on tourism and the offshore financial sector (the 2009 estimated growth rate was 2.2%. 4).

The territories of St. Helena (122 km 2), Ascension (88 km 2) and Tristan da Cunha (98 km 2), located in the South Atlantic (see Figure 1), share a Governor who is based in St. Helena, but they function quite separately at a governmental and societal level. As a result, in this report, distinction will be made between the biodiversity conservation actions and results in the three islands where necessary. Geographically they are several thousand miles apart, Tristan being the furthest and most isolated. Transportation links are difficult between Tristan and St. Helena while St. Helena and Ascension share more links due to the relatively closer geographical proximity. Tristan consists of an archipelago of six volcanic islands that also include the Nightingale Islands, Inaccessible and Gough Island - all uninhabited.

Figure 1: Location of UK Overseas Territories

Source: www.ukota.org

4 www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5286.htm

2.2. UK to UKOT relationship and engagement in the CBD

At the time that the UK signed the CBD in 1992, this was also done on behalf of the overseas territories. When the UK ratified the CBD in 1994, three out of fourteen OT countries were included in the UK’s ratification: British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, and St. Helena and its territories of Ascension and Tristan da Cunha (now St Helena, Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha 5). These OTs have been included in the UK’s ratification at the request of their territory governments.

OTs not included in the ratification of UK’s CBD are not legally covered by the Convention, however the option for them to be included in the ratification is always open 6. In practice, OTs included and not included in the CBD are treated the same by the UK Government departments and non-governmental organisations (NGO) working in the territories. Those not included are still eligible for the same funding opportunities and research and conservation support from UK agencies and organisations. In addition, if they choose to, their conservation activities and achievements will be included in the reports submitted to the CBD, although the process for making this happen is at present unclear.

Biodiversity conservation in each of the OTs is viewed by the UK government as primarily the responsibility of individual OT governments. Until 1999, it was expected that biodiversity conservation would be carried out by OT governments with support from local and regional NGOs. Action and policies were to be guided by the framework for biodiversity conservation set out in the CBD.

It would be fair to say that at the time of drafting the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) in 1994, the OTs and the biodiversity within and around their shores were treated as non-British resources. Despite the comparatively rich biodiversity of the OTs to the biodiversity of metropolitan UK, OT biodiversity was given limited attention in the first UK BAP (1994) and even less mention in the 2007 UK BAP update: ‘Conserving Biodiversity – the UK Approach’ (DEFRA 2007).

Improved clarity and commitment with regard to the responsibilities and obligations between the UK government and Territory administrations for biodiversity conservation came in 1999 with the publication of a White Paper on the OTs. This culminated in 2001 with the signing of Environment Charters between the UK government and each of the OT governments. Further to the Charter agreement, the UK government saw the provision of funding aid as one of the key ways in which it could support biodiversity conservation. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) Environment Fund for Overseas Territories (EFOT) which operated until 2002/3 and the current Overseas Territories Environment Programme (OTEP) funded jointly by FCO and the Department for International Development (DFID) have played a significant role in biodiversity conservation in the OTs and are valued sources of funding for environmental practitioners working in the these territories (Bass et. al. 2006).

Between 2007 and 2009, following changes in the institutional arrangements to deal with biodiversity conservation and support to the OTs at a governmental level, a United Kingdom

5 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/1751/made 6For more information and guidelines on the extension of treaties to the UKOTs, see: http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/pdf7/fco_pdf_guidancetreatiesots . This document however states that extension of treaties to the UKOTs is normally done at the time of ratification.

Overseas Territory Biodiversity Strategy 7 was developed. The strategy gives recognition to the globally significant biodiversity in the UKOTs and underscores the UK government commitment to support Territory governments to meet international obligations.

2.3. National biodiversity action plans

The UK developed its Biodiversity Action Plan in 1994, following ratification of the CBD in that year. An updated UK BAP was produced in 2007 and called ‘Conserving Biodiversity – the UK Approach’. This document was published following the fifth UK BAP Partnership Conference. As noted above, the UK BAPs pay limited attention to the OT biological resources. The documents focus on a shared vision between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and conservation priorities for conservation, protection and sustainable use of biological resources in these four countries.

2.4. Local Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans and policy and planning instruments relevant to biodiversity

2.4.1. British Virgin Islands

Biodiversity related plans and policies

The BVI do not have a National Biodiversity Action Plan. A BAP was done for Anegada, the second largest island of the 40 island group making up the BVI.

The BVI Protected Area Systems Plan 2007 – 2017 (Gardner, 2007) 8 is the most comprehensive document describing habitats of local and international importance within the Territory. The Plan was approved in 2008 and provides a comprehensive overview of existing and proposed protected areas and the institutional and legal framework for designation and management. The Systems Plan draws from the IUCN management categories for protected areas and provides habitat maps of the marine and coastal resources of the BVI but does not contain detailed information on habitat classifications and species, neither does it contain habitat and species action plans as would be included in a BAP. In the preparation of the Systems Plan, it was decided to restrict detailed site information on habitat and species to the individual site management plans.

The BVI also has a National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP)9 which was developed in 2004. The Plan provides the framework within which the Territory’s environmental resources should be managed. Although biodiversity resources are not singled out within the plan, the NEAP provides an overall framework for natural resource management. It identifies the legal and institutional framework and challenges for improved environmental management which impact on biodiversity. The NEAP was accepted by Member States of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) as fulfilling BVI’s requirements under the St. George’s Declaration of Principles for Environmental Sustainability in the OECS (SGD)10 .

7 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/biodiversity/documents/uk-ot-strat.pdf 8 http://www.bviddm.com/document-center/System%20Plan%202008%20-%20Approved%20Version.pdf 9 http://www.bvidef.org/main/ media/NEAP_Draft.pdf 10 http://www.cep.unep.org/pubs/meetingreports/LBS%20ISTAC%20III/english/NEMS.doc

The NEAP is an outcome of the National Integrated Development Strategy (NIDS) 11 which was a five year process developed by the BVI government led by the Ministry of Finance, in collaboration with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS) in 2000. The resulting strategy shows BVI government’s efforts to take a comprehensive approach to planning and development. The NIDS aims to improve democratic decision-making and institutionalise integrated development planning across sectors and agencies to enable and maintain sustainable development. Significant attention was paid to environmental management coordination which yielded a further document on integrated policies and strategies on the environment 12 .

Existing relevant legislation dealing with protected areas and species protection and conservation in the BVI are:

National Parks Act, 2006 . This Act is the most recent and far-reaching of the legislative instruments dealing directly with protected areas, and repeals the National Parks Ordinance (Cap. 243) and the Marine Parks and Protected Areas Ordinance (Cap. 85). It provides guidance on management planning, and specifically requires the preparation of a protected areas system plan (Section 13(1)).

Marine Parks and Prohibited Areas Regulations (1991) were enacted to ensure that marine tourism activities at and around National Parks Trust moorings are conducted in accordance with the Marine Parks and Protected Areas Ordinance (Cap. 85). Though the Ordinance has been repealed, the Regulations were retained by Section 82(2) of the National Parks Act, 2006.

Fisheries Act (1997) provides for the establishment of fishing priority areas and protected areas for the conservation of living aquatic resources. A protected area declared under this Act may contain designated fishing areas. The Fisheries Act also provides for the establishment of marine reserves. Under Section 79 of the Act, fourteen (14) fisheries protected areas were declared by the Fisheries Regulations, 2003 (Statutory Instrument No. 20 of 2003).

Wild Birds Protection Ordinance (1959) provides protection for approximately 31 species of rare or endangered wild birds, their eggs, nests, and young, at any time and under any conditions. An exception can be authorised by the Governor for the purposes of bona fide research. Bird Sanctuaries Orders in 1959 and 1997 designated 20 bird sanctuaries, which provide full protection for all species of wild birds.

Protection of Trees and Conservation of Soil and Water Ordinance (1954) provides for the declaration of protected areas for the prevention of deforestation, soil erosion and for the protection of watersheds, and prohibits grazing livestock or earthmoving in such areas, including private lands, without a license.

Physical Planning Act (2005) . This Act repeals the Land Development (Control) Ordinance (Cap. 241) and the Land Development (Control) (Validation) Act, 1992. The Act provides for the orderly and progressive development of land, and requires review by the Planning Authority of any plans for development or subdivision. The legislation also offers protection against inappropriate development of private lands within or adjacent to designated protected areas. This Act extends protection for natural heritage beyond the provisions of the previous

11 www.cepal.org/publicaciones/xml/8/5608/lcl1440i.pdf 12 http://www.bvidef.org/main/media/NIDSIntPolicies.pdf.

13 legislation, by making provision for the declaration of environmental protection areas to protect a range of natural features.

A proposed draft Environmental Management and Conservation of Biodiversity Bill has recently been finalised and will be tabled before parliament at the end of 2010 or early 2011. No date has been confirmed. A Committee including a cross section of stakeholders was established to develop and review drafts of the law. The proposed law has 10 components including: (1) public participation (2) protection of natural resources and biodiversity (3) pollution control (4) coastal zone management and beach protection (5) coral reef protection (6) protected areas management, classification, designation and cultural heritage (7) compliance and enforcement (8) establishment of an Environment Trust Fund (9) establishment of an Environment Commission/Court (10) implementation of multi-lateral environmental agreements (MEA). If approved, this would also result in a change to the institutional arrangements discussed below.

Anegada

The Anegada BAP was developed in 2006 13 with funding from the Darwin Initiative. Due to the unique biodiversity of Anegada, a number of biodiversity related studies have been conducted on that island 14 over the past ten years. The BAP drew on these documents as well as its own detailed assessment and mapping of the biodiversity of Anegada. The BAP details main habitat types, key species of significance and their status, major threats and specific conservation actions. The BAP document is relatively brief; however this was purposefully done to promote readability.

Jost van Dyke

In 2009 Jost van Dyke Preservation Society (JVDPS) published an Environment Profile for Jost van Dyke 15 . This document deals comprehensively with the island’s biodiversity – both marine and terrestrial as well as its cultural and historical heritage. The sections on biodiversity describe the vegetation communities on the island, the critical habitats and species as well as their distribution similar to what would be included in a BAP. The profile identifies the main biodiversity issues on the island and actions needed to address those.

2.4.2. Cayman Islands

The Cayman Islands have a Biodiversity Action Plan ( www.DoE.ky 16 ) published in 2009; this is an outcome of a Darwin Initiative-funded project. A number of Habitat Action Plans and 30 different species of plants and animals identified as requiring Species Action Plans were developed out of the BAP process. The Cayman Islands’ Department of Environment (DoE) has designed the document as a ‘living document’ that can be amended and updated on a frequent basis.

The Sustainable Development Unit within the Department of Environment is currently developing a framework for a National Sustainable Development Strategy (NSDS) but this has

13 www.seaturtle.org/mtrg/projects/anegada/Anegada%20BAP. pdf 14 See Section 8 of the Anegada BAP for bibliography of Anegada’s biodiversity studies over the last 10 years 15 http://www.jvdgreen.org/Final_Profile.html 16 The Cayman Islands BAP can be accessed from the DoE homepage

14 yet to be approved by government. The Cayman Islands Development Plan which is an outcome of the Development and Planning Law (2008 revision) is a zoning plan for the territory and it is expected that the NSDS will be developed within the context of the existing Development Plan.

Relevant legislation dealing with area protection and the conservation of animal species includes:

Marine Conservation Law (2007 revision) allows for the designation of restricted marine areas for the purpose of research, development and marine parks

Marine Conservation (Marine Parks) Regulation (2007) designates marine protected areas within four categories: 1. Environmental Zones: removal or damage of any marine life is prohibited 2. Replenishment Zones: removal of conch and lobster is prohibited and fishing methods are restricted 3. Marine Park Zones: marine life is protected and anchoring forbidden 4. Wildlife Interaction Zones: restricts interaction with marine species, e.g., fish feeding, to these designated zones; restricts fishing within these zones

Animals Law (2003 revision) provides for the protection of iguanas and bird species and also allows for the designation of animal sanctuaries. Hunting is prohibited and it is an offence to disturb any flora or fauna.

Development and Planning Law (2008 revision) mandates the development of a Development Plan for Cayman Islands. This Plan delineates land use zones on the island. However, this Plan only covers Grand Cayman and it does not appear to include adequate environmental considerations in its planning.

A proposed draft National Conservation Law (NCL) , first tabled in 2002 and again tabled in 2007, would replace the Marine Conservation Law and sections 66-79 of the Animals Law. A public consultation process is now underway with key stakeholders and the general public. If passed, this Conservation Law would establish a National Conservation Council to administer the law and bring conservation actions closely in line with the CBD, other MEA commitments and the Environment Charter.

Relevant features of the NCL which would strengthen biodiversity conservation include 17 : – Establishment of protected areas on Crown Lands. The objectives and level of protection will be detailed in a management plan for each site. There is currently no legislation for National Parks or a system of Protected Areas on the islands. – Provision for the protection of private lands through a government-financed lease agreement between landowners and the Governor which would restrict the use or development of land. The conservation agreement can be renegotiated after a specified period. – Protection of plant and animal species and establishment of conservation plans for each protected species. Currently, no plant species are protected in Cayman and only iguanas and non-domestic birds other than game birds are protected. Perversely, the current Animals Law (1976) protects the invasive Green Iguana.

17 http://www.doe.ky/wp- content/uploads/2010/04/NCL_2010%20REPORT_YOUR%20QUESTIONS%20ANSWERED.pdf

– Empowerment of Conservation Officers to enforce the provisions of the NCL. – Introduction of environmental impact assessment (EIA) as a requirement for development proposals which will need to be approved and reported to the National Conservation Council.

The NCL also aims to establish a mechanism to relate the government’s existing Environmental Protection Fund to a new Conservation Trust Fund and make it operational for conservation and environmental projects on Cayman Islands. In 2004, following Hurricane Ivan, the Cayman Islands government began charging an environmental protection fee against the departure tax paid by travellers leaving the country. The fees collected now amount to CI $26 million (approx £20.5 million). If made operational, the Conservation Trust Fund would also be able to receive money from grants and donations. Over the past six years the DoE has been able to access a small amount of funds from the existing fund to buy small pieces of land for protection but the fund has otherwise been inaccessible.

2.4.3. St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha

St Helena

St Helena does not have a Biodiversity Action Plan. Biodiversity conservation and management activities have been guided by the country’s 2005 Environment Charter Strategy for Action 18 . This policy lists all the actions, programmes and projects felt necessary to meet the 2001 Environment Charter Commitments and those relevant to the CBD. Species and habitat plans contained in the Environment Charter Strategy for Action are some of the components of what an NBSAP would contain. At present, it is felt that the right organisational structure does not exist to permit effective implementation of a BAP, but on the other hand, in order to increase attention on the island’s endemic species a BAP will soon be necessary.

Other major local policy and planning instruments with direct relevance to St. Helena’s biodiversity include:

The Land Development Control Plan (LDCP) (2006) is the most useful policy document, apart from the Charter Strategy, which sets out the St Helena Government’s land use planning polices for the Island, including those relating to infrastructure; housing and tourism development; agriculture and forestry; community, recreation and amenity facilities; quarrying and waste disposal. Included in the LDCP are policies that relate to the conservation of St Helena’s biodiversity (including a specific policy relating to the endemic wirebird habitat), ensuring that biodiversity issues are at least considered when evaluating planning applications for development. The LDCP includes a network of proposed protected areas and although these sites have not been legally designated, the Planning Section and Land Development Control Board (see below) treat the proposed sites as legally protected.

The St Helena Sustainable Development Plan 2007/08 – 2009/10 sets out a broad development strategy for the Island and recognises the environmental risks and opportunities, which include the recognition that the Island’s natural environment, especially its biodiversity, is a key asset. It further recognises that economic development and increased visitor numbers, if not managed correctly, can present a threat. This plan was developed as a result of the proposal to develop an airport in St. Helena. The Sustainable Development Plan is expected be revised this year.

18 http://www.ukotcf. org /pdf/charters/XStrategyWithAnnexes.pdf

Agriculture and Natural Resources policy is currently being revised and will include consideration of biodiversity needs and a strategy for fisheries.

Relevant legislation used for protected area designation and conservation includes:

Endangered Species Protection Ordinance (2003) provides protection of endangered, endemic flora and fauna and regulates the trade in endangered species.

Forestry Ordinance (1985) is the current legislation for protected areas together with the Statutory Rules and Orders No. 15, amended in No. 15 of 1978, and Legal Notice No. 3, 1981. • National forest: defined as any designated area of Crown Land. Designation prevents any one to cut, dig, burn or carry away any soil or produce from that area. It also prevents livestock roaming or tethering and fire within the area. • Dedicated forest: any area of privately owned land – under control of the forestry officer. • Protected private forest.

Conservation and Management of Fisheries Resources Ordinance (2003) provides for the implementation of the Conservation and Management of Fishery Resources in the South-East Atlantic Ocean.

Fishery Limits Ordinance (2001 revision) defines the limits of St Helena and makes provision for the regulation of fishing within those limits.

Land Planning and Development Control Ordinance (2008) makes EIAs legally mandatory for large scale development proposals. For smaller development projects, the Land Development Control Board reviews all development applications to determine if an EIA is needed as well as screens, scopes and evaluates EIAs undertaken.

A proposed National Parks Ordinance has been pending for approximately 10 years but has never come into force.

Ascension Island

Ascension is currently developing a proposal to develop a Biodiversity Action Plan with support from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Exeter University, and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (UK). If funding is obtained, development of the plan will begin in 2011.

The commitments of the 2001 Environment Charter have guided the Ascension Island Government (AIG) Conservation Department. An Ascension Island Management Plan was developed in 1999 19 , setting out major priorities for the island including the eradication of feral cats, and control of exotic plants. A number of other plans developed since then: the Management Plan for the Marine Turtles of Ascension Island 20 and the 2005 – 2010 Green

19 AR Pickup. 1999. Ascension Island Management Plan. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Sandy, Bedfordshire, UK. 20 http://www.seaturtle.org/mtrg/projects/ascension/mplan.shtml

Mountain Action Plan 21 and its related lists of flora and fauna of Green Mountain 22 are also important documents outlining biodiversity conservation priorities of Ascension Island.

In 2009 a plan for the conservation of endemic and native flora of Ascension Island was developed 23 . This document gives a comprehensive outline of the flora of Ascension and clear priorities for conservation. This plan takes a ‘site-lead approach’ to native and endemic flora conservation due to the level of threat of many flora species and the need to restore areas where functional communities of flora can co-exist.

Following enactment of the 2003 National Protected Areas Ordinance a document outlining 14 proposed areas for designation was submitted to the island Council 24 , however to date, only the Green Mountain National Park has been established.

Existing relevant local legislation includes:

National Protected Areas Ordinance (2003) provides for the designation of protected areas. Areas can be designated Sanctuaries, Nature Reserves or National Parks.

Endangered Species Control Ordinance (1976) to control exports and imports of endangered species

Wildlife Protection Ordinance (1944) and Regulations (1967) prohibits the killing or capture of any wildlife within Ascension.

Tristan da Cunha

Tristan has a comprehensive Biodiversity Action Plan which was produced in 2006 25 . This document sets out key conservation objectives for the period 2006 – 2010 and provides a biodiversity audit for Tristan and its five outlying, uninhabited islands. The BAP cross-references its main conservation objectives to the Environment Charter Commitments of 2001.

A key objective of the Tristan BAP is to improve levels of monitoring and survey of taxa on the islands as it is recognised that much is yet to be discovered about the wildlife of that island. The five year BAP puts priority on eradication of alien species that pose the severest threat to the native wildlife. The Plan also aims to integrate conservation into all government programmes, policies and plans.

The Tristan Government is also responsible for the World Heritage Sites (WHS) on Gough Island and Inaccessible Island declared in 1995 and 2004 respectively. A Management Plan for Gough Island 26 took effect in 1993. A Management Plan for Inaccessible Island 27 funded by WWF-UK and supported by the government was also completed in 2001. Both the Inaccessible

21 http://www.ascensionconservation.org.ac/pdf/2-E-Green-Mountain-Action-Plan-2005-2010.pdf 22 http://www.ascensionconservation.org.ac/protected.htm 23 www.ascensionconservation.org.ac/pdf/Ascension%20endemic%20plant%20management%20plan.pdf 24 http://www.ascensionconservation.org.ac/pdf/8-E-Proposed-Protected-areas-for-Ascension.pdf 25 http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/TristanBiodiversityActionPlan2_tcm9-180968.pdf 26 Cooper, J. and Ryan, P. G. (1994) Management plan for the Gough Island Wildlife Reserve . Edinburgh, Tristan da Cunha: Government of Tristan da Cunha 27 http://www.ukotcf.org/pdf/InaccMP02.pdf

18 and Gough plans were reviewed in 2009, and a new, combined plan for the entire Gough and Inaccessible World Heritage Site is now in press. Funding has also been secured to produce a management plan for Nightingale, and for key areas on the Amin island of Tristan. The aim of each of the Management Plans for Tristan’s outlying islands is to conserve and restore the biota, environment, scenery and historic sites, to exclude alien species and to promote research and the awareness of the island’s values.

Existing relevant legislation includes:

Conservation Ordinance (2006 revision) is a comprehensive legislation that aims to maintain the fauna, flora, geological, scenic and historical features of the islands. Under the Conservation Ordinance, Gough Island and Inaccessible Island were declared Wildlife Reserves.

Fisheries Limits Ordinance (2001 revision) defines the fisheries limit around each of the islands as 200 nautical miles and makes provision for fishing within these limits

Agricultural Ordinance (1984) controls land management on Tristan, and the export and import of livestock and fresh goods.

2.5. Other international and regional policies and agreements

2.5.1. International Multilateral Agreements

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) aims to ensure that international cooperation can safeguard specimens of wild animals and plants from over- exploitation due to trade that would threaten their survival

9 of the 14 OTs have signed CITES. In the UK, compliance under CITES is the responsibility of the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

The Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) aims to conserve terrestrial, marine and avian migratory species throughout their range. It is an intergovernmental treaty, concluded under the aegis of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). CMS Parties strive towards strictly protecting these animals, conserving or restoring the places where they live, mitigating obstacles to migration and controlling other factors that might endanger them.

12 of the 14 OTs have signed the CMS. In the UK, compliance under CMS is the responsibility of DEFRA.

The Ramsar Convention (The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, 1971) is an intergovernmental treaty that provides the framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands.

12 of the 14 OT administrations have signed the Ramsar Convention. Eight of the OT administrations have now designated their ‘Wetland of International Importance’. As above, DEFRA has been mandated to ensure the UK’s compliance to Ramsar.

The Convention on World Heritage (1972) requires signatories to identifying sites and to integrate the conservation of the natural and cultural features for the sites for the heritage of their nation but also the world. UNESCO maintains the List of World Heritage Sites (WHS) and

19 administers the World Heritage Programme and Committee. Parties to the convention are encouraged to integrate the protection measures into regional planning programmes.

12 of the UKOTs have signed the WHS Convention. Only three OTs have designated a WHS – Bermuda (St. George and related fortifications), Pitcairn (Henderson Island), and Tristan da Cunha (Gough and Inaccessible Islands). In the UK the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) is responsible for UK’s compliance to the World Heritage Convention.

The Millennium Development Goals (2000) are also relevant to biodiversity conservation in the UKOTs. The UN Millennium Declaration, signed by the UK as one of the 192 UN Member States, includes, as one of its 8 goals, to ensure environmental sustainability (Goal 7).

2.5.2. Regional policies and agreements

The Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife 28 to the Cartagena Convention (or SPAW Protocol) was adopted by the member governments of the Caribbean Environment Programme on 18 January 1990. The SPAW Protocol acts as a vehicle to assist with the Wider Caribbean regional implementation of the CBD. The Protocol’s purpose is to protect rare and fragile ecosystems and habitats. Annexes I and II of the SPAW Protocol list plant species that are designated for total protection and recovery. None of the UKOTs have signed the SPAW Protocol.

The Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region (known as the Cartagena Convention) and its Protocols constitute a legal commitment by the participating governments to protect, develop and manage their coastal and marine resources individually or jointly.

The St George’s Declaration of Principles for Environmental Sustainability (SGD) was signed by the Member States of the OECS in April 2001. The Declaration sets out the broad framework – structured around 21 Principles - to be pursued for environmental management in the OECS region. SGD complements all relevant international agreements and commitments to which the MS are party, such as the Barbados Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of SIDS, the Millennium Declaration, the Mauritius Strategy, the CBD and other MEAs.

Each Member State is required to develop a National Environmental Management Strategy (NEMS) to implement and track the progress of the SGD. Anguilla, Montserrat and the BVI, located in the Eastern Caribbean, are the only UKOTs to which this Declaration applies, and all three have formulated and adopted a NEMS.

The South-East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation Convention (SEAFO) 29 is an intergovernmental regional fisheries management agreement for the EEZ of Angola, Namibia, South Africa, St. Helena, Tristan and Ascension, managed through SEAFO. The agreement covers conservation and sustainable use of the fishery resources (excluding migratory fish stocks). The Convention Area includes 16 million square kilometres and also includes countries outside the area that have an interest in fishing in this area. The UK signed the Convention in April 2001 but has not ratified it. The EU ratified it in April 2003.

28 http://www.cep.unep.org/cartagena-convention/spaw-protocol/spaw-protocol-en.pdf/view 29 http://www.seafo.org/welcome.htm

Table 1: Multilateral and regional agreements signed by BVI, Cayman Islands and St. Helena-Ascension-Tristan

CBD CITES CMS Ramsar World SPAW St Georges SEAFO Heritage Declaration British Virgin Islands X n/a Cayman Islands X n/a n/a St Helena/Ascension and Tristan da Cunha n/a n/a X

Table 2: Local BSAPs and other policy and planning instruments relevant to biodiversity conservation in BVI, Cayman Islands, and St. Helena-Ascension-Tristan

NBAP or Other Sustainable Land Use Marine Protected Modern NBSAP Environment or Development Planning Conservation Areas Conservation Biodiversity Plan Plan System Plan Legislation British X – but National - National Draft ( 2008 ) X – drafted out of Virgin one exists Environment Action Integrated NIDS process but Islands for the Plan (2004) – Development still in draft island though focus on Strategy (2000) Anegada biodiversity limited Cayman X - Currently X X – pending (for Islands being developed Development seven years) now (Zoning) Plan in consultation – but once more inadequate St Helena X - Sustainable Land X X – relevant Environment Development Development legislation split up Charter Strategy Plan (2007) to be Control Plan between numerous (2005) reviewed 2010 (2006) laws; some outdated Ascension X- to be Ascension X X X X – Proposal X started in Management Plan (2003) 2011 (1999), Environment Charter (2001), Plan for Flora (2009)

Tristan da - also to X – yes, draft X - as well as a X - Conservation Cunha be produced in 2009 Sustainable Ordinance (2006) reviewed in Fisheries Policy comprehensive

2011

3. PROCESS OF STRATEGY AND PLAN FORMULATION

3.1. History of UKOT relations in biodiversity conservation

The current 2009 strategy for UKOT biodiversity conservation must be seen within the context of the recent 15 year history of review and changing relations between the UK and its OT administrations. In 1993, the United Kingdom Overseas Territories Association (UKOTA), previously known as the Dependent Territories Association, was formed following the first Dependent Territories Conference in that year. The Conference provided an opportunity to look at Overseas Territories and the relationship between them and the UK raising such issues as citizenship, governance and human rights.

In February 1998 a second successful conference was organised, ‘The Dependent Territories in the 21st Century’, at which there was significant presence from the UK Government and the British Parliament. At this conference, the Foreign Secretary 30 announced the conclusions of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office review of the Overseas Territories White Paper: Partnership for Progress and Prosperity: Britain and the Overseas Territories 31 , which was eventually published in 1999. The White Paper provided a thorough review of the relationship between OT administrations and the UK government with an aim towards improving relations. A number of issues, raised in the 1993 and 1998 conferences of the UKOTA, were addressed, and among the topics were sustainable development and the environment – an agenda which had been pushed by the UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (UKOTCF).

The 1999 White Paper was considered a welcome change by environmental and conservation organisations, among others, in the UK and in the OTs. The language of the White Paper, such as a ‘renewed contract’, ‘partnership’ and ‘modernisation of the relationship’ signalled a new dynamic with the OTs that aimed to ensure ‘proper points of contact and a clear voice in London and Brussels’.

In relation to sustainable development and the environment in the OTs, a major recommendation was the development of Environment Charters between the UK government and most of the OTs to help improve the lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities between implementation of the CBD and international environmental commitments by central (UK) government and the local governments of the OTs.

3.2. The UK BAP process and reporting on OT activities to the CBD

During this time, the UK BAP was drafted in 1994 (with Local Biodiversity Action Plans produced in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) and a ‘refreshed’ BAP produced in 1997 – both as previously mentioned, with no input from the OTs and negligible information on the biodiversity resources in the OTs. The UK, coordinated through its responsible Ministry DEFRA, submitted its four national reports to the CBD in 1998, 2001, 2005 and 2009. The reports do show some limited information from the OTs, however the levels of information supplied by the OTs are inconsistent in content and amount of information as well as in format.

The most recent report to the CBD in 2009 32 contains mention of funding made available and capacity building support to the OTs from the UK as well as invasive species control efforts in

30 The Rt. Hon. Robin Cook MP 31 http://www.ukotcf.org/pdf/charters/WhitePaper99full.pdf 32 http://www.cbd.int/doc/world/gb/gb-nr-04-en.pdf

23 which UK funding and institutions were involved. Even in the discussion on figures for protected area coverage, the OTs are excluded . The OTs are treated as a collective group and information on work in individual OTs is not presented apart from four to five-page-statements from Bermuda, St. Helena (but not Ascension Island or Tristan da Cunha) and Jersey 33 that have been appended to the main report. There is no information from the other 11 territories.

3.3. The Environment Charters

The Environmental Charters were signed in September 2001 between the UK Government and most of the OTs. The Charters summarise a set of Guiding Principles for environmental management and biodiversity protection, alongside more specific commitments on the part of the UK government and each UKOT government on the other. Although signed by governments, the Charter concept stressed the need for civil society involvement alongside government in implementation (UKOTCF 2009).

The Charters are all based on the same set of principles, although there are some small variations in the Charters of some of the Territories. Through funding under the FCO’s EFOT, OTs were expected to undertake actions and strategies to meet the Charter principles. Early on after signing the Charters, Turks and Caicos Islands and St. Helena embarked on processes to develop a strategy to implement the Charter in 2002-3 and 2004-5, respectively. These processes were facilitated by the UKOTCF. It was hoped that other OTs would follow suit to develop similar strategies.

A number of internal changes in the institutional arrangements in the FCO and DFID dealing with OTs took place between 2001 and 2003. Restructuring within FCO significantly reduced capacity to deal with environmental issues in the OTs (UKOTCF 2009) and DFID took on a more significant role in the OTs environmental project funding through the development of the cross-departmental funded Overseas Territories Environmental Programme (OTEP) in 2003. The previous EFOT was merged with OTEP with part funding from DFID (in the amount of £500,000) and the FCO providing match funding of £500,000.

In order to monitor progress, the UKOTCF also led a consultation to provide a ‘review of progress’ in Environment Charter implementation between 2004 and 2007 (UKOTCF 2009). The review’s final report in 2007 presented a series of indicators against each of the 10 Charter Commitments and an assessment of the progress against each indicator. These measures of performance were again updated and published in 2009 (Pienkowski 2007, 2009). The reviews concluded that there was a mixed picture in the OTs with more progress in the areas of awareness raising and strategy development but less progress in protection of biologically important sites and habitats from development pressures and impacts.

3.4. The 2009 UKOT Biodiversity Strategy

The current 2009 UK Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy was developed to outline why and how the UK government will support Territory governments to meet international environmental obligations. It recognises the special situation that OTs have as small economies, small human populations, limited access to technical expertise and their remoteness but it lacks

33 Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man are Crown Dependencies. Crown dependencies are possessions of the Crown as opposed to overseas territories. These islands are also independently administered. With respect to the CBD, the UK’s obligations are also dealt with by the Cross Departmental Biodiversity Partnership.

24 historical context and does not discuss their unusual status as non-sovereign states. On the side of the UK, it recognises that the UK government needs a more joined-up approach across its ministries and departments as well as greater financial support for biodiversity conservation in the Territories.

Since the signing of the Environmental Charters in 2001, all biodiversity and environmental issues in the UKOTs were, by default, the responsibility of the FCO because of its mandate to coordinate overall UK Government policy on the OTs. However the FCO has no formal mandate for biodiversity and environmental issues in the UK or internationally. This mandate is held by DEFRA. DFID was also involved indirectly with environmental issues in the OTs through its financial support for development projects on the islands. Over the years, DFID’s process for EIAs became more efficient. Both FCO and DFID would consult with DEFRA on environmental matters in the OTs but there was no formal arrangement or requirement to work with DEFRA on matters in the OTs.

Realising that attention to biodiversity commitments in the OTs needed further support, key persons within DEFRA worked towards formalising DEFRA’s support. This action was supported by advocacy efforts of UK NGOs working in the OTs, in particular the UKOTCF and RSPB who advocated for increased UK Government support to the OTs and criticised UK Government for its lack of financial support to assist OT Governments and the globally important biodiversity in the UKOTs 34 . RSPB in particular advocated for an increased role for the JNCC, which provides advice to DEFRA and other UK Government agencies on environment and nature conservation issues in the UK and internationally, in the OTs.

In 2007, JNCC undertook a review of the biodiversity research priorities in the UK Overseas Territories at the request of the Global Biodiversity Sub ‐Committee (GBSC) of the Global Environmental Change Committee, an inter-agency committee, chaired by DEFRA. The review was based on the top three priorities as defined by the UKOTs. A summary paper was compiled and presented to the GBSC in November 2007.

Also in 2007, JNCC took on a dedicated, permanent post to address Overseas Territories (and Crown Dependencies) conservation needs. The work of this post is guided by the 2008 – 2011 Programme Plan for JNCC’s Nature Conservation in the OTs 35 . The first target and performance indicator was the preparation of the existing UK Government strategy to support the work of OT governments on biodiversity conservation in the Territories.

3.5. BAP and Strategy development processes in the UKOTs

3.5.1. British Virgin Islands

The Protected Area Systems Plan for the BVI 2007 – 2017, which is the most comprehensive document for biodiversity conservation in the Territory, was spearheaded by the BVI National Parks Trust (NPT) and was initiated as a review of the previous System Plan. This review was conducted by Associates of the Island Resources Foundation (IRF) and the BVI National Parks Trust.

34 Key ‘moments’ of advocacy included reports and evidence presented to the UK Parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee; presentations and negotiations at the World Summit for Sustainable Development, 2002; the Curitiba COP to the CBD in 2006 and the UKOTCF Conferences http://www.ukotcf.org/confs/index.htm 35 http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/UKOTs_costedactionplan2009_2010.pdf

The structure, proposed content and objectives were discussed during a seminar held in Tortola in May 2004 and then at a second consultation in March 2006. In addition to the staff of the NPT, representatives from up to 11 institutions participated in the seminars, where potential institutional arrangements were explored to support the further development and management of the system.

Following NPT’s internal review of the draft Plan, it was approved for public review by the Board of Directors of the NPT, and distributed to the general public in January 2007. Four public meetings, one each on Anegada, Jost van Dyke, Tortola, and Virgin Gorda, were held in January 2007 to facilitate public input to the final document. This System Plan was approved by the Board of Directors of the BVI National Parks Trust on January 24, 2007.

Anegada’s BAP was spearheaded by the Conservation and Fisheries Department (CFD) in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Labour and had significant input from National Parks, Lavity Stoutt College and Town and Country Planning.

The National Environmental Action Plan (NEAP) was facilitated by the CFD with funding from OTEP. A NEAP Secretariat was established, as a subset of the National Physical Development Plan Environmental Sub-Committee, for the duration of the process and was assisted by a Consultant Project Coordinator and a Legal Advisor.

The planning process utilized a participatory approach that entailed a review and study of relevant documents, questionnaires to the public, focus groups with public, private and civil society sectors and public meetings and media presentations providing input on the relevant environmental and biodiversity resources and issues. Four local sub-committees and a cross- agency sub-committee of advisors were established for the life of the Plan’s development. Final approval was granted by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Labour, the Office of the Chief Minister, the Executive Council, the Legislative Council, and the Office of the Governor.

The NEAP is an outcome of the National Integrated Development Strategy (NIDS) developed in 2000 and facilitated by the Government of BVI, UNDP and UNHCS. The NIDS process undertook a thorough review of the emerging issues threatening environmental sustainability in the BVI including biodiversity, protected areas and coastal waters 36 . NIDS proposed (1) development and implementation of a NEAP (2) establishment of a restructured and strengthened environmental management agency that would implement a NEAP and (3) a zoning plan for different ecological regions and environments to determine the carrying capacity of different areas 37 .

The NIDS process also underscored the need for adequate funding; finalisation of the National Physical Development Plan; EIA legislation for public and private sector development projects; consolidation and updating of legislation and regulations in accordance with international conventions.

3.5.2. Cayman Islands

The CBD was extended to the Cayman Islands in 1992, at the request of the Cayman Islands Government. In 2004, following the devastation caused by Hurricane Ivan, the requirement for

36 http://www.bvidef.org/main/media/NIDS_EmergingIssues_Env.pdf 37 http://www.bvidef.org/main/media/NIDSIntPolicies.pdf

26 establishing baseline information on the status and distribution of habitats and species in the Cayman Islands became critical. In 2005, the Department of Environment (DoE) started the process to develop the Cayman Islands BAP with a matched contribution from the Darwin Initiative and in partnership with the University of Exeter.

The first step in the development of the BAP for the Cayman Islands was the gathering of existing information on the island’s species and habitats to establish a baseline. 41 key species have now been selected for Species Action Plans and 19 habitat categories were agreed - six marine, five coastal, and eight terrestrial.

As discussed in section 2, national conservation legislation for the Cayman Islands is outdated. Until 1992, when the CBD was extended to the Cayman Islands, biodiversity conservation had not been the focus of the existing legislation and conservation activities. The National Conservation Law (NCL), first tabled in 2002 and currently in consultation, will fulfil a key component of the CBD requirements and 2001 Environment Charter commitments.

The DoE and Ministry of Environment are the lead institutions in drafting the (proposed) NCL. Drafting instructions were informed by reference to the provisions of various MEAs, such as SPAW, CBD and Ramsar. Several rounds of stakeholder, focus group, public and political consultations were also held to inform the drafting process. The DoE’s web page dedicated to the consultation 38 also includes a guide to make the proposed NCL easier to understand for the public.

The current round of public consultation was expected to end in July 2010 and the Minister has given an undertaking to table the Law in the Legislative Assembly during its September 2010 sitting. The Law will come into force upon passage, if it is approved. It is unknown if the law will be passed or whether amendments will be made to the law.

3.5.3. St. Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha

St. Helena

Following the signing of the Environment Charter in 2001, the St. Helena Government realised that an action plan would be needed to effectively implement the Charter. In 2004 – 2005, the UKOTCF facilitated the strategy’s development using a workshop approach in which a wide cross section of the community and key stakeholders in St. Helena participated. Each commitment was taken individually and required actions attached to each of the commitments. The process in St. Helena followed a similar one used in the Turks and Caicos Islands and it was able to learn and build on what was done and developed there.

The resulting document was endorsed by Council in March 2005. The Strategy is now outdated and due to be reviewed this year (2010). A key outcome will be the prioritisation of the actions set out in the Charter Strategy as it is recognised now that some of the actions are unachievable in the time period. The strategy is used mainly by key persons in the environment and conservation sector but is not used widely by government and NGOs.

In addition, the need for a BAP will also be revisited as it is felt that the status of the island’s endemic species, their protection and conservation may urgently need increased attention.

38 http://www.doe.ky/laws/ national-conservation-law/

Ascension Island

In 1999, the Ascension Island Management Plan was published, setting out key priorities for the Territory including eradication of feral cats, management of exotic plants, and monitoring of seabirds.

Following the signing of the Environment Charter of 2001, the Management Plan for the Marine Turtles of Ascension Island was developed by the Marine Turtle Research Group of the University of Wales in 2002. This was a four year long project funded by the Darwin Initiative and OTEP with support from AIG departments.

In 2003, the AIG Conservation Department conducted an island wide consultation, in which half the population of Ascension Island participated, on a proposal for 14 protected areas. The proposal was presented to the Island Council. However, only one area – Green Mountain, has since been given protection as a National Park in 2005. The Green Mountain Action Plan was developed in 2005 by the AIG Conservation Department.

In 2009 the plan for the conservation of endemic and native flora of Ascension Island was developed with funding from OTEP by a team from the AIG Conservation Department, Kew Gardens, the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology Edinburgh, the St. Helena Nature Conservation Group and the JNCC.

Tristan da Cunha

The Tristan BAP was facilitated by RSPB with funding from the Darwin Initiative project, ‘Empowering the People of Tristan da Cunha to Implement the CBD’. Due to the low population of Tristan (275 persons), every family had a chance to contribute to the project.

Initial consultations were held in September 2003 to March 2004 with the Government and people of Tristan to establish conservation priorities. Three months later, in July 2004, a workshop was held in the UK for UK stakeholders facilitated by RSPB. The outcomes of this workshop and earlier consultations have been used to define both the conservation objectives and potential UK partners to take the actions forward.

Much of the survey and monitoring work of Tristan’s biodiversity was carried out by teams of visiting scientists. Fieldwork training was given to a team of ten government employees from the Conservation Department (called ‘the Darwin Team’) and most conservation work is now carried out by this team, led by the Tristan Conservation Officer.

Progress on the BAP was due to be reviewed annually in the form of a report and circulated to the Tristan Island Council and to stakeholders in the UK. However, this has not taken place as planned, although it is felt that key stakeholders within Tristan and the UK are kept abreast of progress, regardless. Communication from Tristan is often significantly hindered by the poor access to internet facilities as well as the service. A formal review and update process will take place in 2010/11.

4. POLICY COHERENCE AND LINKAGES

4.1. Links to Global Policy

There is clearly a plethora of global policy advice to which the UKOTs are party to (by extension) and which is relevant to them. The language and suggested actions of the MEAs outlined above, although focused on different specific needs, make requirements for similar actions by signatories. Actions such as habitat protection, relevant legislation and enforcement, monitoring, management planning and effective institutional arrangements are present in almost all MEAs, therefore helping to reaffirm the commitments needed by governments.

For small islands, the mechanisms through which these requirements can be achieved are however less clear and the status of UKOTs makes the mechanisms more complex. For instance, the Global Environmental Facility (GEF), the designated financial mechanism for the Barbados Programme of Action and Mauritius Strategy for SIDS, which recognises the special case for islands and the challenges of small island states, is not open to application from OTs.

Other global advocacy mechanisms, such as the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) which functions as an ad hoc lobby and negotiating voice within the UN to consolidate the voices of SIDS to address environmental issues and specifically climate change, do not represent the OTs because of their unusual sovereignty arrangement. At present, the Global Islands Partnership (GLISPA) is the only global island initiative to provide assistance to islands in the conservation of biodiversity that includes the OTs and provides OTs a global platform as an island.

4.2. Links to EU policy

At the level of the European Union (EU), OTs are given a disproportionate low level of attention relative to the value of their biodiversity. The relationship between the EU and the ORs and OCTs is currently under review and may provide an opportunity for greater attention to the needs and mechanisms for biodiversity conservation. OTs have traditionally occupied a development cooperation relationship with the EU, closely linked to the ACP-EU Partnership agreement focused on poverty reduction and aid. Accordingly, funding for the OTs was made available through the European Development Fund – the financing instrument used for development finance with Africa Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states. EDF has a funding stream ring-fenced for OCTs 39 . However, a 2008 EU Green Paper on the future relationship between the EU and OCTs, which is currently being reviewed, aims to modernise that relationship. Firstly, its appropriateness, recognising that there are large differences between OCTs with regard to their autonomy and economic needs, and secondly, within the context of the need to enhance competitiveness of the OCTs in the global economy.

The Green Paper makes special mention of the global biodiversity significance of the OTs: ‘All the OCTs are characterised by a biodiversity that is much richer than in continental Europe as a whole’ (EU, 2008: 11). The Green Paper concludes that environmental standards are patchy in the OTs in general and that biodiversity could be the basis for strengthened cooperation in the fields of research and conservation. Despite the OCTs biodiversity significance and need for

39 This was used for funding for the SAISP cross territories work.

29 improved standards, OTs have been unable to receive finance from the EU through the European Commission’s Directorate-General for the Environment (DG Environment).

The basis for the action of EU Member States to safeguard habitats and species is provided by the Birds and Habitats Directives (Nature Directives). Action to meet the targets of the Nature Directives is funded through DG Environment. However, over the last six years, efforts have been made to establish a new voluntary scheme to extend the Birds and Habitats Directive to the OTs. Under the scheme, known as BEST – Biodiversity Ecosystem Services for the EU Overseas Territories, OTs would nominate sites to become part of the Natura 2000 network of sites 40 . If nominated and accepted on the list, there would be funding provided to manage the sites. To date this is the only proposed approach for DG Environment funding to the OTs.

4.3. Links to National Policy

The 2009 UKOT Biodiversity Strategy, along with the corresponding formalisation of institutional arrangements in the Cross-Departmental Biodiversity Partnership for UKOTs and in particular the increased role of DEFRA and JNCC to ensure the strategy’s delivery provides a significant improvement towards policy coherence between the UK and UKOTs. Unfortunately, greater linkage between the 2009 UKOT Biodiversity Strategy could have been made with the targets of the CBD’s Programme of Work on Island Biodiversity, but this may be something that can be reviewed for future strategy development.

The improved policy landscape has been put in place during a relatively buoyant economic period within the UK. It remains to be seen if the change of government in 2010 and swath of public spending cuts will result in any UKOT policy changes and/or reduced funding.

At the time of CBD ratification in 1994, UK’s action planning and strategy development had very little impact in the OTs. OTs that were included in the ratification at the time did so with very little encouragement from the UK. The fact that no other OTs have joined the CBD since 1994 may suggest that there is little attention placed by the UK Government to encourage OTs to align territory action to the CBD requirements. The UK Government states that it is mindful of the limited capacity in the OTs, and it has therefore not sought to impose MEAs on any OTs who have not specifically requested them. As mentioned above, OTs not-included in the CBD receive the same funding and technical support opportunities from UK governmental environmental agencies or NGOs as those that have been included, so there appears to be no additional incentive for OTs to be included in the UK’s ratification. It is also unclear as to why uninhabited territories such as the British Indian Ocean Territory and South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands are not included in the CBD as this would not require approval by an OT administration.

In general, there appears to be little awareness of the status of local (UKOT) policy landscape and to some extent regional policy landscape by UK agencies. By contrast, there is good awareness of the MEAs to which UKOTs have signed up. In theory, a greater awareness of the status of UKOT policy development within the UK would mean that UK agencies and funding

40 The proposed extension of the Nature Directives to the OTs has come about by advocacy efforts from RSPB between 2008 – present. The plan was first raised at the Biodiversity and EU Conference in Malahide, 2004 and again underscored at the IUCN Reunion Conference in 2008 on Climate Change and Biodiversity in the EU overseas entities.

30 arrangements could be better tailored to support policy development, exploit existing policies and explore bottlenecks towards improved biodiversity conservation. This point will be discussed further in section 7.1.

The question of reporting to the CBD on progress and why OTs appear to have been sidelined is fuzzy. JNCC facilitated input to the 4 th National Report to CBD by OTs which was prepared for DEFRA consideration and signed off by the Minister. Recognising the capacity constraints of governments in the OT, JNCC ‘streamlined’ the request but this meant that very little information was included from the OTs. It is very unfortunate that the conservation efforts in the areas of the UK with the most significant biodiversity have been consistently under reported to the CBD.

4.4. Links to Regional Policy

At a regional level, the SPAW Protocol is one of the few legally binding regional treaties focused on biodiversity. This is applicable to the Wider Caribbean only. SPAW contains specific guidelines on protected areas and species conservation. It aims to simplify but improve implementation of the CBD, CITES, Ramsar and CMS for the governments of the region. There is a cooperation agreement with the Secretariats of the CBD, Ramsar and CMS and technical and financial assistance provided to Parties to meeting the objectives of the Protocol 41 . OT administrations must ratify the Protocol directly and not through the UK Government. However, none of the Caribbean UKOTs have ratified this protocol, and it is unclear why they have not done so 42 despite the fact that a number of the Territories are effectively working towards the Protocol’s obligations. It is possible that the lower geopolitical importance of regional MEAs as opposed to participation in a global MEA is a (unfortunate) disincentive to greater regional collaboration.

In addition, Caribbean OTs in the Eastern Caribbean (therefore not applicable to the Cayman Islands or Turks and Caicos Islands) are signatory to the St. George’s Declaration which was designed to improve coordination in meeting the requirements of not only the biodiversity focused international agreements but also the sustainable development of SIDS and the Millennium Declaration within the Caribbean OECS Member States. Accordingly, each Member State would draft a NEMS to facilitate and link the Principles of the Declaration to local policies and actions.

In the South Atlantic Territories, the South East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation aims to conserve fisheries resources in that region. This is a commercially important resource for all signatories but there is little information as to the status of this agreement. Apart from that, the only other regional approach to working is the South Atlantic Invasive Species Programme (SAISP) that includes St. Helena, Ascension, Tristan, the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and Sandwich Islands. However, this project remains a one-off and EU funding has not been forthcoming for the next phase of regional work.

4.5. Local policy coherence

At a local level, the need for policy coherence is well recognized by the environmental departments and units. Within the last five to ten years there have been significant efforts on the part of governments to analyse how policies and plans can be better integrated. This can be

41 http://www.cep.unep.org/cartagena-convention/spaw-protocol/spaw-factsheet-2007-_e_.pdf/view 42 It should be noted that this is not just an issue for UKOTs, other Caribbean Islands have also been slow to ratify.

31 evidenced by the NIDS in the BVI, the Sustainable Development Plan in St. Helena, the review of institutional make up within a number of OTs and the process in several Caribbean OTs to develop NEMSs. In addition, most planning and strategy development exercises have employed a participatory process and appear to have involved a wide cross-section of stakeholders in their development.

However, despite this progress in process and plan, the implementation and legal tools to put plans into practice and ensure joined up decision-making between all aspects of land use and planning, appear to fall short. The ability of environmental agencies tasked with the implementation of CBD commitments to influence development planning and land use is often limited. Despite issues with poor resources for funding, the usefulness of strategies rests on the willingness, capacity and inter-sectoral support locally to integrate environmental priorities locally and to monitor progress.

5. IMPLEMENTATION

5.1. Institutional arrangements in the UK for biodiversity conservation in the UKOTs

5.1.1. Government agencies

The main governmental department tasked with responsibility for biodiversity and the environment in the UK is DEFRA – the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The UK BAP is implemented by a UK Biodiversity Partnership 43 (see Figure 2). The Joint National Conservation Committee (JNCC) is a statutory body that advises the UK Government and devolved administrations on UK-wide and international nature conservation. The legal basis for JNCC was established by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 44 .

As of 2009, a Cross-Departmental Biodiversity Partnership for the UKOTs deals with the implementation of the 2009 OT Biodiversity Strategy. This body is chaired by DEFRA and includes JNCC, FCO, DFID and OT governments represented by the UKOTA. JNCC provides the secretariat for the group. The body formalizes a previous arrangement that existed informally to make decisions on OT environmental matters. The Partnership is now scheduled to meet every six months. It has met twice since its establishment. The next scheduled meeting is September 2010.

Roles and responsibilities within the OT Biodiversity Partnership

DEFRA does not have a member of staff dedicated to the Overseas Territories. The Head of the International Policy Unit and focal point for the CBD in the UK has overall responsibility for biodiversity conservation across UK Government, including MEAs to which the UK is signatory. This post is also responsible for managing the Darwin Initiative funds. Wording of the 2009 strategy was carefully done so as not to say that DEFRA has responsibility for UKOTs’ biodiversity although it chairs the Partnership. Responsibility lies with the FCO. Several staff within DEFRA work on CITES issues, the Darwin Project and MEAs and deal on an ad hoc basis with the OTs.

43 For more detail on the institutional arrangements for the UK Biodiversity Partnership, see http://www.ukbap.org.uk/partnership.aspx 44 For more information on the statutory duties of the JNCC, see http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4222

The FCO has overall responsibility for co-ordination of UK Policy in the OTs. The Overseas Territories Environment Programme Manager spends 50% full-time equivalent (FTE) on biodiversity issues in the OTs, including the management of the FCO component of the OTEP projects.

Environmental issues in the OTs are given specific focus within the JNCC through the Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies Programme. The OT Senior Advisor is the first point of contact for OT work. This post is funded through JNCC’s core budget. JNCC aims to provide advice and support to UK Government departments and the governments of the Overseas Territories (as well as Crown Dependencies) on the implementation of Environment Charters, Multilateral Environmental Agreements and the UK Government strategy on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the OTs. This post was established in 2007. In total three members of staff work on OTs at 100% FTE: the OT Senior Advisor, the OT Funding Officer (temporary post) and an ACAP (Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels) Coordinator who is based in the Falkland Islands. The Programme Leader for OTs and Crown Dependencies works at 70% FTE on OTs and the Biodiversity Research Adviser 50% for the OTs. Other members of staff, such as the Climate Change adviser and Global Programmes programme leader are also involved in OT work on an ad hoc basis. 45

DFID has 1.5 full-time staff working on OT projects relevant to biodiversity 46 . The Overseas Territories Department within DFID consists of the Environmental and Natural Resources Advisor to the UKOTs and a Programme Officer. The Programme Officer also manages the DFID portion of the OTEP projects. There are more than 10 DFID staff working on the UKOTs, but on development matters rather than environment. DFID provides half of the £1 million OTEP budget. DFID also funds biodiversity and environmental management projects through its budgetary aid programmes.

UKOTA also sits on the Partnership. It is a body of OT Government representatives based in the UK. The Association’s purpose is to promote the interests of the UKOTs and co-operation between them. There is an environment group which is currently headed by the St. Helena UK Representative and who represents the UKOTA in the OT Biodiversity Partnership

Other departments with an interest in biodiversity conservation in the Overseas Territories such as DCMS (World Heritage sites), the Department for Energy and Climate Change, Ministry of Defence, NGOs and Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew can be invited to participate in the meetings of the Partnership but there is no formal process to involve NGOs and other stakeholders in decision-making.

5.1.2. Overseas Territories Training and Research Group.

A UKOT Training and Research Group was established by the JNCC in 2008. It is led by a Programme Steering Group which shapes and steers the development of the programme. The group is composed of UKOT environmental officials from each of the 14 OT governments, a representative of the University of Reading, a representative of UKOTA and JNCC. To date the Group has met six times – three times each year. See Annex 3 for a list of members of this Group. Non-governmental organisations are not part of this group.

45 For more information on the JNCC staff component with an OT remit see: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page- 4104

5.1.3. UK Non-governmental organisations and statutory organisations

A number of UK NGOs and statutory bodies have played an important role in supporting the UK’s CBD obligations through their UKOTs programme. At present they do not have a role in the Cross Departmental Biodiversity Partnership (see Figure 2).

Marine Turtle Conservation Group (University of Exeter) 47 is a group of professional scientists and student volunteers undertaking research on marine turtles in the UKOTs. Recent and current projects are on Anguilla, Ascension, BVI, Cayman Islands, Montserrat and Turks and Caicos Islands. Current work is being funded through OTEP.

The Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew is a statutory organisation that has a UKOTs Programme 48 which aims to contribute directly to biodiversity conservation in the UK Overseas Territories and to the implementation of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation. The Programme’s activities include staff from different disciplines at Kew. On-going activities include genetic diversity studies, micropropagation of threatened plants from St Helena and storing the seed of species from Territories in the Millennium Seed Bank. Fixed-term projects in the OTs include the redevelopment of the botanic garden on Montserrat and biodiversity assessments in the British Virgin Islands.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) 49 is also a key player and powerful advocate for OT conservation work. Their current and recent projects have been focused on species and habitat conservation work, as well as support to a number of organisational strategic plans and biodiversity action plans in Anguilla, Ascension, the Falkland Islands, Montserrat, St. Helena and Tristan. RSPB provides direct support to conservation organisations in St Helena, Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha, amongst others.

In 2007, RSPB undertook a study to put an accurate figure (based on indicative costs) on an annual cost for meeting biodiversity conservation priorities in the OTs, which came to £16 million per year (Rayment 2007). This study then formed the basis for much of RSPB’s advocacy efforts for the UK Government to allocate sufficient resources to the OT conservation needs.

The UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum (UKOTCF) aims to link its members and associates, governments and non-governmental organisations in the UK and the OTs to provide advice on conservation and biodiversity in the UKOTs and Crown Dependencies. However, not all NGOs in the UK that work on UKOTs or all NGOs in the UKOTs working on biodiversity related issues are members of UKOTCF. The UKOTCF conferences held every three to four years since 1999 have provided a platform for discussing UKOT specific as well as shared conservation needs and achievements, and aims to provide a forum for conservation priority setting.

UKOTCF has played an important role in advocating for greater attention from the UK Government to the needs of biodiversity conservation in the OTs. Between 2006 and 2008, UKOTCF made four submissions to the UK Parliamentary Environment Audit Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee to press for greater attention to UKOT biodiversity. The Forum

47 http://www.seaturtle.org/mtrg/projects/tukot/ 48 http://www.kew.org/science/ukots/ 49 http://www.rspb.org.uk/ourwork/projects/details.aspx?id=tcm:9-200664

34 has published a number of publications over the years on the global significance of the OT biodiversity and their conservation needs (see Annex 2) as well as their newsletter, Forum News 50 .

5.2. Global and regional non-governmental organisations and statutory organisations

Networking tropical and subtropical biodiversity research in outermost regions and territories of Europe in Support of sustainable development (NET biome) 51 is a consortium of mainly OCT governments aimed at networking the Regional Research Policies on sustainable management of biodiversity in the European tropical and subtropical OTs, which began in 2007. It is funded by the European Union’s 6 th Framework Programme on Research and Technical Development at €2,518,311 52 . The UKOTs are represented by the UKOTCF. It is unclear as yet how NET biome links with the work of others within the biodiversity conservation ‘community’ in the UKOTs and EU OCTs.

The Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI) is a Caribbean-islands regional organisation working on participatory approaches to environment and sustainable development issues in the Caribbean. With funding from the Darwin Initiative and in collaboration with the Commonwealth Foundation, CANARI is currently implementing a project in five overseas entities of the UK, with the objective of directly supporting the implementation of the CBD as well as strengthening civil society participation in biodiversity conservation.

5.3. Institutional arrangements in the UKOTs

5.3.1. British Virgin Islands

Government Agencies

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Labour is the main agency that has control over land in the Territory, both directly and through its Departments of Agriculture, Conservation and Fisheries and the National Parks Trust. The other government agencies involved are the Ministry of Communication and Works and the Town and Country Planning Department, which is responsible for physical development and planning. Wetlands and mangroves are the responsibility of the Conservation and Fisheries Department (CFD).

Other departments dealing with related matters are the Marine Services Department, Department of Disaster Preparedness, Police Department, Tourist Board, Water and Sewerage Department, Solid Waste Department, Public Works Department and Environmental Health Department. Therefore matters related to biodiversity and the environment are spread over a number of Ministries. In total, five Ministries and nine Departments have responsibility.

There are three review committees for all development work: • the Technical Review Committee, which reviews all marine development applications; • the Development Control Authority, which grants permission for all developments; • the Project Review and Advisory, which reviews major developments.

50 Forum News – available on the UKOTCF website http://www.ukotcf.org/forumNews/index.htm 51 http://www.netbiome.org/images/stories/newsletter/NetBiome_newsletter_2009_01.pdf 52 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080207/text/80207w0024.htm# 0802085000057

The CFD manages 24 protected areas, all fisheries reserves. The BVI NPT manages 20 and the Department of Agriculture manages 7. Although not legally mandated, CFD and BVI NPT work closely in decision-making on the designation of sites to protect and in the management of sites where there is more than one designation on a single site. The Department of Agriculture designates protected areas to protect watersheds, prevent deforestation, and protect water sources. There is currently no programmatic coordination between the Department of Agriculture and the NPT and CFD for protected area management. During the 2007-2017 Plan Period, the Department of Agriculture will increase its capacity for management of protected areas established under its portfolio responsibilities 53 .

The CFD has 50 staff members. The Department is structured into a number of units including: Fisheries; Terrestrial; Marine Biology; Surveillance and Enforcement; Water Quality; Planning and Policy and the Management Unit. CFD is also responsible for a number of environment related services such as beach life guarding, oil spills and beach, including turtle monitoring and patrols.

If passed, the Environmental Management and Conservation of Biodiversity Bill would establish an Environment Management Trust. This would bring what is currently the CFD and the National Parks Trust together into a statutory body. This body would also approve development projects and be vested with the powers to enforce the new legislation.

The BVI National Parks Trust

The National Parks Trust is a Statutory Body that is legally responsible for managing the protected areas system with a staff of approximately 15 persons. The National Parks Ordinance (1978 revision) established the National Parks Trust, and provided for the creation of national parks as protected areas to be managed by the Trust. It is operated by a Board of Directors appointed by Government; and it receives an annual subvention from Government through the Ministry of Natural Resources and Labour.

Currently, the BVI NPT develops policy and undertakes management activities for the 20 sites that it directly manages. The BVI NPT has prepared management plans for five of the sites for which it has responsibility. It is expected that during the 2007-2017 Plan Period additional management plans will be developed for the remaining sites. The Trust already has a standard guide for preparation of future management plans. The Trust is also involved in coordination of national research priorities with respect to the protected areas system and reporting to meet national and international obligations.

Following a May 2004 seminar on protected area system planning, BVI NPT identified the need to improve on its existing collaborative work and to broaden and formalize partnership working arrangements with public, private, and civil society institutions. As part of that process, an annual Protected Areas Forum will be held, starting in 2007, coordinated by the NPT, where protected areas management institutions will report yearly on the state of protected areas in the BVI.

53 For further details on institutional arrangements for protected areas see: Gardner, L. 2007. British Virgin Islands Protected Areas Systems Plan 2007 – 2017. National Parks Trust, Tortola, BVI. http://www.bviddm.com/document-center/System%20Plan%202008%20-%20Approved%20Version.pdf

Other civil society actors

The Jost van Dyke Preservation Society (JVDPS) is based and focused on the environmental conservation and awareness of Jost van Dyke, the fourth largest island of the BVI. JVDPS was established in 2004.

The Virgin Islands Environmental Council (VIEC) was established in 2007 and recently initiated the first environmental court case in the BVI against a development that would have negatively affected a protected area. The case was successful in stopping a development on Beef Island in September 2009.

Another actor is the H. Lavity Stoutt Community College, which has participated in a number of environmental projects, including research by its academic staff as well as students. It was established in 1990.

5.3.2. Cayman Islands

Government Agencies

The Department of Environment (DoE) sits under the Ministry for Health, Environment, Youth, Sport and Culture and is the main government agency responsible for the management and conservation of the environment and natural resources in the Cayman Islands and the implementation of the CBD and other MEA commitments.

The DoE works closely with the National Trust on management of Trust owned conservation lands. The Department of Environmental Health has responsibility for solid waste management and monitoring of air and water quality. The DoE also provides input into a number of public sector boards and bodies including, but not limited to, the Marine Conservation Board, the Central Planning Authority, the Water Authority, the National Roads Authority, and the National Investment Council.

The 37 permanent staff of the DoE have a heavy focus on the marine zone, including patrols and enforcement of marine law, maintenance of the mooring systems within the Marine Park System and research and assessment of local fisheries and aquaculture as well as other natural resources. However, in recent years, the Department has been working to establish and expand a Terrestrial Unit, towards meeting the greater responsibilities for protection of the terrestrial environment associated with the (pending) National Conservation Law. The Department also established a Sustainable Development Unit in 2006 which is leading the development of a National Sustainable Development Framework and a Climate Change Policy.

The Cayman National Trust

The National Trust of the Cayman Islands was established by the National Trust for the Cayman Islands Law 1987 . This law also gives the Trust its powers to buy, lease, sell, hold or deal in property of any nature. The Trust has steadily been purchasing lands, now 1,980 acres which have been secured through direct purchase, gifted or by Crown transfer. It is anticipated that if the Cayman Island’s NCL is passed, the Trust’s land will be incorporated into the National Protected Area System. The Trust is also engaged in environmental research facilitated by the Trust's Visiting Scientists Programme.

5.3.3. St. Helena

Government agencies

Currently the environment sector within the St. Helena Government is spread across a number of different Departments each with different roles and responsibilities. The Environmental Planning and Development Section is responsible for the implementation of the Environment Charter Strategy. This Section sits within the Development and Economic Planning Department.

The Agriculture and Natural Resources Department also contains a Conservation and Forestry Section which deals with the conservation of the island’s endemic flora and fauna and a Fisheries Section that deals with Marine monitoring, licensing and fisheries data. The Legal, Lands and Planning Department houses the Planning and Building Control Board which monitors and enforces the Land Development Control Plan.

The Environment Section comprises three staff headed up by the Environmental Coordinator. At the time of the Charter Strategy’s implementation, it was intended that a cross-sector forum, the Environment Advisory Consultative Forum, would play an advisory role and support the Charter Strategy delivery. The Forum is made up of representatives from Environmental health, Planning, Forestry, Fisheries the National Trust, the private sector, development agencies and education. However, this forum has not been functional and the terms of reference and membership are currently being reviewed.

The Environment Coordinator sits on the Land Development and Control Board to review development plans and make decisions on whether or not to approve projects for development, on the need for an EIA and screening and review of EIAs for smaller projects.

A review of the institutional arrangements for the environmental sector was undertaken in 2008. This review was part of a wider process of modernisation of the public sector. The Consultant recommended the development of an Advisory Committee on the Environment which would bring everyone together and limit fragmentation. There has been no agreement on the way forward and this process is currently on hold.

St. Helena National Trust

The St Helena National Trust is a conservation charity founded in 2002. It works closely with the Agriculture and Natural Resources Department, especially with regard to conservation of the endemic flora of the island, and the endemic wirebird (St Helena plover). The Trust’s mission is to protect, enhance and promote the unique environmental and cultural heritage of St. Helena. Of particular interest is the Trust’s work to conserve the endemic Gumwood forests, the endemic Wirebird as well as management of the Central Peaks Park which the Trust is responsible for under special proclamation.

5.3.4. Ascension Island

The Ascension Island Government Conservation Department started in 2001 when the FCO funded the Seabird Restoration Project which was managed by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB).

The AIG Conservation Department consists of five main staff members: The Conservation Officer and Assistant Conservation Officer, a Conservation Field Officer and Assistant and an RSPB Seabird Restoration Project Fieldworker. Projects on Ascension Island, in particular the seabird restoration work and the recent (2009) plan for the conservation of endemic and native flora of Ascension Island, have been effectively supported through project work with RSPB, Kew Gardens’ Overseas Territories Group and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Edinburgh. .

There is also a small civil society organisation - the Ascension Island Heritage Society that raises awareness of the natural and historic heritage of Ascension. The Heritage Society manages the island’s museum.

5.3.5. Tristan da Cunha

At the time of the BAP’s development, the process was undertaken within the Natural Resources Department. However in 2009, this Department was split up into three departments: Agriculture, Conservation and Fisheries. The Conservation Department is now responsible for delivering the BAP.

The Conservation Department consists of two permanent people: The Head of the Conservation Department and a Clerk. The Department is assisted by two school leaver trainees. There is also a team of up to 10 part time workers, called the Darwin Team, who assist the Department on a case-by-case basis with field work such as monitoring, data collection and construction.

Figure 2: Diagram of Institutional arrangements affecting biodiversity conservation in the UKOTs

Core Decision-Making Bodies on Biodiversity in the UK Cross Departmental OT UK BP Standing Committee Biodiversity Partnership Chair: DEFRA Chair: DEFRA Secretariat: JNCC FCO; DFID; UKOTA

Biodiversity Reporting Biodiversity Research OT Research and Training and Information Group and Advisory Group Steering Group Secretariat: JNCC Secretariat: JNCC Secretariat: JNCC DEFRA

UK NGOs and statutory bodies undertaking conservation work in the UKOTs

University of

Exeter: Marine RSPB Kew Turtle Research UKOTCF Group

UKOT Core decision-making bodies and undertaking conservation work on biodiversity

BVI Cayman St. Helena Ascension Tristan da Ministry of Natural Ministry of Environ, Development and Conservation Cunha Resources and Labour Health, Youth, Sport and Economic Planning Department Conservation Culture Department AND Dept of Conservation Department Agriculture and Ascension and Fisheries Natural Resources Department of Heritage Department BVI National Parks Environment Society Environment Trust Department of Planning Planning and Formal communication/relationship and flow and Lands and Surveys Development Section

Informal communication/relationshipCayman National Trust and Stflow Helena National Trust

Formal communication/relationship and flow

Informal communication/relationship and flow

5.4. Main actions and activities implemented

5.4.1. British Virgin Islands

GOAL 1: Promote the conservation of the biological diversity of island ecosystems, habitats and biomes

Target 1.1: At least 10% of each of the island ecological regions effectively conserved

• At least thirty-three percent (33%) of the nearshore environment and more than thirteen percent (13%) of the Territory’s landmass are under some degree of protection using the legal mechanisms contained within the National Parks Act, 2006, Fisheries Act, 1997 and the Physical Planning Act, 2004

• Survey of critical terrestrial and mangrove areas of BVI carried out in 1981.

• Using aerial photography, a habitat atlas of coastal and marine areas prepared for BVI (Blair Myers et al., 1993). This was supported by the UK Government and administered through the Department of Conservation and Fisheries.

• OECS Natural Resources Management Unit supported a Mangrove Management Programme in the Conservation and Fisheries Department (1986). This included mapping of mangroves and associated wetlands.

• Salt ponds of BVI are described by Jarecki (1991)

Target 1.2: Areas of particular importance to island biodiversity are protected through comprehensive effectively managed and ecologically representative national and regional protected area networks

• Marine parks and protected areas have been developed in the BVI since 1980. There are approximately fifty one (51) designated protected areas in the current system of protected areas. This includes nineteen (19) national parks (terrestrial), one (1) marine park, fourteen (14) fisheries protected areas, 20 bird sanctuaries (5 of which are also national parks), one (1) forestry reserve (Sage Mountain National Park), and six (6) water areas. Of these, twenty (20) sites are managed by the NPT, twenty four (24) by the CFD, and seven (7) by the Department of Agriculture.

• Only five of these sites have management plans by the new proposed Conservation Bill would call for the development of Management Plans.

• The current protected areas system does not include an adequate representation of all ecosystems in the BVI. The mapping of marine benthic habitats in 2004 by the British Overseas Territories Environment Programme (OTEP) Project

resulted in a recommendation from the project team that 30% of each marine habitat type be protected. A similar assessment has not been undertaken for the terrestrial environment.

• 1986 – mangroves designated a critical natural resource.

GOAL 2: Promote the conservation of island species diversity

Target 2.1: Populations of island species of selected taxonomic groups restored, maintained or their decline reduced

• Anegada Rock iguana critically endangered. 1980s – 8 iguanas moved to Guana Island. Now 20 adult iguanas. Ex-situ conservation at San Diego Zoo and Fort Worth Zoo since 1997. 120 iguanas bred and released into natural habitat.

• Endangered Caribbean flamingo has extirpated from the BVI in early 1990s has been reintroduced to Anegada. Project started in 1992. Now 50 birds.

• Leatherback, Green and Hawksbill turtles are regularly monitored by DCF on beaches throughout BVI – for nesting numbers, egg numbers, pit tagging of adults and nest tagging.

• Annual bird count by DCF, National Parks and Volunteer public. Sea bird counts in May and Native birds in December. Particular attention is paid to the counting of roseate terns and frigate bird populations

Target 2.2: Status of threatened island species significantly improved

• Turtles have shown an increase in nesting numbers and juveniles in the last 10 – 15 years. • Rock iguana populations also increased (see above) GOAL 3: Promote the conservation of island genetic diversity

• Due to lifestyle changes, there has been a decrease in use of wild species for local consumption such as the thatch palm for craft; forest species for fish pots.

• National Parks Trust has been working with Kew on their Millennium Seed Bank project which now houses a number of endemic plants from Anegada and Virgin Gorda

GOAL 4: Promote sustainable use and consumption

Target 4.1: Island biodiversity-based products are derived from sources that are sustainably managed, and production areas managed, consistent with the conservation of biological diversity

• Conflicts in the coastal zone – dredging, mangrove reclamation, erosion and sedimentation due to land based activities, poor controls and development pressure

• Sand mining laws not enforced. Construction boom in last 10 – 20 years promoting sand mining for construction causing coastal/beach destruction.

• Goats – common law to roam freely – causing problem of overgrazing and habitat destruction.

Target 4.2: Unsustainable consumption of island biological resources and its impact upon biodiversity is reduced

• A comprehensive centralized GIS for the BVI (BVINGIS) has recently been established. It is an inter-governmental effort to promote use of GIS for planning, monitoring and evaluating land used and development – in both land and marine environments.

• DCF implements a closed season for the fishing and harvesting of 7 threatened but economically important marine species: Margate (Jan – Mar); Red Hind (Jan – Mar); Nassau Grouper (March – May); Turtles (Apr – Nov); Lobster (July – Oct); Conch (Aug-Oct); Whelk (Aug – Oct). During the closed season period, persons are prohibited from catching, selling or offering these marine resources. ( www.bvidef.org )

• All fishers are required to have a fishing licence from the Department of Conservation and Fisheries which must be renewed annually. Persons found fishing without a licence can be prosecuted.

Target 4.3: No species of wild flora and fauna on islands is endangered by international trade

• BVI is a signatory to CITES

• Conch export requires a permit.

• Swim with Dolphin programme has to go through CITES procedures before establishment

• See above on closed season for sale and offering of threatened and endangered marine species GOAL 5: Pressures from habitat loss, land-use change and degradation, and sustainable water use, reduced on islands

Target 5.1: Rate of loss and degradation of natural habitats in islands significantly decreased

• Many plans exist for land and water use integration but have not been officially passed

• EIAs are mandatory under the Physical Planning Act (2005). However all developments worth over US$10 million can be approved by the Premier although it will still go through the planning approval process.

• DCF sits on the EIA approval board.

GOAL 6: Control threats to island biological diversity from invasive alien species

Target 6.1: Pathways for major potential alien invasive species are identified and controlled on islands

• DCF is currently working on an Invasive Species project in collaboration with JNCC which will develop strategies for invasive species control. Tentative start in 2011.

• JNCC programme was supposed to start earlier on but project put on hold due to discovery of lionfish in BVI waters. DCF currently using the experiences of USVI and Puerto Rico to address the problem – to capture and destroy those found. Working in collaboration with diving community.

Target 6.2: Management plans in place and implemented for major alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species

• See above re: lionfish. There is no established management plan – just an on-going strategy.

• Mongoose, rats and feral goats were eradicated on Green Key to promote sea bird populations

GOAL 7: Address challenges to island biodiversity from climate change and pollution

Target 7.1: Resilience of the components of biodiversity to adapt to climate change in islands maintained and enhanced

• Climate change officer now at Department of Conservation and Fisheries

• BVI included in the CCCCC project that was extended to the UKOTs in the Caribbean – public consultation now on-going to discuss strategy paper on the vulnerability of the tourism sector from Climate change.

Target 7.2: Pollution and its impacts on island biological diversity significantly reduced

• DCF has lead responsibility for disasters and oil spills and work closely with the Disaster Management team.

• Currently taking example from the USVI watershed management programme with the hope of implementing similar watershed management programme.

• Currently no sewerage treatment on the island apart from preliminary treatment – the partly treated waste – including a number of hotel waste systems – goes out to sea. A National Sewerage Plan is overdue but requires political support.

GOAL 8: Maintain capacity of island ecosystems to deliver goods and services and support livelihoods

Target 8.1: Capacity of island ecosystems to deliver goods and services maintained or improved

• No discreet projects for this target other than current ongoing work of DCF, NPT – except:

• Anegada currently a pilot for a sand dune protection project. The tertiary dune line has been projected as a trial for a Disaster Management project on Reduction of Hazard Vulnerability.

Target 8.2: Biological resources that support sustainable livelihoods, local food security and health care, especially of poor people living on islands, maintained

• No discreet projects for this.

GOAL 9: Maintain socio-cultural diversity of indigenous and local communities on islands

Target 9.1: Measures to protect traditional knowledge, innovations and practices implemented, and the participation of indigenous and local communities in activities aimed at this promoted and facilitated

• Not a priority of DCF or NPT. Department of Culture and Social Development Department would be lead agencies on such a programme.

Target 9.2: Traditional knowledge, innovations and practices regarding island biodiversity respected, preserved and maintained

• No action

GOAL 10: Ensure the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of island genetic resources

Target 10.1: All access to genetic resources from islands is in line with the Convention on Biological Diversity and its relevant provisions and, as appropriate and wherever possible, with the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and other applicable agreements

• See Goal 3 – only project in this regard is Kew’s Millennium Seed Bank.

Target 10.2: Benefits arising from the commercial and other utilization of island biodiversity genetic resources shared in a fair and equitable way

• No action

GOAL 11: Parties have improved financial, human, scientific, technical and technological capacity to implement the Convention

Target 11.1: New and additional financial resources are allocated to all islands

• FCO and DFID OTEP 1 million and DEFRA Darwin Fund – earmarked 1.5 million – available for UKOT projects. Darwin earmarked monies for UKOTs made available in 2009 round. • DCF’s 2009 budget was USD 2.013 million. This is 1% of the total operational budget for the BVI. Of the $2 m budget, DCF salaries cost 80%, leaving 20% for office costs and project/programme costs. • Sources for capital projects must come from grants. Darwin, OTEP, OECS ESDU, UNEP CEP have been important sources in recent history.

Target 11.2: Technologies are transferred to developing country Parties

• Good links with Kew, RSPB, CANARI, CCCCC, OECS-ESDU

Target 11.3: Capacity of islands to implement this programme of work on island biological diversity and all its priority activities is significantly strengthened

• BVI NPT participating in 2009 – 2011 – CANARI project: Building civil society capacity for conservation in the Caribbean OTs (Darwin) – aims to enhance the capacity of civil society organisations – organisational development and skills to improve participatory approaches in the Caribbean OTs towards the implementation of the CBD

5.4.2. Cayman Islands

GOAL 1: Promote the conservation of the biological diversity of island ecosystems, habitats and biomes

Target 1.1: At least 10% of each of the island ecological regions effectively conserved

• Exhaustive NBAP developed in 2009 and continually updated.

• 4.7% of land area of three islands protected

• Under the Marine Conservation Law, the marine protected areas cover over 10% of Cayman’s marine ecosystems.

• Pending National Conservation Law will comprehensively integrate policies and conserve key terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Currently in consultation period and will be tabled in September 2010.

• In 2008 the Terrestrial Habitat mapping was updated & the first ever marine habitat mapping was completed by the DoE (using 2006 imagery) under the auspices of Darwin project “In Ivan’s Wake”. (Referencing a category 4/5 hurricane which decimated much of the Cayman Islands in 2004.) About thirty different habitats have been identified, including forests, shrub land, caves, freshwater pools, marine lagoons and coral reefs.

• Forest biodiversity survey and mapping gathered in 1997 by National Trust of Cayman with WWF-UK funding followed by 1998 – 1999 Satellite imagery of Cayman’s land was acquired and analyzed using Global Imaging Systems (GIS), to determine the distribution of the different habitat types.

• Blue Iguana Recovery Programme (see goal 2) used as flagship species to spearhead conservation of dry shrub land habitat that may otherwise have been under threat of development

Target 1.2: Areas of particular importance to island biodiversity are protected through comprehensive effectively managed and ecologically representative national and regional protected area networks

• Comprehensive National Parks System expected to be developed with passing of National Conservation Law

Existing extensive system of marine protected areas in place since 1986 and managed by the Department of the Environment. Protection makes provision for:

o The Environmental Zone of the Marine Parks (which include 1600 acres of the environmentally critical interface between Grand Cayman’s Central Mangrove and Little Sound) - 1986

o Spawning Aggregation Sites (for Nassau Grouper and other species) – 1980 and subsequent revisions

o Watersports Interaction Zones for the management of areas of particular economic environmental importance – 2007

• 4 saline coastal ponds: Colliers Pond (Grand Cayman)(1976); Meagre Bay Pond (Grand Cayman)(1976); Saltwater Pond (Cayman Brac)(1980); Booby Pond (Little Cayman)(1982) are protected as Animal Sanctuaries under the Animals Law (1976)

• Booby Pond (home to largest breeding colony of red-footed boobies in the Western hemisphere) also designated as a Ramsar Site in 1994 – 334 acres

Existing terrestrial protected areas:

• Mastic Reserve (Grand Cayman) (1000 acres – 754 acres under care of CNT) protects part of largest contiguous area of old growth, Caribbean, dry, subtropical, semi deciduous dry forest. • Salina Reserve (Grand Cayman) • Brac Parrot Reserve (Cayman Brac) • Blue Iguana Reserve (Grand Cayman)(2010) – In excess of 200 acres of Crown land peppercorn leased to the National Trust for management for repopulation with captive reared blue iguanas GOAL 2: Promote the conservation of island species diversity

Target 2.1: Populations of island species of selected taxonomic groups restored, maintained or their decline reduced

• Grand Cayman Blue Iguana Recovery programme (started in 1990 now project funded 2009 – 2011), The iguana is critically endangered (IUCN Red List) – estimated range in the wild of 20 – 25 individuals but populations in the Salina Reserve and Botanic Park now number over 1000 individuals • Cayman Brac Parrot conserved within the 180 acre Brac Parrot reserve. Established in 1991 • Red-footed boobies in Booby Pond

• Red mangrove replanting trials ongoing since 2006 • Marine Turtle Programme, since 1998, in water & nesting surveys conducted and legal protections subsequently increased (2007) • 2003 Marine Conservation Law revisions: o All echinoderms, chitons, periwinkles & bleeding teeth protected prohibited from use (used for fish bait and some human consumption). o Jewfish, filefish, tilefish, angelfish and most fish species under 8” protected o Conch & lobster catch limits and seasons reduced; catch limits and seasons for whelk introduced • Bat conservation programme 1994 – active and very successful in raising public awareness about the importance of bats

• Ex-situ conservation programme for various plants, including, o Threatened endemic bromeliad Old George, Hohenbergia caymanensis o Critically endangered Tea Banker, Pectis Caymanensis robusta o Native tree nursery at QE II Botanical Park. Focus on native endemics and species of conservation concern. Cayman Sage -

Target 2.2: Status of threatened island species significantly improved

• Plant species checklist completed and 2 nd edition published 2009. Virtual herbarium on line – KEW? • Grand Cayman & Cayman Brac parrot surveys; 2005 and ongoing • Red footed Booby Population Counts; 2007 & 2010 • Annual queen conch & Nassau grouper surveys • Butterflies of Cayman Island described (2009), by Richard Askew. Survey of habitat of endemic Cayman Pygmy Blue butterfly (2009) –Brephidium exilis thompsoni , now included as a Species Action Plan in BAP • Study of Grand Cayman population of threatened West Indian Whistling duck on-going for 20 years • Shark and cetacean survey – ongoing – in collaboration with Save our Seas Conservation Programme and Marine Conservation International. • Significant in house taxonomic expertise in DoE and established links with academic institutions and labs. • Visiting scientist programme aims to ensure training of local expertise and collection of specimens locally. GOAL 3: Promote the conservation of island genetic diversity

Target 3.1: Genetic diversity of crops, livestock, and other valuable island species conserved, and associated indigenous and local knowledge maintained

• QEII Botanic Park houses in situ collection of many native plant species • 2009 – Seed banking of threatened local flora housed at Kew. • National Trust operates a herbarium and insectarium which includes historic and recent collections WHEN? • Iguana recovery programme includes an ex-situ conservation component with the San Diego Zoo of genetic individuals of the Cayman Blue Iguana GOAL 4: Promote sustainable use and consumption

Target 4.1: Island biodiversity-based products are derived from sources that are sustainably managed, and production areas managed,

consistent with the conservation of biological diversity

• Current subsidies provided by Department of Agriculture for seed, feed, fertiliser, herbicide, insecticide and land clearance costs for local farmers. There is currently no assessment of the sustainability of these agricultural practices.

• Multi-million dollar annual subsidy for Turtle Farm & Bosun’s Beach Water Park but limited control of effluent impact on adjoining marine ecosystem.

• Quarrying and dredging charge unrealistically low royalties. Sand mining laws which permit a small amount of sand mining per person is frequently abused. This should be addressed through EIA legislation under the (pending) NCL.

• Need for enforcement of land clearance regulations

• Need for energy use and conservation measure and promotion of sustainable energy sources.

Target 4.2: Unsustainable consumption of island biological resources and its impact upon biodiversity is reduced

• Sustainable Tourism Initiatives: CEPTS (Cayman Environmental Project for the Tourism Sector) - a Government funded initiative jointly implemented by DoE & Dept. Tourism to pilot implementation of Green Globe Certification in selected tourism properties and attractions as a way of showcasing best management practices locally.

• Management Plans for existing protected areas are zoned to allow for ‘sanctuary’ as well as zones for human use.

• Revival of craft making from local, endemic, Thatch Palm – Coccothrinax proctorii developed concern for protection and sustainable use. Palm is now the focus of a Species Action Plan in BAP.

• Other forest and agricultural production negligible.

Target 4.3: No species of wild flora and fauna on islands is endangered by international trade

• Cayman is a signatory to CITES. New CITES legislation passed in 2004 but not yet implemented. General CITES implementation ongoing.

• Closed season for sale of marine produce but only used in local market. There is no commercial fisheries, only subsistence fishing.

GOAL 5: Pressures from habitat loss, land-use change and degradation, and sustainable water use, reduced on islands

Target 5.1: Rate of loss and degradation of natural habitats in islands significantly decreased

• EIA and Socio-impact assessments are not standard practice, nor are they legally required. The NCL, if passed, will make EIAs a legal mandate. GOAL 6: Control threats to island biological diversity from invasive alien species

Target 6.1: Pathways for major potential alien invasive species are identified and controlled on islands

• The Department of. Agriculture has permanent presence at ports of entry, especially for plant & animal health pests. There is a permitting process for importation of any live organism. The (pending) NCL will strengthen invasive species considerations of this permitting process.

Target 6.2: Management plans in place and implemented for major alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species

• Invasives are given high priority in the BAP • Monk Parakeet removal programme initiated 2007-2008, Grand Cayman. Population reduced by 86% • Lionfish removal programme initiated, nationwide – Species Action Plan in BAP. • Feral cat removal programme initiated, Little Cayman – 2008. All pet cats are now microchipped. • Brazilian pepper removed as found. • Legislative amendment drafted to remove legal protection for invasive green iguanas to allow future control programmes to be enacted. • BAP for invasive Casuarina and Scaevola drafted. GOAL 7: Address challenges to island biodiversity from climate change and pollution

Target 7.1: Resilience of the components of biodiversity to adapt to climate change in islands maintained and enhanced

• National Climate Change Policy in development, led by DoE’s Sustainable Development Unit. • Darwin funded project to investigate marine protected area resilience, in conjunction with TNC’s Caribbean Challenge. • During 2004-2005, the DoE worked in conjunction with the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research to produce A Guidebook: Surviving Climate Change in Small Islands. The guidebook offers a wealth of information on Climate Change,

and practical advice on how to adapt to Climate Change

Target 7.2: Pollution and its impacts on island biological diversity significantly reduced

• There are no rivers on Cayman and Agriculture is minimal. • Sewerage discharge is prohibited. All sewerage from main tourism development strip goes to a wastewater treatment plant. • Eutrophication of ponds due to fertilizer run off and poor aeration has become a recent problem on newly landscaped developments. DoE has begun to assist with solutions on a case by case basis.

GOAL 8: Maintain capacity of island ecosystems to deliver goods and services and support livelihoods

Target 8.1: Capacity of island ecosystems to deliver goods and services maintained or improved

• There is a Disaster and Hazard Management Unit – a statutory body. Links to DoE and focus on environment is however limited. • DoE takes responsibility for environmental disaster issues on a case by case basis. After hurricanes, DoE undertakes storm inventory and disaster reparation work. • Presently there is no requirements for re-vegetation of mangrove areas converted by land and fill operations. However, this is not a major problem

Target 8.2: Biological resources that support sustainable livelihoods, local food security and health care, especially of poor people living on islands, maintained

• No action. Not really applicable in Cayman Islands. Negligible livelihood dependent groups. GOAL 9: Maintain socio-cultural diversity of indigenous and local communities on islands

• Traditional knowledge of biodiversity use is not currently being preserved but could be improved. The National Archive maintains some information, but limited focus. • See Goal 4 with regard to Thatch Palm use for craft.

Target 9.2: Traditional knowledge, innovations and practices regarding island biodiversity respected, preserved and maintained

• Well established programme to ensure results of research and scientific knowledge undertaken by external entities remains on island. DoE working toward accessing and repatriating large collection of research on Cayman Islands that exists overseas. GOAL 10: Ensure the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of island genetic resources

Not an area of work

Target 10.2: Benefits arising from the commercial and other utilization of island biodiversity genetic resources shared in a fair and equitable way

Not an area of work

GOAL 11: Parties have improved financial, human, scientific, technical and technological capacity to implement the Convention

Target 11.1: New and additional financial resources are allocated to all islands

• FCO and DFID OTEP 1 million and DEFRA Darwin Fund – earmarked x amount – available for UKOT projects. Darwin earmarked monies for UKOTs made available in 2009 round

• National Trust has raised approximately $1 million from private donors over recent years and spent it on voluntary land purchase at prevailing market values to establish protected areas on three islands. This has been supplemented by private land donations to the Trust. The Trust also intends to set up an endowment fund in the short term.

Target 11.2: Technologies are transferred to developing country Parties

• DoE currently part of the Caribbean Hub to develop a networking database linking conservation professionals. The hub will share experiences and international opportunities between conservation professionals. www.caribbeanhub.net

o CCCCC’s project has developed a more accurate modelling for the region.

Target 11.3: Capacity of islands to implement this programme of work on island biological diversity and all its priority activities is significantly strengthened

• Closer collaborative and supportive work between DoE and JNCC • Good collaborative working relationships between DoE and National Trust with academic institutions, funding bodies, local, regional and international conservation NGOs • National Trust participating in 2009 – 2011 – CANARI project: Building civil society capacity for conservation in the Caribbean OTs (Darwin) – aims to enhance the capacity of civil society organisations – organisational development and skills to improve participatory approaches in the Caribbean OTs towards the implementation of the CBD • National Curriculum has now integrated a series of resource packs on biodiversity and island ecosystems.

5.4.3. St. Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha

GOAL 1: Promote the conservation of the biological diversity of island ecosystems, habitats and biomes

Target 1.1: At least 10% of each of the island ecological regions effectively conserved

St. Helena : Environmental Charter Strategy includes species and habitat plans

Ascension : Ascension Island Management Plan (1999), Environment Charter (2001); Plan for conservation endemic and native flora (2009); Turtle Management Plan (2002)

Tristan : Comprehensive BAP. Conservation Ordinance recently amended in 2006.

Target 1.2: Areas of particular importance to island biodiversity are protected through comprehensive effectively managed and ecologically representative national and regional protected area networks

St. Helena . The LDCP includes 14 proposed Protected Areas proposed for protection because of one or more of the following, Special natural features and outstanding beauty; Endemic flora and fauna and associated habitats; Outstanding geological, physiographical or historic features; and special scientific interest.

Ascension : Green Mountain National Park protects range of six endemic plant species. Designated in 2005. 13 additional areas proposed for protection in 2003 but not yet designated. These include seabird nesting sites; turtle nesting beaches; sites of special geological importance; marine nature reserves and national parks. Although it is not yet designated as a protected area, visits to Boatswainbird Island are restricted and require a permit from the Administrator.

Tristan Gough Island and Inaccessible Islands have been designated World Heritage Sites. Hottentot (former military base) has also been designated a Nature Reserve. 44% of the land area of Tristan (including its 5 outlying islands) has been set aside for conservation. GOAL 2: Promote the conservation of island species diversity

Target 2.1: Populations of island species of selected taxonomic groups restored, maintained or their decline reduced

St. Helena : There are 13 species recovery plans for St. Helena’s endemic plants. 10 have been implemented and the remaining 3 are in progress. There are a further 4 draft SRAP to be done before the end of September 2010 for endemic ferns and mosses.

Ascension : Sea bird restoration – Ascension Island Government and RSPB - 2001 – ongoing; Species action plan for 10 endemic species, including 3 extinct species; 3 native species and Habitat restoration plans for 5 habitat zones (2009) Collaborative work with Kew Gardens on propagation, ex-situ conservation and re-introduction of endemic plants

Tristan : All birds of Tristan are protected by the Tristan Conservation Ordinance, although harvesting of some seabird chicks and eggs is allowed. Monitoring manuals were published 2009/2010 (RSPB) and included in the BAP. Specific conservation activities on Tristan and Nightingale are currently focused on the great wing petrel (rat eradication to prevent damage to breeding); sooty albatross (GPS logging), Atlantic yellow nosed albatross and northern rock hopper penguins. Monitoring of Tristan albatross and Gough bunting takes place on Gough Island.

Target 2.2: Status of threatened island species significantly improved

St Helena : From a single tree of the bastard gumwood, Commidendrum rotundifolium , one of the rarest tree species – there are now over 100 today. The tuft sedge, Bulbostylis neglecta was thought to be extinct and was rediscovered in 2008. Ascension : Critically endangered Pteris adscensionis successfully propagated from brink of extinction from 50 to around 200 plants and have been successfully reintroduced in to the wild. • Monitoring of high priority indigenous species – track population status • Re-establishment of endemic plants in areas cleared of invasive alien plant species Tristan : No work currently being carried out on plants or invertebrates. Major action identified to improve status of Tristan’s threatened species is eradication of mice from Gough Island.

GOAL 3: Promote the conservation of island genetic diversity

Target 3.1: Genetic diversity of crops, livestock, and other valuable island species conserved, and associated indigenous and local knowledge maintained

There are no known local or indigenous land races or crops on these islands.

Tristan: there is limited cattle and sheep livestock. Potatoes are grown, and an increasing number of vegetables are now being produced through the school garden and the new government greenhouse. Comprehensive flora listing in BAP, but limited information on distribution and abundance of plants.

St. Helena : Island-wide botanical surveys on St Helena have been completed on both St Helena and Ascension.

Biodiversity needs and supporting work will also be highlighted as important in the Agriculture and Natural Resources policy framework which will be completed shortly.

Ascension : Island wide plant census; Comprehensive flora listing and seed collecting for propagation on Ascension and at Millennium Seed Bank, Kew.

GOAL 4: Promote sustainable use and consumption

Target 4.1: Island biodiversity-based products are derived from sources that are sustainably managed, and production areas managed, consistent with the conservation of biological diversity

All islands face difficulties in policing their EEZ waters for illegal fisheries. Long-lining has also had a detrimental impact on seabirds such as Petrels and Albatross

St. Helena : The provision of water at below economic cost can promote unsustainable use during dry periods of the year.

Target 4.2: Unsustainable consumption of island biological resources and its impact upon biodiversity is reduced

St. Helena : Fisheries quotas have been established for tuna, grouper and a closed season for the deepwater bullseye is currently being established. Also a Spear Guns Control Order (2006) that controls the use of spear guns.

Removal of local timber is being managed through a policy decision in 2006 to cap the removal of firewood from the forest estate.

Tristan : Seabird harvesting is restricted to Nightingale and Alex islands. Penguin eggs are collected in September, and chicks of the Great Shearwater are harvested throughout the summer on Nightingale (this has been an informal, word-of- mouth change to the previous arrangement which permitted harvesting of eggs and chicks).

Forest used to be harvested for fencing posts. This has now been stopped and fence posts are imported as well.

In the last five years, wildlife tourism has been encouraged on Tristan. In 2009, approximately seven tourist ships visited with an average of 40 – 50 passengers each although there have been one or two ships with 2000 passengers. Visitors are largely bird enthusiasts such as RSPB and Birdlife members mainly from the UK and USA. A safety officer and the Head of the Conservation Department lead the tours. Visitors are especially keen to visit Inaccessible Island (to see the Rail) but this is weather permitting.

Target 4.3: No species of wild flora and fauna on islands is endangered by international trade

St Helena, Ascension and Tristan are signatories to CITES

GOAL 5: Pressures from habitat loss, land-use change and degradation, and sustainable water use, reduced on islands

Target 5.1: Rate of loss and degradation of natural habitats in islands significantly decreased

St. Helena : Land Development and Control Ordinance makes EIAs mandatory for developments over a certain size and has established a LDC Board which reviews the need for an EIA in smaller development applications and will determine the scope, screen and evaluate EIAs. The Environment Coordinator sits on the LDC Board. GOAL 6: Control threats to island biological diversity from invasive alien species

Target 6.1: Pathways for major potential alien invasive species are identified and controlled on islands

South Atlantic Invasive Species Programme (SAISP) – implemented by RSPB, St. Helena, Ascension and Tristan governments and St. Helena National Trust (also Falkland Islands Government, Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and Falklands Conservation) - 2006 -2009. Assessed the populations of invasive species and best ways in which to control the invasive species. Ascension : Island is feral cat free (RSPB and AIG) • Construction of feral donkey enclosure to control numbers and spreading alien species • Monitoring rodent impacts – rodent baiting ongoing • Have controlled (and eradicated) some key invasive plant species (e.g. Indian rubber vine, wild mango). Site-based control of others is continuing to allow restoration of endemic plants.

Tristan : Invasive species given specific focus in BAP • Major work done on removal of New Zealand Christmas tree and Birdeye pearlwort, Sagina procumbens , particularly on Gough • An agreement has been made with a port officer in South Africa who checks crates for import to Tristan for potential invasive species. Rat guards and sticky traps have been placed on ships. Checks are also made at Tristan’s port and further controls are in place with regular baiting (rats and slugs). • Investigations have been undertaken for eradication of rodents from Tristan and Gough

Target 6.2: Management plans in place and implemented for major alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species

Management plans for key invasive plant species have been developed for St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha by RSPB in conjunction with Territory administrations. For Tristan, Niek Gremmen has also developed invasive plant management plans.

GOAL 7: Address challenges to island biodiversity from climate change and pollution

Target 7.1: Resilience of the components of biodiversity to adapt to climate change in islands maintained and enhanced

St. Helena and Ascension : No current climate change work. Tristan: No current climate change work. However, have noticed potential problems of desertification. Growing problem of lack of fodder for livestock during spring and summer.

Target 7.2: Pollution and its impacts on island biological diversity significantly reduced

Tristan : Improved waste disposal and management with installation of covered wheeled bins. All sewerage goes into septic tanks. No known problems of run-off or pollution into sea. GOAL 8: Maintain capacity of island ecosystems to deliver goods and services and support livelihoods

Target 8.1: Capacity of island ecosystems to deliver goods and services maintained or improved

Tristan : Recurrent damage due to storm surges. FCO currently working on a disaster preparedness plan for Tristan.

Target 8.2: Biological resources that support sustainable livelihoods, local food security and health care, especially of poor people living on islands, maintained

Not of concern.

GOAL 9: Maintain socio-cultural diversity of indigenous and local communities on islands

There are no indigenous communities on these islands.

Target 9.2: Traditional knowledge, innovations and practices regarding island biodiversity respected, preserved and maintained

No work in this area. GOAL 10: Ensure the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of island genetic resources

No work in this area.

Target 10.2: Benefits arising from the commercial and other utilization of island biodiversity genetic resources shared in a fair and equitable way

No work in this area.

GOAL 11: Parties have improved financial, human, scientific, technical and technological capacity to implement the Convention

Target 11.1: New and additional financial resources are allocated to all islands

Currently most funding received from JNCC and DFID. Much support and funding received via RSPB. Tristan recently secured funding support from the Edinburgh Zoo for equipment and project funding from the Mohammed bin Zayed Fund. Tristan : Funding and equipment is a major constraint. The department currently shares one vehicle with five other departments. Also, interest and focus on Gough island has diverted funding and conservation efforts (increased paper work and reporting) there, reducing the funding for work in Tristan from OTEP. St Helena: The St Helena National Trust was successful in obtaining a large Darwin grant in 2010, making it the first UKOT NGO to obtain such funding directly, rather than via a UK partner.

Target 11.2: Technologies are transferred to developing country Parties

Tristan : During the preparation of the BAP, RSPB helped to train 10 government employees ‘The Darwin Team’ who assist in monitoring, invasive species control and other field work.

Target 11.3: Capacity of islands to implement this programme of work on island biological diversity and all its priority activities is significantly strengthened

See 11.2

6. RESULTS AND IMPACTS

The results and impacts realised in the three OTs reviewed, and more generally in all UKOTs, can be summarised against the goals and targets of the CBD’s Programme of Work on Island Biodiversity.

GOAL 1: Promote the conservation of the biological diversity of island ecosystems, habitats and biomes

1.1 10% of island ecological regions conserved

On the whole, territories have made steady progress towards the protection of ecological regions with some OTs having exceeded the target for some ecological regions. Initially, protection has been informed by the presence of threatened species and the need to conserve their habitat. Particular mention should be made of Tristan da Cunha that has 44% of the land area set aside for protection.

To date, designation of sites based on their ecological representation is less strategic. However, as ecological surveying and classification has improved on the OTs, knowledge of the different ecological regions has improved.

As would perhaps be expected on islands, the coastal and marine environment has received greater attention in the past for a number of OTs. Terrestrial conservation has more recently been the focus of conservation activities. Terrestrial protection outside Crown Lands has also been slower due to the added complication of cost and can be politically contentious.

Ecosystems at the interface between terrestrial and marine such as salt ponds and mangroves have had greater attention to their importance in the last 10 years although this ecosystem is constantly under threat from development pressure. For example, designation of a ‘Wetland of Importance’ under the Ramsar Convention, which all UKOTs reviewed have signed, is slow and patchy.

1.2 Protection through comprehensive, effectively managed protected area networks

Again, designation of representative ecosystems for protection is lagging, although there is good understanding within the respective Conservation and Environment Departments and NGOs of the key ecosystem areas. Few islands have a system of protected areas apart from the BVI, although management plans only exist for five of the 51 designated sites in the BVI. Again, there is recognition that this is needed/desired within the respective departments and steps are being taken to put together plans and establish a system where possible.

Funding for managing protected areas effectively is a continuous struggle and is a constraint to management and enforcement. There is often a long lag period in-between designation of a site and allocation of funds for management. In the case of the Cayman Islands, no money has been set aside for the Mastic Reserve which is one of the few areas of old growth dry forest on the territory (1,000 acres – 754 acres of which is managed by the Cayman Islands National Trust) and this has been a contentious issue (CANARI 2010).

GOAL 2: Promote the conservation of island species diversity

2.1 Populations of taxonomic groups restored or their decline reduced

In the last 10 – 20 years, the decline of some ‘flagship species’ of critically endangered taxonomic groups has been arrested due in large part to effective collaborative projects with international organisations and local government departments and NGOs. Populations of many of the species on which conservation projects have been focused may never reach stable sizes but many have been saved from the brink of extinction. Nevertheless, there is still a huge task to recover populations of the large numbers of endemics, and to improve their critical status and range.

The Grand Cayman Blue Iguana population is a positive case study. The Blue Iguana population became functionally extinct due to habitat destruction, historic hunting and the introduction of non-native species. In 2001 the Blue Iguana Recovery programme was established combining ex-situ and in-situ conservation methods. The population is now above 1,000 individuals, all of which are living in protected areas.

2.2 Status of threatened island species improved

OTs that have been through the BAP development process have compiled a thorough inventory of island species, including threat criteria. In OTs that have not developed a BAP, there is pocketed information of status of island species such as the Environmental Profile in Jost van Dyke and the BAP done for Anegada in the BVI. More needs to be done to establish baselines in countries that have not undergone the BAP process.

GOAL 3: Promote the conservation of island genetic diversity

3.1 Genetic diversity of crops, livestock, valuable species and associated local knowledge maintained

Work towards this target is generally lacking, as awareness of this aspect of biodiversity is relatively low and its importance is not sufficiently recognised. This would suggest the need for greater cooperation between biodiversity conservation agencies and agricultural research and development departments. There are no-known land races on the OTs reviewed.

It is important to note that the genetic diversity of crops and indigenous species and communities was very significantly disturbed by centuries of colonisation on most UKOTs. Introduction of alien plants and species for cultivation was a feature of colonial settlement. Most crops now grown are introduced species.

GOAL 4: Promote sustainable use and consumption

4.1 Island biodiversity based products derived from sustainably managed sources

Results against this target are linked to the issue of land use management and control. There is widespread concern that use of biodiversity outside protected areas must be more sustainably managed. Sand mining, indiscriminate land clearance and damage due to overgrazing from livestock which are effectively feral are some of the areas that are inconsistent with the conservation of biological diversity. These are generally issues outside the control of conservation departments.

4.2 Unsustainable consumption of island biodiversity reduced

Many islands have implemented fishing quotas and closed seasons for species that are commercially valuable to prevent overfishing. In addition, fishing licenses and legislation to prevent certain types of disruptive fishing practices, such as spear guns, have been implemented. Enforcement is however a challenge and monitoring of the impact of quotas and closed seasons is not presently undertaken in any systematic way.

There are concerns of illegal fishing in the EEZ of the South Atlantic islands by foreign ships but it is unknown the impact of this. Policing of this would also fall under the UK coastguard but this is currently not done.

Tourism and large scale tourism development present a constant threat to coastal ecosystems in particular. Examples of sustainable practices in the OTs reviewed are limited.

4.3 Endangered wild flora and fauna protected from international trade

All islands are signatories to CITES. No endangered species are exported internationally from the OTs reviewed.

GOAL 5: Pressures from habitat loss, land-use change and degradation, and sustainable water use, reduced on islands

5.1 Rate of loss and degradation natural habitats significantly decreased

In general, land use plans make inadequate consideration of environmental and biodiversity dimensions and are non-operational in many cases. The St. Helena Land Development Control Plan may be an exception, where it was felt the Plan had been an effective tool.

Mandating the use of EIAs prior to development is gradually being enforced through the revision of land use and planning laws in the OTs. However, current loop holes exist for circumventing the planning process even where EIAs are a legal requirement, such as the current ‘fast tracking’ of development plans above USD 10 million directly to the Premier in the BVI.

GOAL 6: Control threats to island biological diversity from invasive alien species

6.1 Pathways for major alien invasives identified and controlled

Controlling pathways for invasives is slowly being developed. This is tricky due to the coordination needed with a number of authorities, especially at air and sea ports. Of particular mention is the SAISP which took a regional approach to the assessment of invasive populations and outlined the management requirements for invasive species controls in the participating territories.

OTs that have carried out a BAP have paid particular attention to the control of invasive species and the effects of those actions should be able to be assessed in the near future. Legislation to strengthen invasive species consideration is now outdated and should be revised. This

6.2 Management plans in place and implemented for alien species

A number of eradications have been done on uninhabited offshore islands and cays where it is logistically easier to undertake eradications, where there are significant populations of nesting

65 birds and where habitats are less disrupted. Where full eradication has not been possible, conservation has focused on controlling the invasive species.

In the BAPs that exist, management plans have been incorporated for invasive control but it is unclear if eradication work has been guided by management plans in the other OTs.

GOAL 7: Address challenges to island biodiversity from climate change, and pollution

7.1 Resilience of components of biodiversity to adapt to climate change enhanced

There is now greater awareness of the need to address climate change related issues and a number of the better resourced departments have now included a staff member or unit to deal with such issues. Planning and policy development is slowly being developed. The issue of ‘resilience’ is a new concept and it will be important for greater attention and support to UKOTs for adaptation and mitigation measures.

The inclusion of the Caribbean UKOT’s through DFID assistance in a GEF-funded project implemented by the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre (CCCCC) has been noted by conservation departments as welcome and in useful modelling for the region.

7.2 Pollution and its impacts on island biodiversity reduced

There appears to be no systematic plan for pollution and waste planning. Work appears to be piecemeal and addressing pollution when it is manifest rather than prevention planning. Watershed integration plans have not been undertaken in the UKOTs reviewed.

GOAL 8: Maintain capacity of island ecosystems to deliver goods and services and support livelihoods

8.1 Capacity of island ecosystems to deliver goods and services improved 8.2 Biological resources that support sustainable livelihoods, health and food security maintained

This goal has received less attention and should be considered alongside Goal 7 for UKOTs and islands. A number of islands have disaster preparedness plans and a department or authority dealing with disaster preparation but this is focused primarily on people and habitation and environmental planning is only marginally considered. Departments dealing with this issue are also generally divorced from those dealing with conservation and environment.

GOAL 9: Maintain socio-cultural diversity of indigenous and local communities on islands

9.1 Measures to protect traditional knowledge promoted and facilitated 9.2 Traditional knowledge preserved, maintained, acknowledged and shared equitably

Indigenous populations of the UKOTs reviewed are no longer present. In addition, it is difficult to assess accurately from this desk review whether traditional knowledge residing in older generations and with marginalised sectors of the community have been protected and if the use of traditional knowledge has been shared in a fair and equitable way.

There is no legislation that protects local community rights over their traditional knowledge in any of the UKOTs.

The National Trusts and Heritage NGOs in each of the UKOTs have heritage programmes that are making efforts to preserve traditional knowledge of life of each of the OTs.

GOAL 10: Ensure the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of island genetic resources

10.1 Access to genetic resources is in line with the CBD 10.2 Benefits arising from commercial and other utilization of island biodiversity are shared equitably.

Neither of these issues has come up in the UKOTs reviewed. This is an area that may need further exploration and assessment. The legislation and knowledge base of genetic resources is limited in the UKOTs reviewed.

GOAL 11: Parties have improved financial, human, scientific, technical and technological capacity to implement the Convention

11.1 New and additional financial resources allocated to islands

Earmarked funds of £1.5 million from the Darwin Initiative for UKOTs are the newest financial resource made available from the UK for UKOTs. Individual UKOTs have sourced small amounts of additional resources from grants. Some National Trusts, such as the NT of Cayman Islands has been financially very successful in securing gift donations. More work needs to be done to diversify funding bases and to identify sources for programmatic funding to sustain conservation efforts.

11.2 Technologies transferred to SIDS to allow for effective implementation programme

The Training and Research Group implemented by JNCC for the UKOTs will improve transfer of technologies and focus conservation needs. However the non-inclusion of NGOs in JNCC’s training group means that training is focused on government institutions. In countries with small capacity for conservation work, this approach may not be the most strategic. Collaborative working arrangements for species conservation work between INGOs, Government Departments and local NGOs provide good examples where there has been good transfer of technology. Considering the skills residing in the UK, perhaps more could be done in this regard.

11.3 Capacities to implement programme strengthened

The BAP preparation process, while being a big task for conservation and environment departments to take on, has clearly helped to build capacity in the respective departments.

A recent focus on skills of civil society organisations in Caribbean UKOTs to influence biodiversity conservation in the UKOTs may help to strengthen capacity in ‘non-traditional’ areas critical to civil society such as: developing communication strategies for different target audiences; stakeholder mobilisation participatory approaches to planning, and interpreting legal and legislative information (CANARI 2010). More could be done in this regard for other UKOTs.

While UKOTs are keen to prioritize conservation activities across regions and regionally, the competitive funding environment makes collaborative working difficult at times and more needs to be done to encourage collaborative regional work.

7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

7.1. Institutional arrangements and policy context in the UK

The current strategy and institutional arrangements in the UK to fulfil its commitment to halting the loss of biodiversity (referencing the title of the EU BAP) in the UKOTs represents a significant improvement from the previous arrangement. In particular DEFRA’s increased role as well as JNCC’s formalised participation through the creation of a specific department and post dealing with biodiversity support and advice to the OT governments is a welcome change. In a relatively short space of time, new developments have been created such as the Research and Training Group for UKOTs and development of a database to inform UKOTs of alternative funding sources. Although it is too early to effectively tell the impacts of these two new developments, environmental departments in the OTs have commented that they have been ‘hearing a lot more from JNCC’ in the last few years and that more opportunities have been made available for networking and funding for training.

Changes manifest today seem to reflect a maturing relationship between the UK and its OTs. Individuals and organisations who have been striving for greater recognition of the importance, value and support needed for the conservation of biodiversity in the OTs over the years felt strongly that the treatment of OTs was one of ‘out of sight out of mind’. This was clearly evidenced in the omissions (to a significant degree) of OT biodiversity resources in the UK BAPs, as well as in the process of reporting to the CBD. However the current arrangements show that departments responsible for the OTs have taken onboard a number of these concerns and they are currently making steps to ensure improved conservation in the UKOTs.

Although the 2009 strategy is light on detail, the roles and responsibilities of the UK government have been elaborated in the JNCC’s OT and Crown Dependencies Programme for 2008 – 2011 54 . The burden of the UK government efforts with regard to biodiversity conservation appears to rests with the JNCC as the Secretariat for the Cross-Departmental body and with the greatest staff complement dedicated to OT biodiversity work 55 .

There is concern, however, that the current political and economic situation within the UK, following the May 2010 elections, may impact negatively on the future of this arrangement, which was established during a relatively buoyant economic period, while massive public spending cuts are now planned. Statutory bodies, such as JNCC, have been specifically identified by the new UK government for cuts in spending and downsizing. However, it will not be until October 2010 when the decisions and potential impacts of those cuts will be made public.

Although this new arrangement has made a big difference in solidifying roles and responsibilities from the UK in the UKOTs, at present this seems to be primarily a one-way flow. It is unclear as yet how achievements and lessons learned on biodiversity work in the UKOTs are disseminated to the wider UK biodiversity ‘community’. UKOT biodiversity work may be at

54 http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/UKOTs_costedactionplan2009_2010.pdf 55 http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-4104

68 risk of being ‘sectoralised’ and isolated because it lacks integration within the public sector bodies dealing with biodiversity. NGOs who have been important players in OT conservation and who could make links within UK and international conservation communities have also been left out of decision-making structures. What is the process for sharing lessons learned from the work of OTs to other UK biodiversity practitioners, not just those focused on UKOTs? There will be lessons and best practices in the UKOTs that could inform similar work in the UK and internationally in such areas as Marine Protected Areas or provide parallels with tourism impacts on biodiversity in coastal UK, for example.

Likewise, there does not appear to be a broad awareness within the UK organisations of the policy development status in the UKOTs (i.e. the status of those displayed in Figure 2). A greater knowledge of these policies could better inform where (using policy language) and how (through funding and capacity support) to advocate and provide incentives to UKOT administrations and departments for improved biodiversity conservation.

This point highlights a focus area of the current EU Green Paper on the relationship between OTs and the EU: OTs have traditionally occupied a development cooperation relationship but this relationship is now outdated. EU Member States should look for ways in which the OCTs can move beyond this classic relationship to a more integrated and arguably equitable relationship with regards to biodiversity policy development and practice in the EU and globally.

7.2. Institutional arrangements and policy context in the UKOTs

As noted already in Section 5, UKOTs have made considerable progress in analysing how policies and existing institutional arrangements can be better integrated for more holistic and coordinated approaches to sustainable development. It is unclear if the impetus for doing such processes has been generated internally or externally. Nevertheless, the plans are a hallmark of government aspirations for greater policy coherence with regard to development planning and decision-making processes.

However, the implementation mechanisms and legal tools to put plans into practice in all aspects of land use and planning that have an impact on biodiversity and wider environmental concerns appear to fall short. The ability of environment agencies tasked with the implementation of CBD commitments to influence development planning and land use is often limited.

Firstly, their job is made difficult by the fact that management functions are dispersed among a number of departments including those responsible for agriculture, fisheries or planning, as well as National Trusts. In cases where cross-sectoral forums or bodies were established to support action plan implementation, lead agencies were not given sufficient power or authority to ensure the participation and commitment of various other ministries in meeting their obligations.

Secondly, the overall legislative framework for conservation actions is outdated and in many cases diffuse. While there are several pieces of legislation on the statute books, weak implementation and enforcement are major constraints that inhibit their effectiveness. In addition, other pieces of legislation to strengthen the legislative and regulatory framework have been drafted but have not been enacted. A good example is the Cayman Islands’ new Conservation Legislation which has been pending approval for seven years.

Thirdly, and this is perhaps the most contentious issue for UKOTs, is the political nature of land use and development control. This issue brings conservation and environmental departments

69 into conflict with more powerful development interests that have been the drivers of economic growth of OTs. The Cayman Islands provides a further case in point, where even with a well- resourced and large Department of Environment (37 people), the required legislation, which would subject land use and development applications to more rigorous processes, prevents the DoE from ensuring full delivery of a thorough and well researched BAP.

The collaborative working arrangement between conservation departments and National Trusts, in most instances, should be noted. The current CANARI project in the UKOTs to build skills in ‘non-traditional’ areas of capacity for biodiversity conservation such as stakeholder mobilization, interpretation of legal processes and documentation and communication techniques to improve advocacy activities for civil society organisations could provide useful lessons for other NGO to government working arrangements, and for collaborative arrangements between NGOs.

7.3. Content and process of strategies in the UKOTs

UKOTs appear to have developed the strategy and/or action plan best suited to their capacity. Most recognise that the preparation of a NBAP is a massive undertaking and they have only made this step if they are able to follow through with its monitoring requirements and implementation. If well resourced, however, the process of BAP development appears to have been an important opportunity for ‘growth’ within the conservation departments, not only in marshalling the required information, such as inventories for island species and habitats and development of management and restoration plans, but also in the consultative processes to develop the plans. UKOTs that have not developed a BAP or something similar may need to be encouraged to move out of their ‘comfort zone’ to tackle a BAP development process.

It is too early to determine the impact of the development of most BAPs and strategies but monitoring of the progress of implementation will be important for UKOTs to determine the effectiveness of their planning. St. Helena’s experience in the implementation of its Environment Charter Strategy shows that (apart from funding and capacity constraints) over ambitious targets or a lack of prioritization may hinder the ability to achieve targets set out in a strategy and should be a consideration for other BAPs.

The Environment Charters now appear outdated, although at the time of their development they would have been more accessible for conservation and environmental departments. They also provided a critical first step in improving relations for environmental conservation in the UKOTs. Those UKOTs with Charter Strategies should review these documents to determine their usefulness in today’s context.

7.4. Funding and financing

As already noted, OTEP is a vital source of funding for some UKOT biodiversity conservation practitioners. In the last few years the Darwin Initiative has also been a significant avenue for funding. To date, the Darwin Initiative has committed over £3.8 million towards conservation in the UKOTs. OTEP’s £1 million and Darwin’s £1.5 million is miniscule in comparison to the £450 million spent on biodiversity conservation in the UK 56 . For aid dependent countries such as St. Helena, who had ‘a bad OTEP year’ this year, where none of their applications were funded, a lack of funding can really break the momentum of a conservation project and delay critical conservation work.

56 Rayment, M. 2007. Costing biodiversity priorities in the UK Overseas Territories. GHK Consulting for RSPB.

Programmatic funding rather than one-off conservation projects would be preferred in many cases to sustain conservation gains, but these are extremely difficult for UKOTs to secure because of the reduced funding opportunities open to UKOTs. Programmatic funding is not uncommon for conservation activities in the UK where the global significance of biodiversity is poor in comparison to the UKOTs. Initially highly-expensive but catalytic conservation activities, such as invasive species eradication, require funding over and above the maximum grant amounts under OTEP or the Darwin Initiative. Once eradication is complete, funding needs are greatly reduced, but required for continuous monitoring and control. Departments with low capacity, such as Tristan’s Conservation Department, lack basic equipment and funding to do this.

Shortage of funding remains a major constraint for meeting biodiversity targets. Managers in the OTs expressed concern that the figure of £16.1 million per year to meet biodiversity priorities in the OTs calculated in the 2007 RSPB study, was based on indicative costs and is probably likely to be much higher now. It is anticipated that current efforts by JNCC to look at alternative sources of funding for OT biodiversity work will open up new funding avenues for OTs. In addition, efforts to make the EC’s DG Environment funds available through BEST, if supported, will be a valuable source of funding for OTs and biodiversity conservation.

JNCC and DEFRA may also want to consider (if not already on-going) advocating for existing UK biodiversity funding sources such as the National Lottery, to include UKOTs as well. In addition, NGOs in the UKOTs would like improved information of where not to seek funding as a great deal of effort is spent in fundraising from sources that eventually lead to dead ends because of the unusual status of UKOTs.

7.5. Planned conservation actions and results obtained

Considering the capacity of many conservation or environment departments, OTs that have been reviewed in detail for this report have on balance made remarkable achievements in biodiversity conservation that meet the targets of the CBD Programme of Work on Island Biodiversity. In particular, endemic species conservation, habitat conservation and protected areas are where greatest achievement has been made. This work has been augmented, of late, by the involvement of UK and international conservation NGOs and research institutions but the lion’s share of work has been accomplished by local conservation departments and NGOs.

However, outside protected areas, greater management and control needs to be exercised. As pointed out in the Cayman Islands BAP (2010), the islands’ population has almost doubled every ten years and protected areas will become increasingly isolated ecologically unless a concerted effort is made to maintain the biodiversity value outside of protected areas. Pressure for development has had considerable impact on the capacity of island ecosystems to deliver goods and services and eventually to support livelihoods. This can be exemplified in the Caribbean OTs by tourism’s considerable impact on wetlands and coastal resources. Making linkages between different land uses, protected areas and other development strategies, such as tourism, has been low priority, if not discouraged. Where linkages have been made, these have focused on tourism as a source of funding for conservation such as user fees and funding for tours.

In general, holistic and ecosystem approaches to conservation such as building climate change resilience and watershed protection have been lacking. Hugely different ecosystems occur over short ranges in some UKOTs (Pienkowski 2010) and comprehensive management and

71 conservation as well as a more strategic approach to maintaining representative ecosystems should be considered. Other areas such as protection of traditional knowledge and conservation of genetic diversity needs concerted attention.

8. PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Maintain UK Government funding to UKOTs at the very least at its present level in the short- term to ensure delivery against the Environment Charter and/or Biodiversity Action Plans. a. Continue to explore and advocate for funding options from the EU and advocate for increased funding from UK sources to UKOT biodiversity conservation. b. OTEP should make consideration that OTs, particularly those that are aid dependent, receive a minimum level of funding in each year that they have applied so that the situation (like St. Helena) where none of their OTEP projects would be funded in any given year does not take place. Without this provision, conservation activities are likely to be set back considerably.

In the medium term: c. The Cross-Departmental Partnership should develop an agreed work programme for biodiversity conservation – costed and budgeted – that would receive funding tranches once significant progress is made on the previous year, to ensure continuous, programmatic funding for biodiversity conservation in the UKOTs that need it. A ‘pot’ for one-off small projects (such as OTEP) can still be operational for funding new ideas and short-term projects.

2. Creative approaches to facilitate and provide incentives to the modernisation of legislation and to push for improved institutional arrangements for environmental conservation and land use planning should be explored. The biggest challenge is to influence joined-up decision- making structures and provide legal tools to empower conservation departments and reinforce their role. At present FCO and DFID are reluctant to intervene at any level in OT administration affairs, yet could there not be some leverage with regard to UK interests in MEA implementation? Skills and methods that would be useful tools for departments and civil society actors include: • ensuring policy effectiveness; • informing and influencing decision-makers and powerful players and • presenting information and research learning in formats that will be noticed by politicians

3. Communication flows need to be improved so that the achievements in biodiversity conservation in UKOTs can be disseminated to a wider audience in the UK and globally and that there is a two-way flow of information between the UK and UKOTs on biodiversity conservation work. Although this has improved with the new JNCC role in the Cross Departmental Biodiversity Partnership, the relationship with UKOTs continues to be largely top down.

4. GLISPA should consider taking on an additional role as a platform for islands that would filter MEAs and identify those most relevant to individual countries and territories? In effect, as was attempted by the SPAW Protocol, GLISPA could simplify and help island administrations (those that are constrained by capacity and funding) to implement

72 commitments most relevant. In addition, GLISPA should ensure that the UK includes the work of UKOTs in its reports to the CBD.

ANNEX 1: PERSONS INTERVIEWED

Interviewed in person

Steve Arthur , Programme Officer, Overseas Territories Department, DFID, UK 24 June 2010 Dick Beales , Interim Environmental and Natural Resources Adviser to DFID, UK 24 June 2010 Heather Christie , Desk Officer for Environment and Climate Change and the UKOT Programme Manager, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, UK 21 June 2010 Alistair Gammell , Pew Environment Group, UK 28 June 2010 Sarah McIntosh , Caribbean Natural Resources Institute 15 June 2010 James Millett , Caribbean OT Officer, RSPB, UK 14 June 2010 Tara Pelembe , Overseas Territories Senior Advisor, JNCC, UK 16 June 2010 Mike Pienkowski , Honorary Executive Director, UKOTCF, UK 16 June 2010 Clare Stringer , International Officer UKOT, RSPB , UK 14 June 2010

Interviewed by phone or skype

Timothy Austin , Department of Environment, Cayman Islands 29 June 2010 Eric Blencowe , UK National Focal Point for the CBD, DEFRA, UK 15 July 2010 John Bothwell , Department of Environment, Cayman Islands 29 June 2010 Mat Cottam , Manager, Terrestrial Ecology Unit, Department of Environment, Cayman Islands 29 June 2010 Gina E-Banks Petrie , Director, Department of Environment, Cayman Islands. 29 June 2010 Trevor Glass , Head of Conservation Department, Tristan da Cunha 13 July 2010 Isabel Peters , Environment Coordinator, St. Helena 30 June 2010 Stedson Stroud , Head of Conservation Department, Ascension Island 02 Aug 2010 Susan Zaluski , Director, Jost van Dyke Preservation Trust, BVI 23 July 2010

ANNEX 2: BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bass, S, D. Roe and N. Armitage. 2006. A Review of the Overseas Territories Environment Programme . Prepared for DFID and FCO. International Institute for Environment and Development, London WC1H 0DD.

Broderick, A. C., F. Glen, B. J. Godley, and G. C. Hays. 2002. A Management Plan for the Marine Turtles of Ascension Island . Marine Turtle Research Group, University of Wales Swansea.

CANARI. 2010. Building civil society capacity for conservation in the Caribbean UK Overseas Territories. Report of the First Action Learning Group Meeting, Mount Nevis Hotel, Nevis, 1-5 March 2010 . CANARI Caribbean Natural Resources Institute, Laventille, Trinidad and Tobago.

Caribbean Environmental Programme. 2009. National Environmental Management Strategies – Guidance for Improved Environmental Management in the OECS Member States . CEP Meeting Reports. 01 Aug 2009.

Commission of the European Communities. 2008. Future Relations between the EU and the Overseas Countries and Territories . Green Paper. COM (2008) 383 final. EC. Brussels, 25.6.2008.

Commission of the European Communities. 2006. Halting the Loss of Biodiversity in by 2010 – and Beyond. Communication from the Commission. COM (2006) 216 final. EC. Brussels, 22.5.2006

Cooper, J. and P. G. Ryan. 1994 Management plan for the Gough Island Wildlife Reserve . Edinburgh, Tristan da Cunha: Government of Tristan da Cunha

Cooper, J. and P. G. Ryan. 1995. Conservation status of Gough Island. Pp 71-84, in: P. R. Dingwall, ed. Progress in the Conservation of the Subantarctic Islands . Gland and Cambridge, UK: International Union for Conservation of Nature.

DEFRA. 2007. Conserving Biodiversity: The UK Approach . Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on behalf of the UK Biodiversity Partnership, London SW1P 3JR.

DEFRA. 2009. United Kingdom Overseas Territories Biodiversity Strategy . Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London.

DFID. 2007. Enhancing capacity for Adaptation to Climate Change in the Caribbean UK Overseas Territories. A programme linking the UKOTs in the Caribbean with Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre (CCCCC) regional programmes . Project Memorandum. DFID and Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre.

Gardner, L. 2007. British Virgin Islands Protected Areas System Plan 2007-2017 . BVI National Parks Trust. Tortola. January 4, 2007.

George, T. 2003. Ascension Island National Protected Areas: a proposal for areas to be designated as sanctuaries, nature reserves and national parks . Ascension Island Government.

Island Resources Foundation and Jost van Dyke Preservation Society. 2009. A Environmental Profile of the Island of Jost van Dyke, British Virgin Islands . JVDPS, Jost van Dyke, BVI 135 pp.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee. 2008. Nature Conservation in the Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies: JNCC Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies Programme. Costed Action Plan 2008 – 2011 . JNCC, Peterborough.

Lambdon, P., S. Stroud, C. Clubbe., A. Gray., M. Hamilton, M. Nissalo, T. Pelembe, O. Renshaw. 2009. A plan for the conservation of endemic and native flora on Ascension Island . Ascension Island Threatened Plants Restoration Project.

McGowan A., A.C. Broderick, C. Clubbe, S. Gore, B. J. Godley, M. Hamilton, B. Lettsome, J. Smith-Abbott, and N. K. Woodfield. 2006. Darwin Initiative Action Plan for the Coastal Biodiversity of Anegada, British Virgin Islands . 13 pp.

O’Neal, O and Latin American and Caribbean Institute for Economic and Social Planning. 2000. The British Virgin Islands National Integrated Strategy . Submitted to the High Level Seminar on Basic Planning Functions, held in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, on 5 and 6 October 2000.

Pelembe, T. 2005. Green Mountain National Park: five year action plan 2005 – 2010 . Ascension Island Government.

Pienkowski, M. 2010. ‘Wildlife in the UK Overseas Territories’. In: N. Maclean (ed.) Silent Summer: The State of Wildlife in Britain and Ireland . Chapter 13, pp 184 – 215. Cambridge University Press.

Pickup, A. R. 1999. Ascension Island Management Plan . Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Sandy, Bedfordshire, UK.

Rayment, M. 2007. Costing biodiversity priorities in the UK Overseas Territories . GHK Consulting for RSPB.

St. Helena Island Government. 2005. Strategy for Action to implement St. Helena’s Commitments under its Environment Charter . St. Helena Island Government.

Tristan Island Government in partnership with RSPB and The University of Cape Town. 2006. Tristan Biodiversity Action Plan 2006-2010 . Tristan Island Government.

UK Government. 1994. Biodiversity: The UK Action Plan . London HMSO

UKOTCF. 2009. ‘Environment Charters – the way forward’. Forum News 35: 2-3. December 2009.

Websites :

Ascension Island Government Conservation Department. http://www.ascensionconservation.org.ac/background.htm . Accessed July 2010

BVI Department of Environment and Fisheries. http://www.bvidef.org . Accessed July 2010

Cayman Islands Department of Environment. http://www.doe.ky . Accessed June 2010

FCO Guidelines on the Extension of Treaties to the UK Overseas Territories http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/pdf7/fco_pdf_guidancetreatiesots . Accessed July 2010

Joint Nature Conservation Committee www.jncc.gov.uk . Accessed June – July 2010

SPAW Protocol Website: http://www.cep.unep.org/cartagena-convention/spaw-protocol/spaw- protocol-en.pdf/view

UK Biodiversity Action Plan Website: http://www.ukbap.org.uk/ . Accessed June 2010

UK National Report to the CBD Accessed June – July 2010 • http://www.cbd.int/doc/world/gb/gb-nr-04-en.pdf 4th National Report • http://www.cbd.int/doc/world/gb/gb-nr-03-p1-en.pdf 3rd National Report • http://www.cbd.int/doc/world/gb/gb-nr-02-en.pdf 2nd National Report • http://www.cbd.int/doc/world/gb/gb-nr-01-en.pdf 1st National Report

UK Overseas Territories Conservation Forum: http://www.ukotcf.org . Accessed June-July 2010

ANNEX 3: MEMBERSHIP OF JNCC UKOT AND CROWN DEPENDENCIES TRAINING AND RESEARCH COMMITTEE

As of April 2010

Territory/Organisation Role Representative Anguilla Head of Environmental Karim Hodge Department Ascension Stedson Stroud Bermuda Samia Sarkis British Antarctic Territory Polar Regions Unit Rob Bowman British Virgin Islands Lynda Varlac Cayman Islands Head of Environment Department Gina Ebanks-Petrie Falkland Islands Environmental Officer Nick Rendell Isle of Man Principle Biodiversity Officer Liz Charter JNCC Secretariat Elizabeth Moore JNCC Chair Tara Pelembe Montserrat Director of Department of Gerard Gray Environment Pitcairn DM Natural Resources Michele Christian St Helena Environmental Co-ordinator Isabel Peters Head Teacher Derek Henry States of Guernsey Principle Environment Services Andrew McCutcheon Officer South Georgia South Georgia Environment Darren Christie Officer Sovereign Base Area Cyprus Pantelis Charilaou Turks and Caicos Islands Head of Environment Department Wesley Clerveaux UKOTA St Helena Representative Kedell Worbys University of Reading Links to UK academic community Ken Norris

Source: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/UKOTSGMemberslistApril2010.pdf